Superior of Missouri, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 31, 1999

327 N.L.R.B. 1208 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1208 Superior of Missouri, Inc. and Teamsters Local Union No. 682, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO. Case 14–CA– 25421 March 31, 1999 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN Pursuant to a charge filed on January 21, 1999, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on February 2, 1999, 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 following the Union’s certification in Case 14–RC–11946.1 (Official notice is taken of the “record” in the representation proceeding 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, with affirmative defenses, admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint. On March 1, 1999, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support. On March 3, 1999, the Board issued an order transferring the pro- ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed a response and a memorandum in support. 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 failure and re- fusal to recognize and bargain, but attacks the validity of the certification on the basis of its objections to the elec- tion. All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior representa- tion proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to ad- duce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir- cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding. We therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any representation issue that is properly litigable in this un- fair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941). Accord- ingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.2 On the entire record, the Board makes the following 1 327 NLRB No. 53 (1998). 2 The Respondent’s request to dismiss the complaint is therefore de- nied. FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all material times, the Respondent, a Missouri cor- poration with an office and place of business in St Louis, Missouri, is engaged in the business of waste hauling. During the 12-month period ending December 31, 1998, the Respondent, in conducting its business opera- tions, purchased and received at its St. Louis, Missouri facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points located outside the State of Missouri. 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 A. The Certification Following the election held June 26, 1998, the Union was certified on November 30, 1998, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time truckdrivers and helpers employed by the Employer at its 2264 Creve Coeur Mill Road, St. Louis, Missouri facility, EXCLUDING office clerical and professional employ- ees, mechanics, equipment operator, guards and super- visors as defined in the Act. The Union continues to be the exclusive representative un- der Section 9(a) of the Act. B. Refusal to Bargain By letter dated January 12, 1999, the Union requested the Respondent to bargain, and, by letter dated January 18, 1999, the Respondent has failed and refused. We find that this refusal constitutes an unlawful refusal to recognize and bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSION OF LAW By refusing on and after January 18, 1999, to recog- nize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collec- tive-bargaining representative of employees in the ap- propriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair la- bor 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 Section 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 understanding in a signed agreement. To ensure that the employees are accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by the law, we shall construe the initial period of the cer- 327 NLRB No. 197 SUPERIOR OF MISSOURI, INC. 1209 tification as beginning the date the Respondent 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, Superior of Missouri, Inc., St. Louis, Mis- souri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with Teamsters Local Union No. 682, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the bargaining unit. (b) 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) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclu- sive representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit on terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the under- standing in a signed agreement: All full-time and regular part-time truckdrivers and helpers employed by the Employer at its 2264 Creve Coeur Mill Road, St. Louis, Missouri facility, EXCLUDING office clerical and professional employ- ees, mechanics, equipment operator, guards and super- visors as defined in the Act. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main- 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily 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 proceedings, the Re- spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du- plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since January 18, 1999. (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re- sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at- testing to the steps that the Respondent 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 vio- lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Teamsters Lo- cal Union No. 682, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive represen- tative of the employees in the bargaining unit. 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 bar- gaining unit: All full-time and regular part-time truckdrivers and helpers employed by us at our 2264 Creve Coeur Mill Road, St. Louis, Missouri facility, EXCLUDING office clerical and professional employees, mechanics, equipment operator, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. SUPERIOR OF MISSOURI, INC.