Safe Tarnsportation, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1977

229 N.L.R.B. 519 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

SAFE TRANSPORTATION, INC.
Safe Transportation, Inc. and Local 414, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. Case 25-CA-
8244
May 9, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
Upon a charge filed on September 7, 1976, by
Local 414, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
herein called the Union, and duly served on Safe
Transportation, Inc., herein called the Respondent,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 25,
issued a complaint and notice of hearing on October
28, 1976, against Respondent, alleging that Respon-
dent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing 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 March 1,
1976, following a Board election in Case 25-RC-
6158 the Union was duly certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees in the unit found appropriate; and that,
commencing on or about March 12, 1976, and at all
times thereafter, the Respondent did refuse, and
continues to refuse, to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative, in that the Respondent, by refusing to
advise the Union of the Respondent's acceptance,
rejection, or proposed modification of the terms of
an agreement agreed upon on August 5, 1976,
negotiated with the Union in bad faith and with no
intention of entering into any final or binding
collective-bargaining agreement. The Respondent
failed to file an answer within 10 days from the
service of the complaint as required by Section
102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended.
On January 6, 1977, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on January 19,
1977, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for
229 NLRB No. 88
Summary Judgment should not be granted. Respon-
dent's counsel thereafter filed a letter response to
Notice To Show Cause stating in effect that
Respondent was going out of business and could no
longer afford his services.
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
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides as follows:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer thereto.
The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or
explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint,
unless the respondent is without knowledge, in
which case the respondent shall so state, such
statement operating as a denial. All allegations in
the complaint, if no answer is filed, or any
allegation in the complaint not specifically denied
or explained in an answer filed, unless the
respondent shall state in the answer that he is
without knowledge, shall be deemed to be
admitted to be true and shall be so found by the
Board, unless good cause to the contrary is
shown.
The complaint and notice of hearing served on the
Respondent and its counsel, specifically states that
unless an answer to the complaint is filed within 10
days from service thereof "all of the allegations in the
Complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true,
and may so be found by the Board." According to
the uncontroverted allegations of the Motion for
Summary Judgment, when the Respondent failed to
file an answer to the complaint within the stated
time, the Respondent as a courtesy was advised on
January 4 and 5, 1977, by telephone, of the necessity
of filing an answer. As of January 6, 1977, the date of
the Motion for Summary Judgment, no communica-
tion or answer had been received from the Respon-
dent. Nor has any answer been filed to date. No
good cause to the contrary having been shown for
the failure to file an answer, in accordance with the
rule set forth above, the allegations of the complaint
are deemed to be admitted to be true and are so
found to be true.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
519
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is, and has been at all times
material herein, a corporation duly organized under,
and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
Indiana.
At all times material herein, the Respondent has
maintained its principal office and place of business
at Fort Wayne, Indiana, herein called the facility,
and is, and has been at all times material herein,
continuously engaged at the facility in the business of
providing and performing transportation and deliv-
ery services and related services.
During the past year preceding the issuance of the
complaint, a representative period, the Respondent,
in the course and conduct of its business operations,
provided and performed transportation and delivery
services for nonretail customers located in the State
of Indiana valued at in excess of $50,000, each of
which customers in turn during the same representa-
tive period of time manufactured and shipped from
their respective Indiana locations, directly to points
located outside the State of Indiana, goods valued at
in excess of $50,000.
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
Local 414, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
i. 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 pickup and delivery employees and all dock
porter employees of the Respondent employed at
the facility, exclusive of all office clerical employ-
ees, all professional employees, all salesmen, and
all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On December 23, 1975, a majority of the employ-
ees 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 bargaining with the Respondent. The
Union was certified as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in said unit on
March 11, 1976, 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 March 12, 1976, 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 March 12, 1976, 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 representa-
tive for collective bargaining of all employees in said
unit, in that the Respondent, by refusing to advise
the Union of the Respondent's acceptance, rejection,
or proposed modification of the terms of an
agreement agreed upon on August 5, 1976, negotiat-
ed with the Union in bad faith and with no intention
of entering into any final or binding collective-
bargaining agreement.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has,
since March 12, 1976, 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.
520
SAFE TRANSPORTATION, INC.
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 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar
Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600
(C.A. 5, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964);
Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421
(1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10, 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Safe Transportation, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 414, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. All pickup and delivery employees and all
dock porter employees of the Respondent employed
at the facility, exclusive of all office clerical employ-
ees, all professional employees, all salesmen, and all
guards and all 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 March 11, 1976, 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 March 12, 1976, and at
all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all the employees of
i 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
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
is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employ-
ees in the excercise 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 Safe
Transportation, Inc., Fort Wayne, Indiana, 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 Local 414, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All pickup and delivery employees and all dock
porter employees of the Respondent employed at
the facility, exclusive of all office clerical employ-
ees, all professional employees, all salesmen, and
all guards and all 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 1016 S. Harrison Street, Fort Wayne,
Indiana, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."l Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 25,
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
521
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
after being duly signed by Respondent's representa-
tive, 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 Respondent 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.
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 Local
414, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as
the exclusive representative 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 pickup and delivery employees and all
dock porter employees of the Respondent at
the facility, exclusive of all office clerical
employees, all professional employees, all
salesmen, and all guards and all supervisors
as defined in the Act.
SAFE TRANSPORTATION,
INC.
522