P.S. Honda a/k/a P.S. Motors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 27, 1998

325 N.L.R.B. 120 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

1
325 NLRB No. 120
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication
in the Board volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to
notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal er-
rors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.
P.S. Honda a/k/a P.S. Motors Inc. and Local 239,
General Automotive Electronics & Specialty
Products Drivers, Helpers and Warehousemen
affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO. Cases 29–CA–18585 and
29–CA–21402
April 27, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND
LIEBMAN
Upon charges filed by the Union on October 5,
1994, and September 16, 1997, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board issued a consoli-
dated complaint (complaint) on January 26, 1998,
against P.S. Honda a/k/a P.S. Motors Inc., the Re-
spondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act and on
February 17, 1998, issued an order amending the com-
plaint. Although properly served copies of the charges,
complaint, and order amending the complaint, the Re-
spondent failed to file an answer.
On March 30, 1998, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board. On
March 31, 1998, the Board issued an order transferring
the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show
Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Re-
spondent filed no response. The allegations in the mo-
tion 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. In addition, the complaint
affirmatively notes that unless an answer is filed within
14 days of service, all the allegations in the complaint
will be considered admitted. Further, the undisputed al-
legations in the Motion for Summary Judgment dis-
close that the Region, by letter dated February 23,
1998, notified the Respondent that unless an answer
were received by March 2, 1998, a Motion for Sum-
mary 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.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a New York
corporation with its principal office and place of busi-
ness located at 1260 Northern Boulevard, Manhasset,
New York, has been engaged in the retail sale and
service and maintenance of automobiles. During the
12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint,
the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its busi-
ness operations, derived gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 and purchased and received at its Manhasset
facility automobiles and other products, goods, and
materials valued in excess of $5000 directly from
points outside the State of New York. We find that the
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act and that the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The following employees of the Respondent con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All service and parts department employees in-
cluding maintenance men, employed by the Re-
spondent, excluding one manager and one assist-
ant manager, executives, clericals, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
Since about December 1, 1986, and at all material
times, the Union has been the designated exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the Respond-
ent’s unit employees, and since that date, has been rec-
ognized as such representative by the Respondent.
Such recognition has been embodied in successive col-
lective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of
which was effective by its terms for the period from
November 30, 1989, to November 30, 1992 (the 1989–
1992 agreement). At all times since December 1, 1986,
the Union, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has
been, and is, the exclusive representative of the unit
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other terms and conditions of employment
of said employees.
At various material times, during the months of No-
vember 1992 through June 1993, the Respondent and
the Union met for the purposes of engaging in negotia-
tions with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment regarding the unit employees, to be embodied in
a successor agreement to the 1989–1992 agreement.
Since about a date in mid-May 1994 until about No-
vember 26, 1996, the Respondent failed and refused to
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 On November 18, 1994, the General Counsel issued a complaint
and notice of hearing in Case 29–CA–18585 alleging, inter alia, that
the Respondent had refused to bargain with the Union. On March
21, 1995, the hearing in the matter was postponed indefinitely to
allow the parties to resolve the matter and the other outstanding is-
sues between them through the bargaining process.
meet and bargain with the Union as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the unit employ-
ees.1 About November 26 and December 18, 1996, and
January 20, March 21, and June 17, 1997, the Re-
spondent and the Union met for the purposes of engag-
ing in further negotiations with respect to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
of the unit employees.
About March 21, 1997, the Respondent reneged on
a previous agreement, reached with the Union on De-
cember 18, 1996, to make the unit employees’ trial pe-
riod 90 days, by changing its position to request a 120-
day trial period. About June 17, 1997, the Respondent
reneged on a previous agreement reached with the
Union to have a clause in the contract asserting that
it would notify the Union of new hires. Since about
December 18, 1997, the Respondent refused to agree
to a dues-checkoff provision in the collective-bargain-
ing agreement, while agreeing to provide the Union
with the names of new hires and to deduct dues, on
the condition that the Union act in a manner which it
deemed ‘‘nice’’ in its dealing with the Respondent,
which would allow the Respondent to cease doing so
at its discretion. Since a date between June 4 and July
28, 1997, the Respondent implemented a unilateral
wage increase with respect to the unit employees,
without bargaining with the Union. The Respondent
engaged in this conduct without the Union’s consent,
and these terms and conditions of employment are
mandatory subjects of bargaining for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
About July 28, 1997, the Respondent informed the
Union that it intended unilaterally to implement other
such wage increases without bargaining with the
Union.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Re-
spondent has been failing and refusing to bargain col-
lectively with the representative of its employees, and
has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) 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. Specifi-
cally, having found that the Respondent has failed and
refused to meet and bargain with the Union as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
employees, has reneged on a previous agreement,
reached with the Union on December 18, 1996, to
make the unit employees’ trial period 90 days, by
changing its position to request a 120-day trial period,
has reneged on a previous agreement reached with the
Union to have a clause in the contract asserting that
it would notify the Union of new hires, and agreed to
provide the Union with the names of new hires and to
deduct dues only on conditions that would allow the
Respondent to cease notifying the Union and deducting
dues at its discretion, we shall order the Respondent to
honor its agreements with the Union with respect to
the 90-day trial period and notification of new hires,
and to meet and bargain with the Union in good faith,
and, if an understanding is reached, to embody the un-
derstanding in a signed agreement. Furthermore, hav-
ing found that since a date between June 4 and July
28, 1997, the Respondent implemented a unilateral
wage increase with respect to the unit employees,
without bargaining with the Union and informed the
Union that it intended unilaterally to implement other
such wage increases without bargaining with the
Union, we shall order the Respondent to rescind, on
request of the Union, any unlawful unilateral changes.
However, nothing in the Order shall be construed as
requiring the rescission of any benefits granted to unit
employees.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, P.S. Honda a/k/a P.S. Honda Motors Inc.,
Manhasset, New York, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing or refusing to meet and bargain with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining represent-
ative of the unit employees.
(b) Reneging on previous agreements reached with
the Union.
(c) Conditioning on its own discretion its agreement
to provide the Union with the names of new hires and
to deduct dues.
(d) Implementing or stating that it intends to imple-
ment a unilateral wage increase for the unit employees
without bargaining with the Union.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Honor its agreements with the Union with re-
spect to the 90-day trial period and notification of new
hires. The unit includes the following employees:
3P.S. MOTORS
2 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.’’
All service and parts department employees in-
cluding maintenance men, employed by the Re-
spondent, excluding one manager and one assist-
ant manager, executives, clericals, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
(b) Meet and bargain with the Union in good faith
and, if an understanding is reached, embody the under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(c) On request of the Union, rescind any unlawful
unilateral changes, provided, however, that nothing in
this Order shall be construed as requiring the rescission
of any benefits granted to unit employees.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post
at its facility in Manhasset, New York, copies of the
attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’2 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 29, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no-
tices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of
these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these pro-
ceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current
employees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since May 15, 1994.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a
responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 27, 1998
llllllllllllllllll
William B. Gould IV, Chairman
llllllllllllllllll
Sarah M. Fox, Member
llllllllllllllllll
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
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 fail or refuse to meet and bargain
with Local 239, General Automotive Electronics &
Specialty Products Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse-
men affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the unit employees.
WE WILL NOT renege on previous agreements
reached with the Union.
WE WILL NOT condition on our own discretion our
agreement to provide the Union with the names of new
hires and to deduct dues.
WE WILL NOT implement or state that we intend to
implement a unilateral wage increase for the unit em-
ployees without bargaining with the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL honor our agreements with the Union with
respect to the 90-day trial period and notification of
new hires. The unit includes the following employees:
All service and parts department employees including
maintenance men, employed by us, excluding one
manager and one assistant manager, executives,
clericals, guards and supervisors as defined in Section
2(11) of the Act.
WE WILL meet and bargain with the Union in good
faith and, if an understanding is reached, embody the
understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL, on request of the Union, rescind any un-
lawful unilateral changes, provided, however, that this
shall not be construed as requiring the rescission of
any benefits granted to unit employees.
P.S. HONDA A/K/A P.S. MOTORS INC.