Sause Bros.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1995

319 N.L.R.B. 721 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

721
319 NLRB No. 98
SAUSE BROS., INC.
1 By letter dated May 30, 1995, the Union requested the following
information:
(1) Names, addresses, titles, rates of pay, date of hire, age and
sex of all covered employees.
(2) Company house rules.
(3) Company policies and past practices regarding:
a. Medical Coverage
b. Life Insurance
c. Dental Plan
d. Pension Plan
e. Profit Sharing Plan
f. Sick Leave Benefits
g. Severance Pay Benefits
h. Rest Periods
i. Funeral Leave
j. Holidays
k. Vacations
l. Daily and weekly hours of work
m. Leaves of absences
n. Updated seniority rosters and any other policies or prac-
tices which the Company has pursued.
o. Jury Duty Pay
2 See, e.g., Tire America, 315 NLRB 197 (1994); U.S. Family
Care, 315 NLRB 108 (1994); and Holiday Inn Coliseum, 303 NLRB
367 (1991).
Sause Bros., Inc. and International Longshoremen’s
and Warehousemen’s Union, Local 142, AFL–
CIO. Case 37–CA–4146
November 22, 1995
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING
AND TRUESDALE
Upon a charge filed on July 12, 1995, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued
a complaint and notice of hearing on August 4, 1995,
alleging that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by
refusing the Union’s request to bargain and to furnish
necessary and relevant information following the
Union’s certification as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of the Respondent’s cargo operations’ as-
sistant managers in Case 37–RC–3699. (Official notice
is taken of the ‘‘record’’ in the representation proceed-
ing as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regulations,
Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265
NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer
admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in
the complaint.
On October 23, 1995, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in
Support. On October 24, 1995, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and No-
tice to Show Cause why the motion should not be
granted. On November 6, 1995, the Respondent filed
a response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to
bargain and to furnish information, but attacks the va-
lidity of the Union’s certification on the basis of its
contention in the representation proceeding that the
cargo operations’ assistant managers are statutory su-
pervisors or managers. In addition, the Respondent in
its answer denies that the information requested by the
Union is necessary and relevant.
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior represen-
tation proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to
adduce at a hearing any newly discovered and pre-
viously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any
special circumstances that would require the Board to
reexamine the decision made in the representation pro-
ceeding. We therefore find that the Respondent has not
raised any representation issue that is properly litigable
in this unfair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).
We also find that there are no issues warranting a
hearing with respect to the Union’s request for infor-
mation.1 Although the Respondent’s answer denies that
the information requested by the Union is relevant and
necessary, it is well established that employment infor-
mation of the type requested is presumptively relevant
for purposes of collective bargaining and must be fur-
nished on request.2
Accordingly, we grant the 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 Hawaii cor-
poration with an office and place of business in Hono-
lulu, Hawaii, has been engaged in the business of
transportating freight in interstate commerce.
During the calendar year ending December 31, 1994,
the Respondent, in conducting its business operations,
derived gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for trans-
porting freight in interstate commerce under arrange-
ments with and as agent for various common carriers,
each of which operates between various States of the
United States.
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 organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held May 19, 1995, the
Union was certified on May 30, 1995, as the exclusive
722 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 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.’’
collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time salaried and
hourly cargo operations’ employees employed by
the Employer at its Honolulu, Hawaii facility; ex-
cluding all confidential employees, guards and/or
watch persons and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive representative
under Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
About May 30 and June 29, 1995, the Union re-
quested the Respondent to bargain and to furnish infor-
mation, and since July 6, 1995, the Respondent has re-
fused. We find that this refusal constitutes an unlawful
refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing on and after July 6, 1995, to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of employees in the appropriate unit and
to furnish the Union requested necessary and relevant
information, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to
cease and desist, to bargain on request with the Union,
and, if an understanding is reached, to embody the un-
derstanding in a signed agreement. We shall also order
the Respondent to furnish the Union the information
requested.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the serv-
ices of their selected bargaining agent for the period
provided by the law, we shall construe the initial pe-
riod of the certification as beginning the date the Re-
spondent begins to bargain in good faith with the
Union. Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962);
Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328
F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817
(1964); Burnett Construction Co., 149 NLRB 1419,
1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Sause Bros., Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with International Long-
shoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, Local 142,
AFL–CIO as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees in the bargaining unit, and refusing to
furnish the Union information that is relevant and nec-
essary to its role as the exclusive bargaining represent-
ative of the unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, 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) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit on terms and conditions of employ-
ment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the
understanding in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time salaried and
hourly cargo operations’ employees employed by
the Employer at its Honolulu, Hawaii facility; ex-
cluding all confidential employees, guards and/or
watchpersons and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) Furnish the Union the information that it re-
quested on May 30 and June 29, 1995.
(c) Post at its facility in Honolulu, Hawaii, copies of
the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 20, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt 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 Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within
20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
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 refuse to bargain with International
Longshoremen’s and Union, Local 142, AFL–CIO as
723SAUSE BROS., INC.
the exclusive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit, and we will not refuse to furnish the
Union information that is relevant and necessary to its
role as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
unit employees.
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, on request, bargain with the Union and
put in writing and sign any agreement reached on
terms and conditions of employment for our employees
in the bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time salaried and
hourly cargo operations’ employees employed by
us at our Honolulu, Hawaii facility; excluding all
confidential employees, guards and/or watch per-
sons and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information
that it requested on May 30 and June 29, 1995.
SAUSE BROS., INC.