Electronic Metals & Alloys, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 8, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 97 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

ELECTRONIC METALS & ALLOYS, INC. Electronic Metals & Alloys, Inc. and District Lodge No. 64, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-6943 June 8, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS Upon a charge filed by District Lodge No. 64, In- ternational Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Re- gion 1, issued a complaint dated February 3, 1970, against Electronic Metals & Alloys, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served on the Respondent. The complaint alleges that on October 17, 1969, a majority of the employees, in a unit found ap- propriate by the Regional Director for Region 1 of the Board,' in a secret ballot election conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 1 of the National Labor Relations Board, designated and selected the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bar- gaining . The complaint further alleges that since November 14, 1969,-and at all times thereafter, the Respondent did refuse, and has continued to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees in said unit. In its answer, dated February 11, 1970, the Respondent admits its refusal to bar- gain , but denies that such refusal was unlawful on the ground that the election was conducted in an inappropriate unit. On February 19, 1970, the General Counsel filed with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging that there are no factual issues that warrant a hearing . Thereafter, on February 26, 1970, the Board issued an order transferring proceeding to the Board and Notice To Show Cause. On March 9, 1970, the Respondent filed its Response to Notice To Show Cause. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- ' Decision and Direction of Election issued September 17, 1969, in Case I-RC-10715 (not published in NLRB volumes) 97 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following: RULINGS ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to a petition filed on July 25, 1969, by the Machinists, seeking to represent certain em- ployees of the Respondent, a hearing was held on August 25, 1969. On September 17, 1969, the Re- gional Director for Region 1 issued a Decision and Direction of Election finding, contrary to the Respondent's contention, the following unit of em- ployees appropriate and directing an election therein: All tool and die makers, employed by the Em- ployer at its North Attleboro, Massachusetts plant, including apprentices, but excluding all other employees, production and maintenance employees, office clerical employees, profes- sional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Respondent's request for review of this deci- sion was denied by telegraphic order of the Board on October 15, 1969. On October 17, 1969, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election, an election was held among the employees in the unit described above, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented for collective-bargaining purposes by District Lodge No. 64, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. The tally of ballots showed that nine votes were cast for the Union, four against the'Union, and one was challenged. On October 23, 1969, the Respondent filed time- ly objections to the election contending, inter alia, that the Board never independently reviewed the record before the Regional Director to ascertain whether it supported his conclusion that the unit was appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes. Thereafter, on October 30, 1969, the Regional Director issued a supplemental decision in which he overruled the Respondent's objections and certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative. The Respondent's request for review of the Regional Director's supplemental decision was denied by telegraphic order of the Board on December 2, 1969. By letters dated November 4, 1969, and December 3, 1969, the Union requested the 183 NLRB No. 14 98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent to bargain collectively. The Respond- ent refused by letters dated November 14, 1969, and December 5, 1969. On December 12, 1969, the Union filed the charge upon which the com- plaint herein was predicated. In its response to the Notice To Show Cause, the Respondent renews its contention that the Board has never independently reviewed the record to determine whether the Regional Director was cor- rect in concluding that the unit is appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes. We have again ex- amined the Decision and Direction of Election in Case 1-RC-10,715, have made an independent review of the record in that case, and hold that the Regional Director's findings and conclusions are correct.' Accordingly, as all issues have been fully litigated and no newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence is offered, no further hearing is required. We shall, therefore, grant the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment.3 On the basis of the record before it, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been , a Delaware corporation with its principal office and place of business located in North At- tleboro , Massachusetts , where it has been engaged in the manufacture ,' sale, and distribution of materi- als for the electronics industry. During the past year , Respondent has shipped products valued in excess of $ 50,000 directly to points outside Mas- sachusetts and has received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Massachusetts. Respondent admits, and we find, that Respond- ,ent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED District Lodge No. 64, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Representation Proceeding 1. The unit The following employees constitute a unit ap- propriate for collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act: All tool and die makers, employed by the Em- ployer at its North Attleboro, Massachusetts plant, including apprentices, but excluding all other employees, production and maintenance employees, office clerical employees, profes- sional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. The certification On October 17, 1969, a majority of employees in said unit, in a secret-ballot election conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 1, designated the Union as their representa- tive for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Respondent. On October 30, 1969, the Re- gional Director certified the Union as the collec- tive-bargaining representative of the employees in said unit, and the Union continues to be such representative. B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Refusal Commencing on or about November 4, 1969, and continuing to date, the Union has requested and is requesting the Respondent to bargain collec- tively with it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the above- described unit. Since November 14, 1969, and con- tinuing to date, the Respondent has refused, and continues to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all employees in said unit. Accordingly, we find that the Union was duly certified as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees of the Respondent in the ap- propriate unit described above and that the Union at all times since October 30, 1969, has been, and now is, the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. We further find that the Respondent has, since November 14, 1969, 2 Although , contrary to the Regional Director's findings, the tool-and-die makers do perform some machine set-up duties , that does not affect the correctness of his ultimate conclusion that they constitute a unit ap- propriate for collective bargaining z Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v N L R B, 313 U S 146 We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that the Motion for Summary Judgment should be directed to a Trial Examiner rather than the Board See N L R B v Red-More Corporation, 418 F 2d 890 (C A 9) ELECTRONIC METALS & ALLOYS, INC. 99 refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em- ployees in the appropriate unit. By such refusal the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, un- fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The acts of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its opera- tions as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. In order to insure that the employees in the ap- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law, we shall construe the initial year of certifi- cation as beginning on the date the Respondent commences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recognized bargaining representative in the appropriate unit. See: Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785; Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Electronic Metals & Alloys, Inc., is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the-Act. 2. District Lodge No. 64, International Associa- tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The following unit is an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act: All tool and die makers, employed by the Em- ployer at its North Attleboro, Massachusetts plant, including apprentices, but excluding all other employees, production and maintenance employees, office clerical employees, profes- sional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 4. Since October 30, 1969, the Union has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. By refusing on or about November 14, 1969, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the ap- propriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, the Re- spondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor. Relations Board hereby orders that the Respond- ent, Electronic Metals & Alloys, Inc., North At- tleboro, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with District Lodge No. 64, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit: All tool and die makers, employed by the Em- ployer at its North Attleboro, Massachusetts plant, including apprentices, but excluding all other employees, production and maintenance employees, office clerical employees, profes- sional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 8 100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an un- derstanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its place of business in North At- tleboro, Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 1 shall, after being duly signed by Respon- dent's representative, be posted by Respondent im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Wor- kers , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, upon request , bargain with the above -named Union as the exclusive represen- tative of all our employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours , and other terms and condi- tions of employment , and if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is: All tool and die makers, employed by the Employer at its North Attleboro, Mas- sachusetts plant, including apprentices, but excluding all other employees , produc- tion and maintenance employees, office clerical employees , professional em- ployees , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 4In the event that 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 be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with District Lodge No . 64, International As- Dated By ELECTRONIC METALS & ALLOYS, INC. (Employer) (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge & New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone 617-223-3300.