International Business Systems

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 1, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 1289 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS
International Business Systems, Inc. and Graphic
Arts International Union, Local 14L, AFL-
CIO. Case 4-CA-10922
August 1, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
Upon a charge filed on March 12, 1980, by
Graphic Arts International Union, Local 14L,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and duly
served on International Business Systems, Inc.,
herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re-
gional Director for Region 4, issued a complaint on
April 16, 1980, against Respondent, alleging that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended. Copies of the charge and complaint
and notice of hearing before an administrative law
judge were duly served on the parties to this pro-
ceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on February 13,
1980, following a Board election in Case 4-RC-
13385, the Union was duly certified as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of Re-
spondent's employees in the unit found appropri-
ate;' and that, commencing on or about April 7,
1980, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has
refused, and continues to date to refuse, to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative, although the Union has re-
quested and is requesting it to do so. On May 19,
1980, Respondent filed its answer to the complaint
admitting in part, and denying in part, the allega-
tions in the complaint.
On June 11, 1980, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment. Subsequently, on June 17, 1980,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted. Respondent did
not file a response to the Notice To Show Cause,
I Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceed-
ing, Cuae 4-RC-1338S, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68
and 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
See LTV Electrosystems. Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683
(4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415
F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Interrype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. '73
(D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91
(7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended.
250 NLRB No. 160
and therefore the allegations in the Motion for
Summary Judgment stand uncontroverted.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint Respondent
admits the Union's request and its refusal to bar-
gain, but in substance attacks the validity of the
Union's certification on the basis of its position in
the underlying representation proceeding, that the
unit is inappropriate, and that its challenge to the
ballot of John N. Moser, Jr., should have been sus-
tained. The General Counsel argues that all materi-
al issues have been previously decided. We agree
with the General Counsel.
Review of the record herein, including the
record in Case 4-RC-13385, discloses that, on No-
vember 17, 1978, the Regional Director issued a
Decision and Direction of Election finding appro-
priate a unit consisting of all lithographic produc-
tion employees in the preparation and press depart-
ments at Respondent's King of Prussia, Pennsylva-
nia, facility, but excluding all collating department
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act. On November 30, 1978, Respondent filed with
the Board a request for review contending that the
unit was inappropriate, which request was denied
by the Board on December 13, 1978. Subsequently,
on December 14, 1978, an election was held. The
tally of ballots shows 14 votes were cast in favor
of, and 14 against, the Union; there was I determi-
native challenged ballot, that of John W. Moser,
Jr.
On March 14, 1979, the Regional Director issued
an order requiring the challenged ballot issues to
be resolved in a consolidated hearing with those in
a related unfair labor practice case. On March 27,
1979, the Regional Director issued an order con-
solidating cases and complaint and notice of hear-
ing. On January 29, 1980, the Board issued a Deci-
sion and Order, 247 NLRB No. 102, ordering that
Case 4-RC-13385 be severed and remanded to the
Regional Director and that the Regional Director
open and count the challenged ballot. Following
the opening of the challenged ballot and the issu-
ance of a revised tally of ballots, the Regional Di-
rector issued a Certification of Representative on
February 13, 1980. Respondent then filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Board's January 29, 1980,
Decision and Order, which was denied by the
Board on April 22, 1980.
1289
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe-
cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al-
leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled
to relitigate issues which were or could have been
litigated in a prior representation proceeding.2
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed-
ing were or 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 litigable 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:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the
manufacture of business forms at its facility in King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania. During the year preced-
ing issuance of the complaint, a representative
period, Respondent, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, purchased goods valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from firms located out-
side the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
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 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Graphic Arts International Union, Local 14L,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. 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 9(b) of the
Act:
s See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941);
Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c).
All lithographic production employees em-
ployed by Respondent in the preparation and
press departments at its King of Prussia, Penn-
sylvania, facility; but excluding all collating
department employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On December 14, 1978, a majority of the em-
ployees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret-
ballot election conducted under the supervision of
the Regional Director for Region 4, designated the
Union as their representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining with Respondent. The Union
was certified as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in said unit on February
13, 1980, and the Union continues to be such exclu-
sive representative within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about March 18, 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 or about April 7, 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 representa-
tive for collective bargaining of all employees in
said unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
April 7, 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, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, 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.
1290
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 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 period of certi-
fication 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 (1962), enfd. 328
F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817;
Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419,
1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Business Systems, Inc., is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Graphic Arts International Union, Local 14L,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All lithographic production employees em-
ployed by Respondent in the preparation and press
departments at its King of Prussia, Pennsylvania fa-
cility; but excluding all collating department em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since February 13, 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 9(a)
of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about April 7, 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 8(a)(5) 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 8(a)(l) 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 Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
International Business Systems, Inc., King of Prus-
sia, Pennsylvania, its officers, 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 Graphic Arts Inter-
national Union, Local 14L, AFL-CIO, as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of its employees
in the following appropriate unit:
All lithographic production employees em-
ployed by Respondent in the preparation and
press departments at its King of Prussia, Penn-
sylvania facility; but excluding all collating de-
partment 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 them in Section 7 of
the Act.
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 understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its facility at 413 Yerkes Road, King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 4, after being duly signed by Respondent's
3 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 Relations Board"
1291
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative, shall 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 4, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
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
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment
with Graphic Arts International Union, Local
14L, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representa-
tive of the employees 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 lithographic production employees em-
ployed by us in our preparation and press
departments at our King of Prussia, Pennsyl-
vania, facility; but excluding all collating de-
partment employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS,
INC.
1292