Simon Duplex

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 6, 1996

322 N.L.R.B. 21 (N.L.R.B. 1996)

1
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.
Simon Duplex, Inc. and United Mine Workers of
America, AFL–CIO. Case 8–CA–28325
September 6, 1996
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING
AND FOX
Pursuant to a charge filed on June 10, 1996, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board issued a complaint on June 21, 1996, 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 certifi­
cation in Case 8–RC–15280. (Official notice is taken
of the ‘‘record’’ in the representation proceeding as de-
fined 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 com­
plaint.
On August 12, 1996, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. On August 14, 1996,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding
to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the mo­
tion should not be granted. On August 28, 1996, the
Respondent filed a response.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to
bargain and to furnish the requested information, but
attacks the validity of the certification on the basis of
its objections to the election in the representation pro­
ceeding.
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 factual issues requir­
ing a hearing with respect to the Union’s request for
information. The Union requested the following infor­
mation from the Respondent:
A list of employees, information regarding the
wages and benefits being paid employees, a list of
employee classifications and qualifications, and
copies of the employee handbook, retirement plan,
and medical benefits plan.
The Respondent’s answer admits that the Respond­
ent refused to provide this information to the Union.
Further, although the Respondent’s answer denies that
the information requested is necessary and relevant to
the Union’s duties as the exclusive bargaining rep­
resentative of the unit employees, it appears to do so
only on the ground that the Union was improperly cer­
tified. In any event, it is well established that such in-
formation is presumptively relevant and must be fur­
nished on request. See, e.g., The Trustees of the Ma-
sonic Hall, 261 NLRB 436 (1982); and Mobay Chemi­
cal Corp., 233 NLRB 109 (1977).
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, an Ohio cor­
poration, with an office and place of business in
Dover, Ohio, has been engaged in the manufacture of
truck chassis. Annually, the Respondent in conducting
is business operations described above, sells and ships
from its Dover facility goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points outside the State of Ohio.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organiza­
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held September 21, 1995, the
Union was certified on March 15, 1996, as the exclu­
sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ­
ees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time production,
maintenance, and quality control employees em­
ployed by the Employer at 120 Deeds Drive,
Dover, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical em­
ployees, professional employees, technical em­
ployees and all guards 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
Since March 27, 1996, the Union has requested the
Respondent to bargain and to furnish information, and,
since April 22, 1996, the Respondent has refused. We
322 NLRB No. 21
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 April 22, 1996, to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of employees in the appropriate unit and
to furnish the Union with necessary and relevant infor­
mation, 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 also shall 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, Simon Duplex, Inc., Dover, Ohio, its offi­
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with United Mine Workers
of America, 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 necessary to its role as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative 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 production,
maintenance, and quality control employees em­
ployed by the Employer at 120 Deeds Drive,
Dover, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical em­
ployees, professional employees, technical em­
ployees and all guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
(b) Furnish the Union with the information that it
requested on March 27, 1996.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post
at its facility in Dover, Ohio, copies of the attached
notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’1 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep­
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent 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 notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In
the event that, during the pendency of these proceed­
ings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own ex­
pense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since June 10, 1996.
(c) 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. September 6, 1996
������������������
William B. Gould IV, Chairman
������������������
Margaret A. Browning, Member
������������������
Sarah M. Fox, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 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.’’
SIMON DUPLEX 3
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 United Mine
Workers of America, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive rep­
resentative of the employees in the bargaining unit,
and WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union informa­
tion that is relevant and necessary to its role as the ex­
clusive bargaining representative of the unit employ­
ees.
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 production,
maintenance, and quality control employees em­
ployed by us at 120 Deeds Drive, Dover, Ohio,
but excluding all office clerical employees, pro­
fessional employees, technical employees and all
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL furnish the Union with the information
that it requested on March 27, 1996.
SIMON DUPLEX, INC.