Auto Workers Local 735 (General Motors)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 12, 1993

310 N.L.R.B. 1087 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

1087
310 NLRB No. 178
AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 735 (GENERAL MOTORS)
1 The General Counsel consolidated the instant case with Case 7–
CA–33263. Thus, in addition to the allegations decided here, the
consolidated complaint also alleges that the Employer General Mo-
tors Corporation violated Sec. 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by remov-
ing the Charging Party from her quality assessment liaison position
at the behest of the Respondent in order to discourage employees
from engaging in internal union campaigning. On February 10, 1993,
the Regional Director for Region 7 issued an order severing cases
and postponing trial indefinitely.
Local 735, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO and Rainell
Nordquist-Goddard and General Motors Cor-
poration, Party in Interest. Case 7–CB–9208
April 12, 1993
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS OVIATT
AND RAUDABAUGH
Upon a charge filed by Rainell Nordquist-Goddard,
an individual, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board issued an order consolidating
cases, consolidated complaint and notice of hearing on
June 15, 1992, against Local 735, International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO, the Re-
spondent, alleging that it has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations
Act. Although properly served copies of the charge
and consolidated complaint, the Respondent has failed
to file an answer.
On March 15, 1993, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. On March 18, 1993,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding
to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the mo-
tion should not be granted. The Respondent filed no
response. The allegations in the motion are therefore
undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations provide that the allegations in the
complaint shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not
filed within 14 days from service of the complaint, un-
less good cause is shown. The consolidated complaint
states that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of
service, ‘‘all the allegations in the consolidated com-
plaint shall be considered to be admitted to be true and
shall be so found by the Board.’’ Further, the undis-
puted allegations in the Motion for Summary Judgment
disclose that the Region, by letter dated December 16,
1992, notified the Respondent that unless an answer
was received by December 21, 1992, a Motion for
Summary Judgment would be filed.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the
failure to file a timely answer, we grant the General
Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment.1
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer, General Motors Corporation, a cor-
poration, has been engaged at its Powertrain plant lo-
cated in Ypsilanti, Michigan, in the manufacture and
nonretail sale of automobiles and trucks. During the
calendar year 1991, the Employer had gross revenues
in excess of $1 million and purchased and received at
its Powertrain plant goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points outside the State of Michigan. We
find that the Employer is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act and that the Respondent is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), AFL–CIO (the International) has been and is
now the exclusive representative for purposes of col-
lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions
of employment, of a nationwide unit of production and
maintenance employees employed by the Employer at
various facilities in various States of the United States.
The Respondent, a duly constituted/chartered local
of the International, and acting as agent of the Inter-
national, represents certain employees, including the
Charging Party, in the collective-bargaining unit who
are employed by the Employer at its Powertrain plant
in Ypsilanti, Michigan. The International and the Em-
ployer have maintained in effect and enforced a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement covering wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment of the em-
ployees in the bargaining unit.
On or about April 27, 1992, the Respondent re-
quested that the Employer remove the Charging Party
from her quality assessment liaison position. The Re-
spondent made this request in order to prevent the
Charging Party from engaging in internal union cam-
paigning for a position in the Respondent and to dis-
courage employees from engaging in these activities.
The Respondent’s action was an attempt to cause and
did cause the Employer to discriminate against its em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(3).
1088 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 Should the Charging Party be found to have suffered any loss of
benefits, the Respondent shall make her whole by making all pay-
ments that have not been made and that would have been made but
for the Respondent’s unlawful request that the Charging Party be
transferred, including any additional amounts applicable to such de-
linquent payments as determined in accordance with the criteria set
forth in Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213 (1979). In addi-
tion, the Respondent shall reimburse the Charging Party for any ex-
penses ensuing from its request that she be transferred which caused
a failure to make such required payments, as set forth in Kraft
Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. mem. 661
F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981), such amounts to be computed in the man-
ner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970),
enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed in
New Horizons for the Retarded, supra.
3 See, e.g., Printing Pressmen Local 16 (Bulletin Co.), 181 NLRB
647 (1970), enfd. 443 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied 404 U.S.
1018 (1972) (where employer strongly resisted union’s unlawful de-
mands, acted in good faith, and was vulnerable to union pressure,
the union was held primarily liable and the employer only second-
arily liable). See also Alberici-Fruin-Colnon, 226 NLRB 1315
(1976), enfd. sub nom. NLRB v. Laborers Local 282, 567 F.2d 833
(8th Cir. 1977).
4 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
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By requesting that the Employer remove the Charg-
ing Party from her quality assessment liaison position
in order to prevent the Charging Party from engaging
in campaigning for a position in the Respondent and
in an attempt to cause and causing the Employer to
discriminate against its employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3), the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Specifically, we shall order the Respondent to notify
the Employer in writing, with a copy to the Charging
Party and a copy to the Regional Director for Region
7 of the National Labor Relations Board, that it has no
objection to the employment of the Charging Party as
quality assessment liaison and simultaneously request
that the Employer reinstate the Charging Party to her
former position of quality assessment liaison with all
seniority and other benefits attendant thereto. We shall
also order that the Respondent request the Employer to
expunge all references to the unlawful removal from
the personnel file of the Charging Party. We shall also
order the Respondent to make the Charging Party
whole for any loss of wages and benefits suffered from
the date of her removal until the date of her reinstate-
ment to her former job or, if that job no longer exists,
to an equivalent job as set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), or Ogle Protection Service,
183 NLRB 682, 683 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th
Cir. 1971), whichever is applicable, with interest to be
computed in the manner prescribed in New Horizons
for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).2 Should the
Employer be found to have violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) as alleged in the consolidated complaint allega-
tions in Case 7–CA–33263, the Respondent shall be
jointly and severally liable with the Employer for all
amounts due and owing to the Charging Party unless
a different apportionment is set forth in supplemental
or other proceedings.3 Finally, we shall order that the
Respondent post the attached notice.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Local 735, International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Requesting that the Employer remove the Charg-
ing Party or any other employee in order to prevent
her from engaging in campaigning for a position in the
Respondent Union and in an attempt to cause and
causing an employer to discriminate against her (or
any other employee) in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Notify the Employer in writing, with a copy to
the Regional Director for Region 7 of the National
Labor Relations Board and a copy to the Charging
Party, that the Respondent has no objection to the em-
ployment of the Charging Party as quality assessment
liaison and simultaneously request in writing that the
Employer reinstate the Charging Party to her former
position of quality assessment liaison with all seniority
and other benefits attendant thereto and further request
that all reference to the Charging Party’s removal be
expunged from her personnel file.
(b) Make the Charging Party whole in the manner
set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all others
records necessary to analyze the amounts due under
the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its facility in Ypsilanti, Michigan, copies
of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’4 Copies of
1089AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 735 (GENERAL MOTORS)
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
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
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT request that General Motors Corpora-
tion remove Rainell Nordquist-Goddard (or any other
employee) from her position as quality assessment liai-
son to prevent her (or any other employee) from cam-
paigning for a union position or in an attempt to cause
and causing General Motors Corporation to discrimi-
nate against its employees in order to discourage their
union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify General Motors Corporation in writ-
ing, with a copy to Rainell Nordquist-Goddard and a
copy to the Regional Director for Region 7 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, that we have no objec-
tion to the employment of Rainell Nordquist-Goddard
as quality assessment liaison and WE WILL simulta-
neously request that General Motors Corporation return
Rainell Nordquist-Goddard to her position as quality
assessment liaison with full seniority and all attendant
benefits and that her personnel records be expunged of
all mention of her removal.
WE WILL make Rainell Nordquist-Goddard whole,
with interest, for any losses of wages or benefits
caused by our unlawful request that she be removed
from her position.
LOCAL 735, INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS
OF AMERICA (UAW), AFL–CIO