Associated Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 8, 2001

333 N.L.R.B. 163 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

333 NLRB No. 163
1
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Associated Rubber Company and United Steelwork-
ers of America, AFL–CIO–CLC. Case 10–CA–
32902
May 8, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND HURTGEN
Pursuant to a charge and an amended charge filed on
February 12 and March 6, 2001, the Acting Ge neral
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a
complaint on March 8, 2001, alleging that the Respon-
dent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act by refusing the Union’s request to
bargain following the Union’s certification in Case 10–
RC–15051. (Official notice is taken of the “record” in
the representation proceeding as defined in the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g);
Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent
filed an answer admitting in part and denying in part the
allegations in the complaint and asserting affirmative
defenses.
On April 3, 2001, the Acting General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. On April 4, 2001, the
Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion
should not be granted. The Respondent filed a response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to bar-
gain, but attacks the validity of the certification on the
basis of its objections to the election in the representation
proceeding.1
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior representa-
tion proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to ad-

1 In its answer, the Respondent admits the allegations set forth in
pars. 4 and 5 of the complaint that it is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Sec. 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the
Act. The Respondent’s answer, however, also states that it “is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the remaining allegations” contained in pars. 4 and 5 of the complaint.
The “remaining” allegations in those pars. assert that during all mate-
rial times, the Respondent maintained its admitted status as an em-
ployer and the Union maintained its labor organization status. In the
underlying representation case, however, the Respondent stipulated that
it was an employer and the Union was a labor organization under the
Act at all material times. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent’s
answer as to these matters does not raise an issue warranting a hearing.
See Biewer Wisconsin Sawmill, 306 NLRB 732 fn. 1 (1992); Times-
Herald Record , 328 NLRB No. 53 fn. 2 (1999).
duce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously
unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir-
cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine
the decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any
representation issue that is properly litigable in this un-
fair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941). Accord-
ingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.2
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a Georgia cor-
poration with an office and place of business in Talla-
poosa, Georgia, has been engaged in the manufacture of
rubber. During the 12-month period preceding the issu-
ance of the complaint, the Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its operations, sold and shipped finished
products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to custom-
ers located outside the State of Georgia. We find that the
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held July 23, 1999, the Union
was certified on Decemb er 29, 2000, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees, truckdrivers, and mechanics
employed at the Respondent’s Plant 1, Plant 2, and
Plant 3 locations in Tallapoosa, Georgia, excluding all
office clericals, technical employees, lab technicians,
chemist, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive representative un-
der Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
On or about January 15 and January 29, 2001, the Un-
ion, by letter, requested the Respondent to recognize and
bargain, and, since January 15, 2001, the Respondent has
refused. We find that this refusal constitutes an unlawful
refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.

2 Member Hurtgen dissented in part from the overruling of the
Respondent’s objections in the underlying representation case, and he
remains of that view. However, he agrees that the Respondent has not
raised any new matters that are properly litigable in this unfair labor
practice case. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 144,
162 (1941). In light of this, and for institutional reasons, he agrees with
the decision to grant the Acting General Counsel’s Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing on and after January 15, 2001, to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of employees in the appropriate unit, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and
desist, to bargain on request with the Union and, if an
understanding is reached, to embody the understanding
in a signed agreement.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services
of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by the law, we shall construe the initial period of the cer-
tification as beginning the date the Respondent begins to
bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry
Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB
226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert.
denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett Construction Co.,
149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th
Cir. 1965).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Associated Rubber Company, Tallapoosa,
Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with United Steelworkers of
America, AFL–CIO–CLC as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the following appro-
priate unit on terms and conditions of employment and, if
an understanding is reached, embody the understanding
in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees, truckdrivers, and mechanics
employed at the Respondent’s Plant 1, Plant 2, and
Plant 3 locations in Tallapoosa, Georgia, excluding all
office clericals, technical employees, lab technicians,
chemist, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Tallapoosa, Georgia, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on

3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since January 15, 2001.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 8, 2001

John C. Truesdale, Chairman

Wilma B. Liebman, Member

Peter J. Hurtgen, Member

(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with United Steel-
workers of America, AFL–CIO–CLC as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put
in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the bar-
gaining unit:

tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
ASSOCIATED RUBBER CO. 3
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees, truckdrivers, and mechanics
employed at our Plant 1, Plant 2, and Plant 3 locations
in Tallapoosa, Georgia, excluding all office clericals,
technical employees, lab technicians, chemist, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
ASSOCIATED RUBBER COMPANY