Globe Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 1402 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

atrd
8(a)(5)
2(6)
' Omcial
10-RC-12017, Secs.
102.69(g) Board3?l
Electrosys~ems, F.2d
Cir. 1968); 15 1
F.2d Penello. F.Supp. (D.C.
Follerr 164 (1967). F.2d
Sec. 9(d) the
100-percent
vremature.
11,
~es~onden t ' s
1402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Globe Products Corp. General Teamsters Local
Union No. 528. Case 10-CA-16183
March 16, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed on August 25, 1980, by Gen-
eral Teamsters Local Union No. 528, herein called
the Union, and duly served on Globe Products
Corp., herein called Respondent, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for Region 10, issued a com-
plaint on September 26, 1980, against Respondent,
alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section and
(1) and Section and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge
and complaint and notice of hearing before an ad-
ministrative law judge were duly served on the
parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on April 28,
1980, following a Board election in Case 10-RC-
12017,' the Union was duly certified as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of Re-
spondent's employees in the unit found appropriate;
and that, commencing on or about June 30, 1980,
and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused,
and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative, although the Union has requested
and is requesting it to do so. On October 9, 1980,
Respondent filed its answer to the complaint admit-
ting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in
the complaint.
On November 10, 1980, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on November
18, 1980, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Cause Why the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment should not be granted. Re-
spondent did not file a response to the Notice To
Show Cause.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
notice is taken of the record in the representation proceed-
ing. Case as the term "record" is defined in 102.68
and of rhe Rules and Regulations. Series 8, as amended.
See LTV Inc.. 166 NLRB 938 (1967). enfd. 388 683
(4th Golden Age Beverage Co.. 167 NLRB (1967). enfd. 415
26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v . 269 573
Va. 1967); Corp., NLRB 378 enfd. 397 91 (7th
Cir. 1968): of NLRA, as amended.
254 NLRB No. 185
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint, Respondent
admits that it has refused to bargain with the
Union. Respondent contends, however, that the
Union's certification was improper because, in the
underlying Decision and Direction of Election by
the Regional Director, the Regional Director in-
correctly failed to find that the election petition
was premature on the grounds that, in view of a
contemplated facility expansion and diversification
of operations, Respondent's work force did not
constitute a substantial and representative comple-
ment of employees.
The record shows that, prior to the election, Re-
spondent moved to dismiss the election petition as
premature. Respondent argued that i t intended
shortly to introduce two new products; specifical-
ly, a 1-inch stock and a 1-inch wood venetian
blind, which, Respondent maintained, could result
in a 100-percent increase in its volume of business
and a concomitant increase in its work
force. The Regional Director, in his Decision and
Direction of Election, considered and rejected Re-
spondent's motion to dismiss the election petition.
He noted, first, that Respondent had not purchased
any additional machinery required to manufacture
the new products and had not categorically decid-
ed to make these necessary capital investments.
Thus, the Regional Director found Respondent's
projected expansion was merely speculative.
Second, the Regional Director noted that, if Re-
spondent's projected expansion took place accord-
ing to its stated plan, its work force at the time of
the hearing would constitute 50 percent of its con- .
templated employees and 100 percent of its con-
templated job classifications. Under these circum-
stances, the Regional Director found, the present
employees' right to immediate representation
outweighed the potential evil of disenfranchising
prospective voters. Accordingly, the Regional Di-
rector determined that, even if Respondent's plans
for expansion were not speculative, the election
should-not be considered
Respondent thereupon filed a request for review
of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction
of Election on April 1, 1980. The Board denied
Respondent's request for review on April 1980,
on the basis that it had raised no substantial issues
warranting review. On April 18, 1980, by direction
of the Regional Director, an election was held
among production and maintenance
employees. The tally was 16 for and 2 against the
Union, with no void or challenged ballots. The Re-
gional Director certified the Union on April 28,
1980.
8(a)(5)
8(a)(5)
p r ~ c e e d i n g . ~
litigable
N.L. B., 13 162 (1 1 );
the Secs. 102.67(0 102.69(c).
$50,000
2(6)
11.
2(5)
111.
9(b)
-
tion
9(a)
fusol
representa-
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORP. 1403
On June 23, 1980, the Union requested Respond-
ent to meet and bargain collectively with it as the
certified representative of those employees de-
scribed in the unit. The Union renewed its request
for bargaining on July 3, 1980, and again on July
30, 1980. Respondent denied the Union's request
for bargaining by letter dated June 30, 1980, and it
has at all times refused to bargain with the Union,
maintaining that the election was premature and
the certification thus improper.
The Union filed charges on August 25, 1980, al-
leging violations of Section and (1) of the,
Act, and, on September 26, 1980, the Regional Di-
rector for Region 10 issued a complaint and notice
of hearing. On October 9, 1980, Respondent filed
its answer to the complaint, reasserting its conten-
tion that the representation election was premature.
On November 10, 1980, the General Counsel filed
with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment,
and, on November 18, 1980, the Board issued its
order transferring this proceeding to the Board and
Notice T o Show Cause. Respondent has not filed a
response to the Notice T o Show Cause.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence o r spe-
cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al-
leging a violation of Section is not entitled
to relitigate issues which were o r could have been
litigated in a prior representation
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed-
ing were o r could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding, and Respondent does
not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov-
ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does
it allege that any special circumstances exist herein
which would require the Board to reexamine the
decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that Respondent has not raised any
issue which is properly in this unfair labor
practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the
Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board
makes the following:
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Globe Products Corp., a Maryland corporation,
with an office and place of business located in At-
lanta, Georgia, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of venetian blinds. Respondent, during the last
calendar year, which period is representative of all
times material herein, purchased and received at its
Atlanta, Georgia, facility goods valued in excess of
See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v . R. 3 U.S. 146, 94
Rules and Regulations of Board. and
directly from suppliers located outside the
State of Georgia.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
General Teamsters Local Union No. 528 is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
of the Act.
THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section of the
Act:
All production and maintenance employees
including shipping and receiving clerks, ma-
chine operators, packers and production work-
ers employed by Respondent at its Atlanta,
Georgia, facility, but excluding all office em-
ployees, clerical employees, managers, supervi-
sors and guards as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On April 18, 1980, a majority of the employees
of Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot elec-
conducted under the supervision of the Re-
gional Director for Region 10, designated the
Union as their representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining with Respondent.
The Union was certified as the collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in said unit
on April 28, 1980, and the Union continues to be
such exclusive representative within the meaning of
Section of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Re
Commencing on o r about June 23, 1980, and at
all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re-
spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the above-described unit. Com-
mencing on o r about June 30, 1980, and continuing
at all times thereafter to date, Respondent has re-
fused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and
bargain with the Union as the exclusive
1404
~ e s ~ o n d e n t
8(a)(5) (1)
IV.
111,
totrade,
8(a)(5)
(1962),
F.2d 1964),
Burnett
(1964), F.2d
2(6)
2(5)
9(b)
\
9(a)
8(a)(5)
8(a)(l)
2(6) Act.
10(c)
Cory.,
All
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive for collective bargaining of all employees in
said unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
June 30, 1980, and at all times thereafter, refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit, and that, by such refusal,
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section and
of the Act.
THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
above, occurring in connection with its oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 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 period certifi-
cation as beginning on the date Respondent com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the recognized bargaining representative in the ap-
propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc.,
136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d /b /a
Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 enfd. 328
600 (5th Cir. cert. denied 379 U.S. 817;
Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419,
1421 enfd. 350 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
I. Globe Products Corp. is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section
and (7) of the Act.
2. General Teamsters Local Union No. 528 is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees,
including shipping and receiving clerks, machine
operators, packers and production workers em-
ployed by Respondent at its Atlanta, Georgia, fa-
cility, but excluding all office employees, clerical
employees, managers, supervisors and guards as de-
fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section of the Act.
4. Since April 28, 1980, the above-named labor
organization has been and now is the certified and
exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section
of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about June 30, 1980, and at
all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all the employees of
Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section of the
Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond-
ent 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 thereby has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section and (7) of the
ORDER
Pursuant to Section of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Globe Products Atlanta, Georgia, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, 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 General Teamsters
Local No. 528 as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees in the following appro-
priate unit:
production and maintenance employees,
including shipping and receiving clerks, ma-
chine operators, packers and production work-
ers employed by Respondent at its Atlanta,
Georgia, facility, but excluding all office em-
ployees, clerical employees, managers, supervi-
sors and guards as defined in the Act.
finds
pay,wages,
"Appendi~."~
WE WILL
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORP.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board 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 hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Atlanta, Georgia, facility copies of
the attached notice marked Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 10, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable 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 10,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps have been taken to comply here-
with.
In 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 read "Posted Pursu-
ant 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

NOT refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment
with General Teamsters Local Union No. 528
as the exclusive representative of the employ-
ees in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees 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 repre-
sentative of all 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 production and maintenance employ-
ees, including shipping and receiving clerks,
machine operators, packers and production
workers employed by us at our Atlanta,
Georgia, facility, but excluding all office
employees, clerical employees, managers, su-
pervisors and guards as defined in the Act.