The Puritan Sportswear Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1966

162 N.L.R.B. 13 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

THE PURITAN SPORTSWEAR CORP. 13
The Puritan Sportswear Corp . and Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO. Case 6-CA-3624. December 12,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed by Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, the General Counsel for the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 6, issued a com-
plaint and notice of hearing dated July 28, 1966, against The Puritan
Sportswear Corp., herein called the Respondent , alleging that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Sections 8(a) (5) and ( 1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the
charge, complaint , and notice of hearing were duly served on the Re-
spondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in
substance, that on May 10, 1966, the Union was duly certified by the
Board 1 as the exclusive collective -bargaining representative of Re-
spondent's employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board, and
that, since on or about April 29, 1966, Respondent has refused to rec-
ognize or bargain with the Union as such exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative, although the Union has requested it to do so.
On August 26, 1966, the General Counsel filed with the Board a
motion for summary judgment requesting , in view of the admissions
contained in the Respondent 's answer, that the allegations of the com-
plaint be found to be true, and that the Board make findings of fact
and conclusions of law in conformity with the allegations of the com-
plaint. On August 30, 1966, the Board issued an Order transferring
proceeding to the Board and a notice to show cause. On September 27,
1966, Respondent filed with the Board an opposition to General Coun-
sel's motion for summary judgment.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board makes the following :
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its opposition to General Counsel 's motion for summary judg-
ment, Respondent contends that it is entitled to a hearing to insure full
litigation of the facts . This contention is without merit. The Respond-
ent's answer to the complaint and its opposition to General Counsel's
' Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative Issued May 10, 1966, in
Case 6-RC-4027 ( not published in NLRB volumes).
162 NLRB No. 4.
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
motion for summary judgment establish that the Respondent is seek-
ing to relitigate matters decided by the Board in the prior representa-
tion proceeding.
The record before us establishes that on March 14, 1966, following
a hearing on January 26, 1966, the Regional Director for Region 6 of
the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Direction
of Election in Case 6-RC-4027. The Respondent thereafter filed a re-
quest for review with the Board, in which it challenged the Regional
Director's finding of the appropriateness of the unit. On April 12,.
1966, the Board issued an Order denying Respondent's request for re-
view on the ground that it raised, no substantial issues warranting
review.
On April 14, 1966, in a secret-ballot election conducted under the di-
rection of the Regional Director for Region 6, a majority of the em-
ployees of the Respondent designated and selected the Union as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Re-
spondent. On April 21, 1966, the Respondent filed timely objections to
the election, relating solely to the appropriateness of the unit. On
May 10, 1966, the Regional Director issued a Supplemental' Decision
and Certification of Representative which overruled the objections and
certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the unit found to be appropriate. On May 18, 1966,.
the Respondent filed a request for review of the Regional Director's
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative. On June 2,
1966, the Board issued an Order denying Respondent's request for
review of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and Cer-
tification of Representative on the ground that it raised no substantial
issues warranting review.
Respondent admits in its answer to the complaint that the Petitioner
has requested to bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment. While Respondent does not deny that it has failed and re-
fused to bargain with the Petitioner upon request as alleged in the
complaint, it does allege in its answer that it has no legal obligation
to bargain with the Petitioner.
In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent alleged as affirmative
defenses that the unit was not appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act; that the
Board violated Section 9(c) of the Act in determining that the unit
was appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes by giving control-
ling effect to the extent to which the employees had organized; that the
unit determination in Case 6-RC-4027 was arbitrary and capricious
and at variance with the unit determination in Case 6-RC-3394, a
THE PURITAN SPORTSWEAR CORP. 15
prior case involving the Respondent; that the Hearing Officer in Case
6-RC-4027 committed prejudicial error by erroneously excluding evi-
dence supporting Respondent's extent of organization contention ; and,
that the Board by rejecting Respondent's request for review deprived
Respondent of due process of law.
In the absence of newly discovered or previously unavailable evi-
dence, issues which were or could have been raised in a related repre-
sentation proceeding may not be relitigated in an unfair labor practice
proceeding.2 Admittedly, the issues which Respondent seeks to raise
in the instant proceeding relate to the correctness of the Board's dis-
position of Respondent's objection to the election. There is no allega-
tion that special circumstances exist herein which require the Board
to reexamine the determination which it made in the representation
proceeding. Inasmuch as the Respondent has already litigated these
issues, it has not raised any issue which is properly triable in the in-
stant unfair labor practice proceeding.
All material issues thus having been decided by the Board or admit-
ted in the answer to the complaint, there are no matters requiring a
hearing before a Trial Examiner. Accordingly, the General Counsel's
motion for summary judgment is granted. On the basis of the record
before it, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a corpora-
tion duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
Pennsylvania, and is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and
sale of clothing apparel. During the past year, which period is repre-
sentative of all material times herein, Respondent received goods
valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside the State of Pennsyl-
vania. During the same period, Respondent shipped directly to points
located outside of the State of Pennsylvania goods valued in excess of
$50,000.
Respondent admits, and we find, 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.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2 Pittsburgh Plate Glas8 Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146; Collins d Aiknian Corporation,
160 NLRB 1750; and United States Rubber Company, 155 NLRB 1298.
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The representation proceeding
1. The unit
At all times material herein the following employees of the Respond-
ent have constituted a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
within the meaning of the Act :
All shipping and warehousing employees, including the truck-
driver at Respondent's Duncansville, Pennsylvania, facility, and
all shipping and customer-returns employees at Respondent's
Altoona, Pennsylvania, facility, excluding all other employees,
"leadman," supervisory trainee, customer relations employees, and
all other office clerical employees, watchmen, door guards and
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
2. The certification
On April 14, 1966, a majority of the employees of Respondent in
said unit, in a secret election conducted under the supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 6, designated the Union as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining with Respondent;
and on May 10, 1966, the Regional Director for Region 6 certified the
Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
said unit and the Union continues to be such representative.
B. The request to bargain and the Respondent's refusal
Commencing on or about April 26, 1966, and continuing to date, the
Union has requested the Respondent to bargain collectively with it
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employ-
ees in the above-described unit. Commencing on or about April 29,
1966, and continuing to date, Respondent did refuse, and continues to
refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all employees in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that the Union was duly certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees of the Respond-
ent in the appropriate unit described above, and that the Union, at all
times since May 10, 1966, has been and now is the exclusive bargaining
representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit, within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. We further find that Respondent
has, since April 29, 1966, refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in
the appropriate unit, and that, by such refusal, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
THE PURITAN SPORTSWEAR CORP.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
17
The acts of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring
in connection with its operations as described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged 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 embody in a signed agree-
ment any understanding reached.
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
1. The Puritan Sportswear Corp. is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. All shipping and warehousing employees, including the truck-
driver at the Respondent's Duncansville, Pennsylvania, facility, and
all shipping and customer-returns employees at the Respondent's
Altoona, Pennsylvania, facility, excluding all other employees, "lead-
man," supervisory trainee, customer ,relations employees, and all other
office clerical employees, watchmen, door guards and guards, profes-
sional 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. On May 10, 1966, and at all times thereafter, the above-named
labor organization has been and is the certified and exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about April 29, 1966, and at all times there-
after, to bargain collectively With the above-named labor organization
as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees of Re-
spondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices Within the meaning of Section
8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and
coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them
264-047-67-vol. 162-3
1s DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby 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 meaning 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 the
Respondent, The Puritan Sportswear Corp., Duncansville, Pennsyl-
vania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, with Textile Workers
Union of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive and duly certified bar-
gaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate
.nit:
All shipping and warehousing employees, including the truck-
driver at Respondent's Duncansville, Pennsylvania, facility, and
all shipping and customer-returns employees at Respondent's
Altoona, Pennsylvania, facility, excluding all other employees,
"leachnan," supervisory trainee, customer relations employees, and
all other office clerical employees, watchmen, door guards and
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 to them by
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 ap-
propriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment, and embody in a signed agree-
ment any understanding reached.
(b) Post at its Dmncansville and Altoona, Pennsylvania, facilities,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 6, 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 clays thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of. a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order."
THE PURITAN SPORTSWEAR CORP. 1.9
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within
10 days from date of this Decision and Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL 31PLOYEEs
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT.refuse to bargain collectively with Textile Work-
ers Union of America, AFL-CIO, 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 representative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described below with respect to wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and embody in a signed agreement
any understanding reached.
The bargaining unit is :
All shipping and warehousing employees, including the
truckdriver at Respondent's Duncansville, Pennsylvania,
facility, and all shipping and customer-,returns employees at
Respondent's Altoona, Pennsylvania, facility, excluding all
other employees, "leachnan," supervisory trainee, customer
relations employees, and all. other office clerical employees,
watchmen, door guards and guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
TIIE PURITAN SPORTSWEAR CORP.,
Employer.
Dated--------- ------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's
Regional Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone 644-2969.