Regency Electronics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1970

200 N.L.R.B. 625 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

REGENCY ELECTRONICS 625
Regency Electronics , Inc and International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO
Case 25-CA-5134
November 30, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
Upon a charge filed on August 24, 1972, by
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Ma-
chine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union,
and duly served on Regency Electronics, Inc, herein
called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for Region 25, issued a complaint on
August 29, 1972, 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, complaint, and
notice of hearing before an Administrative 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 August 1,
1972, following a Board election in Case
25-RC-4811 the Union was duly certified as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Re-
spondent's employees in the unit found appropriate,1
and that, commencing on or about February 24,
1972, and more particularly on August 18, 1972, and
at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and
continues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive bargaining represent-
ative, although the Union has requested and is
requesting it to do so On September 7, 1972,
Respondent filed its answer to the complaint
admitting in part, and denying in part, the allegations
in the complaint
On September 13, 1972, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment and renewal thereof on October
30, 1972 Subsequently, on September 21, 1972, 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 Respondent thereafter filed a
response to Notice To Show Cause
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority 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 and in its response to
the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent contends
that the Union is not the exclusive representative of
its employees because there were no valid grounds
for setting aside the first of two elections in the
underlying representation proceeding and that the
second election was invalid because the voting
eligibility list used for the second election improperly
permitted employees hired after the first election to
vote in the second election We do not agree
The record in Case 25-RC-4811 indicates that in
an election conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for
Certification Upon Consent Election there were
approximately 242 eligible voters of whom 104 cast
ballots for, and 117 cast ballots against, the Union
and 12 ballots were challenged The Union filed
objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election in which it alleged that (1) on the day before
the election Respondent distributed duplications of
the Board's sample ballot with the addition of a red
heart around and an x mark within the "No" box,
and (2) that Respondent called an active union
supporter into the office and coerced and intimidat-
ed her to the degree that she became nervous and
excited
After investigation the Regional Director issued a
Report on Objections and Recommendations to the
Board in which he recommended that the Union's
first objection be sustained, the second overruled,
and a new election be directed Respondent filed
exceptions to the Regional Director's report contend-
ing that the Regional Director had misapplied Board
precedent and should have ordered a hearing on the
objections On February 25, 1972, the Board issued a
Decision, Order and Direction of Second Election in
which it adopted the Regional Director's findings
and recommendations, set aside the election, and
directed a second election Thereafter, on March 3,
1972, Respondent filed a Petition for Reconsidera-
tion of the Board's Decision, Order and Direction of
Second Election in which it invited the Board's
attention to a recent decision and reiterated the
contentions advanced in its exceptions to the
Regional Director's report Finding the cited case
inapposite, the Board, on March 13, 1972, issued an
i Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding Golden Age Beverage Co 167 NLRB 151 Intertype Co v Penello 269 F
Case 25-RC-4811 as the term record is defined in Sees 102 68 and Supp 573 (D C Va 1967) Follett Corp 164 NLRB 378 enfd 397 F 2d 91
102 69(f) of the Boards Rules and Regulations Series 8 as amended See (C A 7 1968) Sec 9(d) of the NLRA
LTV Electrosystems Inc 166 NLRB 938 enfd 388 F 2d 683 (C A 4 1968)
200 NLRB No 88
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order Denying Petition in which it denied Respon-
dent's petition for reconsideration as lacking in
merit
A second election in which there were approxi-
mately 257 eligible voters was conducted on March
24, 1972 The tally of ballots showed that there were
133 votes for, 112 against, the Union and that there
were no challenges Respondent filed timely objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the election,
alleging, in substance, that (1) The second election
was improperly ordered because there were no
grounds for setting aside the first election, (2)
Respondent was deprived of favorable evidence by
the Regional Director's refusal to order a hearing, (3)
the Board improperly ordered the use of a new
eligibility list for the second election, and (4) the
Union coerced employees by threats of economic
harm unless they signed union authorization cards
and by promising to waive initiation fees and dues
for those who signed cards The Acting Regional
Director conducted an investigation and issued a
Report on Objections and Recommendation to the
Board overruling all of Respondent's objections
On May 12, 1972, Respondent filed exceptions to
the report of the Acting Regional Director with a
supporting brief and, on May 15, 1972, petitioned the
Board for oral argument On August 1, 1972, the
Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Certifica-
tion of Representative in which, inter aha, it adopted
the Acting Regional Director's findings and recom-
mendations, denied the Respondent's request for oral
argument, and certified the Union as exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit In its answer to the complaint and in its
response to the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent
relies on the same contentions which it raised in the
underlying representation case
It is well settled that in the absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence or
special circumstances a respondent in a proceeding
alleging 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 the Respondent in this
proceeding were or could have been litigated in the
prior representation proceeding, and the Respondent
does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly
discovered 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 the Respondent has not raised
any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair
labor practice proceeding We shall, accordingly,
grant the Motion for Summary Judgment
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Indiana corporation with its
principal office and place of business in Indianapolis,
Indiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of electronic equipment and related
products During the past year Respondent pur-
chased goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 which were transported directly to its
Indianapolis facility from States other than the State
of Indiana During the same period Respondent
manufactured, sold, and distributed products valued
in excess of $50,000 which were shipped from said
facility directly to States other than the State of
Indiana
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent 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
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is 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 of the Respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargain-
ing purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act
All production and maintenance employees of
the Respondent at its facility, including all line
assembly employees, all packaging employees, all
component preparation employees, all coil assem-
blymen, all repair employees, all crystal repair
employees, all inspectors, all technicians/trouble
shooters, all testers, all shipping employees, all
stock and receiving employees, all machine shop
employees and all group leaders, but excluding all
office clerical employees, all engineers and
2 See Pittsburgh Plate G l a s s C o v N LRB 313 U S 146 162 (1941)
Rules and Regulations of the Board Sees 102 67 (f) and 102 69(c)
REGENCY ELECTRONICS 627
engineer aides, all guards, professional employees
and supervisors as defined in the Act
2 The certification
On March 24, 1972, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 25, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing with the Respondent The Union was certified as
the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in said unit on August 1, 1972, and the
Union continues to be such exclusive representative
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act
B The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about February 24, 1972, and
at all times thereafter, the Union has requested the
Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the above-described unit Com-
mencing on or about February 24, 1972, and
continuing at all times thereafter to date, the
Respondent has refused, and continues to refuse, to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the
exclusive representative for collective bargaining of
all employees in said unit
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has,
since February 24, 1972, and at all times thereafter,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair 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 activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship 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 com-
merce
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
appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided by
law, we shall construe the initial period of certifica-
tion as beginning on the date Respondent commenc-
es to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized bargaining representative in the appropri-
ate 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
(CA 10)
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Regency Electronics, Inc, is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 All production and maintenance employees of
the Respondent at its facility, including all line
assembly employees, all packaging employees, all
component preparation employees, all coil assembly-
men, all repair employees, all crystal repair employ-
ees, all inspectors, all technicians/trouble shooters,
all testers, all shipping employees, all stock and
receiving employees, all machine shop employees
and all group leaders, but excluding all office clerical
employees, all engineers and engineer aides, all
guards, professional employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
4 Since August 1, 1972, 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 February 24, 1972, 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 practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
6 By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respon-
dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has 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 mean-
ing 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 Respondent,
Regency Electronics , Inc, 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 International Union
of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CI-
O, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees in the following appropriate unit
All production and maintenance employees of
the Respondent at its facility , including all line
assembly employees , all packaging employees, all
component preparation employees, all coil assem-
blymen, all repair employees , all crystal repair
employees , all inspectors , all technicians/trouble
shooters , all testers , all shipping employees, all
stock and receiving employees, all machine shop
employees and all group leaders , but excluding all
office clerical employees, all engineers and
engineer aides, all guards, professional employees
and supervisors as defined in the Act
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise 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 under-
standing is reached , embody such understanding in a
signed agreement
(b) Post at its facility in Indianapolis , Indiana,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "3
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly
signed by Respondent 's representative , shall be
posted by Respondent 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 Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith
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 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
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with Inter-
national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, 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 employees
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 representa-
tive of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment The bargaining unit is
All production and maintenance employees
of the Respondent at its facility, including
all line assembly employees, all packaging
employees, all component preparation em-
ployees, all coil assemblymen, all repair
employees, all crystal repair employees, all
inspectors, all technicians/trouble shooters,
all testers, all shipping employees, all stock
and receiving employees, all machine shop
employees and all group leaders, but exclud-
ing all office clerical employees, all engineers
and engineer aides, all guards, professional
employees and supervisors as defined in the
Act
REGENCY ELECTRONICS,
INC
(Employer)
REGENCY ELECTRONICS 629
Dated By days from the date of posting and must not be
(Representative) (Title) altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or comph-
This is an official notice and must not be defaced ance with its provisions may be directed to the
by anyone Board's Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone 901-
534-3161