Jacques Syl Knitwear, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 5, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 1134 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

11 \4 Inc./Biquette, atid Inc./Bi- qul:tte, and helein 8(a)(5) 2(6) com- nt served With conlplaint Respon- 's refuged, collt:ctively (:omplaint, 0 1 1 Coullsel Sumnary granled. Notice -- ' Oficial Cale Secs. 102.69(,:) E'ecfmsystems. Inc., 166 (l967), F.2d 1908); .4ge Co.. 2d 26 (ith Co. Penello. F. (D.C.Va. ~'ollelt Corp., 164 (1967), F.2d Sec. 9(d) 8(b)(7)(C) Syl * disposi- NLRB DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Jacques Syl Knitwear, Inc. Local 162, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Unionn, AFL-CIO. Case 22-CA-10293 March 5, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a charge filed on September 23, 1980, by Lccal 162, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Urion, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and duly served on Jacques Syl Knitwear, Inc., herein called Respondent, the General Ccunsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 22, issued a com- plaint and notice of hearing on October 15, 1980, an amended complaint on November 12, 1980, called the complaint, against Respondent, al- leging that Respondent had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section and (1) and Section and (7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, pla and notice of hearing before an administra- tive law judge and amended complaint were duly on the parties to this proceeding. respect to the unfair labor practices, the alleges in substance that on September 5, 1980, following a Board election in Case 22-RM- 533 the Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of den employees in the unit found appropriate;' and that, commencing on or about September 8, 1980, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has and continues to date to refuse, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive bar- gaining representative, although the Union has re- quested and is requesting it to do so. Thereafter, Respondent filed its answer to the complaint admit- ting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in the and raising an "affirmative defense." November 28, 1980, counsel for the General filed directly with the Board a Motion for Judgment, with exhibits attached. Subse- quently, on December 9, 1980, the Board issued an orde- transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Nctice TO Show Cause why the General Coun- sel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be Respondent filed no response to the T o Show Cause. notice is taken of the record in the representation proceed- ing. 22-RM-533. as the term "record" is defined in 102.68 and of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV NLRB 938 enfd. 388 683 (4th Cir. Golden Beverage 167 NLRB I51 (1967). enfd. 415 F. Cir. 1969); Intertype v . 269 Supp. 573 1967); NLRB 378 enfd. 397 91 (7th Cir. 1968); of the NLRA, as amended. 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 its refusal to bargain, but attacks the validity of the Union's certification. In this regard, it spe- cifically denies the allegations of the complaint that Jacques Syl Knitwear, Inc., and Biquette, Inc., con- stitute a single intergrated enterprise and a single employer within the meaning of the Act, and that the Union is the exclusive representative of the em- ployees in an appropriate unit. It further asserts as an "aftirmative defense" that an informal settlement agreement, which was entered into in the consoli- dated underlying representation and related unfair labor practice proceeding, and which provided for the resolution of ballots challenged in the August 21, 1978, election, was erroneously set aside. Review of the record herein, including the record in Case 22-RM-533, shows that on August 21, 1978, following the filing of an charge against the Union, an election was conduct- ed pursuant to the Regional Director's direction in a unit of all production and maintenance employ- ees, including shipping and receiving employees, of Jacques Knitwear, Inc., and Biquette, Inc., as petitioned for by Respondent. The election resulted in a vote of 21 to 24 against the Union, with 36 challenged ballots, a number sufficient to affect the results. Thereafter, Respondent and the Union filed timely objections to the election. After investigation, the Regional Director issued his Supplemental Decision on November 29, 1978, in which he overruled Respondent's objections in their entirety. The Regional Director sustained the challenges to 9 ballots, overruled the challenges to 14 ballots, and determined that, if a revised tally of ballots showed that the 14 ballots were not tive of the outcome of the election, the remaining 13 unresolved challenged ballots and certain of the Union's objections must await resolution of the issues in a pending related unfair labor practice proceeding. Neither Respondent nor the Union sought leave for special permission to appeal the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision. Subse- quently, on September 15, 1978, the Regional Di- rector issued an order consolidating Case 22-RM- 533 with the related unfair labor practice proceed- ing for hearing by an administrative law judge on the remaining 13 unresolved challenged ballots and certain of the Union's objections. On April 17, 1979, following the commencement of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge, as recommended by the General Counsel, approved an informal settle- ment agreement between Respondent and the 254 No. 150 1135 wh~ch, A p ~ i l asserted Judg,e :hat settlement bdlots. ~ a w Jud,;e b:j R?spondent's L,iw challengcd issued. Law settlemerrt Adminis~ D e c i s i ~ n . ~ revised for, ~roceeding well 8(a)(5) relitigate p r~ceed ing .~ NI Thc rcgular Employcr employees, 1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR bargaining unit is: representative of the employees in the bargain- reached, embody such understanding in a ing unit described below. signed agrccmcnt. WE W I L L NOT in any like or related manner All full-time and part-time produc- interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- tion and maintenance employees, including ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed shipping and receiving employees, employed them by Section 7 of the Act. by the at its West New York, WE W I L L , upon request, bargain with the New Jersey, location, but excluding all above-named Union, as the exclusive represen- office clerical professional em- tative of all employees in the bargaining unit ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in described below, with respect to rates of pay, the Act. wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is