Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 2016

364 NLRB No. 110 (N.L.R.B. 2016)

364 NLRB No. 110
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and United Auto
Workers, Local 42. Cases 10–CA–166500 and
10–CA–169340
August 26, 2016
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS MISCIMARRA, HIROZAWA,
AND MCFERRAN
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Re-
spondent is contesting the Union’s certification as bar-
gaining representative in the underlying representation
proceeding. Pursuant to charges and an amended charge
filed by United Auto Workers, Local 42 (the Union), the
General Counsel issued the consolidated complaint on
April 26, 2016, alleging that Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. (the Respondent) has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to rec-
ognize and bargain with the Union following the Union’s
certification in Case 10–RC–162530. (Official notice is
taken of the record in the representation proceeding as
defined in the Board’s Rules and Regulations, Secs.
102.68 and 120.69(d). Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343
(1982).) The Respondent filed an answer, admitting in
part and denying in part the allegations of the consolidat-
ed complaint, and asserting affirmative defenses.1

1 On May 10, 2016, counsel for the Respondent filed a document
styled “Respondent Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Oper-
ations, LLC’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint.” The
opening paragraph of that document states:
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is not the employer herein. Ra-
ther the employer is Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Op-
erations, LLC (hereinafter “Respondent”), which hereby files this An-
swer to the General Counsel’s Complaint . . . . (footnote omitted).
The text of the document goes on to admit or deny the various allegations of
the complaint, and to assert certain affirmative defenses. This document is
signed by the attorneys who entered an appearance in this matter on behalf
of the Respondent, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
The complaint in this matter names only one Respondent,
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Volkswagen Group of America
Chattanooga Operations, LLC is not a party, no attorney has entered an
appearance on its behalf, nor has that entity filed a request to intervene
in this matter.
In view of the fact that this document was filed by the attorneys who
entered an appearance on behalf of the Respondent, we will consider
this document to be an answer filed on behalf of Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. Similarly, we will consider all other documents that have
been filed by the same attorneys, regardless of how they are styled, to
be filed on behalf of the Respondent as well.
We do this in order to give the Respondent the benefit of the doubt.
We presume that they have retained experienced labor counsel and
caused them to enter an appearance in this matter on their behalf be-
On May 13, 2016, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment.2 On May 18, 2016, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board
and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not
be granted. The Respondent filed a response on June 1,
2016.3 Also on June 1, 2016, the Union filed a brief in
support of the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary

cause they wish to be represented and defend their position. To take
the documents as styled at face value would lead to the conclusion that
the Respondent has filed no responsive pleadings. If this were the case,
all of the allegations of the complaint would be “deemed to be admitted
to be true” under Sec. 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations,
and the Respondent would have waived its right to assert a defense.
2 In its motion, the General Counsel asserts that the Respondent’s
name in this proceeding is in accord with the name of the employer in
the certification of representative and the stipulation entered into by the
employer in Case 10–RC–162530. The General Counsel asserts that
therefore the Respondent’s argument that it has been incorrectly named
in this proceeding should be rejected. In the alternative, the General
Counsel states that the Respondent’s name should be modified as re-
quested.
3 In its response to the Notice to Show Cause (Response), the Re-
spondent repeats its assertion that it has been incorrectly named in the
consolidated complaint:
Counsel for the General Counsel misunderstands Volkswagen’s point
regarding its proper name. The employer of the employees at issue in
this case is Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations,
LLC. This entity is the appropriate Respondent. This entity filed the
Request for Review wherein it noted that the Petition incorrectly iden-
tified Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. as the employer. (See GC
Ex. 5 at 1, n. 1.) This entity also filed the Answer to the complaint
underlying Counsel for the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. (GC Ex. 11 at 1 & n.1). Therefore, Volkswagen requests
that the style of this case be amended to reflect the appropriate corpo-
rate respondent.
(Response p.1, fn.1.)
The Respondent is mistaken. The attorneys who represent the Re-
spondent in this matter also represented the Respondent as the Employ-
er in the underlying representation proceeding. (See Case 10–RC–
162530.) The petition below named the Respondent as the Employer of
the employees in the requested unit, and the Respondent’s attorneys
stipulated at the hearing that “UAW Local 42” and “Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc.” were the correct names of the parties. (See Case 10–
RC–162530, Bd. Ex. 2, Transcript of Hearing p. 8.) Although Re-
spondent’s request for review of the Decision and Direction of Election
stated in a footnote that “[t]he petition incorrectly identified the Em-
ployer as ‘Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,’” the Respondent did
not seek Board review on that basis. Furthermore, the Respondent did
not file a post-election request for review challenging the Certification
of Representative on the basis that it named the Respondent as the
Employer. Because the Respondent failed to request Board review of
this issue, the Respondent is precluded from raising this issue here. See
Sec. 102.67(g) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
Moreover, in an earlier representation proceeding involving the
Chattanooga facility, the Respondent filed its own petition for election
naming itself as the Employer, and it signed a Stipulated Election
Agreement in its own name as well. (See Case 10–RM–121704.)
Under these circumstances, we find that the Respondent is estopped
from denying that it is the employer of the employees at issue in this
case.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Judgment, and the Respondent filed a reply to the Un-
ion’s brief on June 15, 2016.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
The Respondent admits its refusal to bargain, but con-
tests the validity of the Union’s certification on the basis
of its contention, raised and rejected in the underlying
representation proceeding, that the petitioned-for mainte-
nance unit is not an appropriate unit because it does not
include the Respondent’s production employees.4
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 or 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.5

4 The Respondent contends in its response to the Notice to Show
Cause that the Board’s April 13, 2016 Order in Case 10–RC–162530
did not rule on the Respondent’s contention that the “Regional Direc-
tor’s approval of the Union’s chosen unit also violates Section 9(c)(5)
of the Act which prohibits giving extent of organization controlling
weight[.]” However, the Board’s April 13, 2016 Order denied the
Respondent’s request for review of the Regional Director’s Decision
and Direction of Election, finding that it raised no substantial issues
warranting review, and thereby affirming the Regional Director’s find-
ing that the petitioned-for unit is appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. In doing so, the Board considered and rejected each
contention raised in the Respondent’s request for review.
The Respondent’s answer raises an affirmative defense that it “did
not have a duty to bargain with the Union from the date the election
was certified to the date that the Board issued its order denying Re-
spondent’s request for review” of the Regional Director’s Decision and
Direction of Election in Case 10–RC–162530. We find no merit in this
contention. See L. Suzio Concrete Co., 325 NLRB 392, 396 (1998)
(employer “acted at its peril” by relying on its filing of a request for
review in refusing to bargain with the union after the date of certifica-
tion), enfd. mem 173 F.3d 844 (2d Cir. 1999). Moreover, once the
Board denied the Respondent’s request for review on April 13, 2016,
the Union made another bargaining request on April 15, 2016, and the
Respondent admits that it refused to recognize and bargain with the
Union thereafter.
5 Member Miscimarra would have granted review in the underlying
representation proceeding regarding whether the petitioned-for mainte-
nance-only bargaining unit constituted an impermissibly fractured unit
that departed from the Employer’s organizational structure, see Odwal-
la, Inc., 357 NLRB 1608, 1611–1613 (2011), and whether an over-
whelming community of interest warranted including production and/or
other employees in any bargaining unit, Specialty Healthcare & Reha-
bilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934, 945–946 (2011), enfd. sub
nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th
Cir. 2013). While he remains of that view, he agrees, however, that the
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent has maintained
an office and place of business in Chattanooga, Tennes-
see (the Respondent’s facility) and has been engaged in
the manufacture of automobiles.6 During the 12-month
period preceding issuance of the consolidated complaint
the Respondent, in conducting its operations described
above, sold and shipped from its Chattanooga facility
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points out-
side the State of Tennessee.
We find that that the Respondent is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5).
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the representation election held on Decem-
ber 3 and December 4, 2015, the Union was certified on
December 14, 2015, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the follow-
ing appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time maintenance em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its Chattanooga,
Tennessee facility, including Skilled Team Members
and Skilled Team Leaders, but excluding Team Mem-
bers, Team Leaders, specialists, technicians, plant cler-
ical employees, office clerical employees, engineers,
purchasing and inventory employees, temporary and
casual employees, student employees in the apprentice-
ship program, all employees employed by contractors,
employee leasing companies and/or temporary agen-
cies, all professional employees, managers, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.

Respondent has not raised any new matters that are properly litigable in
this unfair labor practice proceeding and that summary judgment is
appropriate, with the parties retaining their respective rights to litigate
relevant issues on appeal.
6 The Respondent’s answer denies the complaint allegation that it is
a New Jersey corporation, affirmatively stating that that Volkswagen
Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC is a Tennessee limited
liability corporation and that it has an office and place of business in
Chattanooga, Tennessee at which it manufactures automobiles. The
Respondent’s answer, however, admits the jurisdictional allegations in
the complaint, and that it is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Sec. 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Its answer also admits
that the Union requested that the Respondent recognize and bargain
with it, and that the Respondent failed and refused to do so. In these
circumstances, we find that the Respondent’s denials do not raise any
issues warranting a hearing.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. 3
The Union continues to be the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees under
Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
On December 15, 2015, January 8, 2016, and April 15,
2016, the Union, by letter or electronic mail, requested
that the Respondent recognize and bargain with the Un-
ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the unit.
Since about December 15, 2015, the Respondent has
failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Un-
ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the unit.
We find that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes an
unlawful failure and refusal to recognize and bargain
with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing since December 15, 2015, to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing 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 law, we shall construe the initial period of the certifi-
cation as beginning the date the Respondent begins to
bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry
Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); accord Burnett Construction
Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57
(10th Cir. 1965); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229
(1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied
379 U.S. 817 (1964).7

7 The Union has requested that the Board additionally order the Re-
spondent to “set aside any discipline and/or discharge of a bargaining
unit employee that is carried out without the required Section 9(a)
involvement of [the Union], in derogation of its status as exclusive
bargaining representative.” The charges in this matter do not allege
that such conduct has occurred, and in its brief the Union avers only
that such conduct may occur during the pendency of this litigation.
Thus, there has been no showing that the Board’s traditional remedies
are insufficient to remedy the Respondent’s violation of the Act, as
alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, we deny the Union’s request for
this additional remedy. Our denial of this request in the instant pro-
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Chat-
tanooga, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
United Auto Workers, Local 42, as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative 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 collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit on terms and condi-
tions of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time maintenance em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its Chattanooga,
Tennessee facility, including Skilled Team Members
and Skilled Team Leaders, but excluding Team Mem-
bers, Team Leaders, specialists, technicians, plant cler-
ical employees, office clerical employees, engineers,
purchasing and inventory employees, temporary and
casual employees, student employees in the apprentice-
ship program, all employees employed by contractors,
employee leasing companies and/or temporary agen-
cies, all professional employees, managers, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”8 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
10, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous plac-
es, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent custom-

ceeding in no way impairs the Union’s ability to file an appropriate
charge if such conduct does occur.
8 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.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
arily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since December 15, 2015.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 10 a sworn certifi-
cation 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. August 26, 2016
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Member
______________________________________
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain
with United Auto Workers, Local 42 as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative 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
listed above.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit on terms and
conditions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody the understanding in a signed agree-
ment:
All full-time and regular part-time maintenance em-
ployees at our Chattanooga, Tennessee facility, includ-
ing Skilled Team Members and Skilled Team Leaders,
but excluding Team Members, Team Leaders, special-
ists, technicians, plant clerical employees, office cleri-
cal employees, engineers, purchasing and inventory
employees, temporary and casual employees, student
employees in the apprenticeship program, all employ-
ees employed by contractors, employee leasing compa-
nies and/or temporary agencies, all professional em-
ployees, managers, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/10-CA-166500 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273–1940.