Volt Technical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 4, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 314 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Volt Technical Corporation and Atlanta Printing Pressmen
and Assistants ' Union, Local No. 8, subordinate to
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America, AFL-CIO. Case 10-CA-7844
May 4, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND
JENKINS
On October 16, 1969, Trial Examiner Charles W.
Schneider issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, in which he granted the General Counsel's
motion for summary judgment, found that Respondent,
Volt Technical Corporation, had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices as alleged in the complaint, and recom-
mended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner made in this case and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
Respondent's exceptions, and the entire record in this
case,' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified
below:'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent,
' In its exceptions Respondent contends, as it did at the several
stages of the underlying representation matter, that the Regional
Director's unit and eligibility determinations and his disposition of the
challenges and objections in Case l0-RC-7626 are erroneous and contrary
to law, and that the Board erred in failing to grant Respondent's
requests for review Alternatively, Respondent contends that it is entitled,
as a right of due process, to a hearing on the issues raised by the
challenges and its objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election We find no merit in Respondent's contentions We have
reviewed the entire record in the underlying representation case and
are satisfied that the Regional Director's disposition of the issues in
his Decision and Direction of Election and Supplemental Decision and
Certification of Representative are fully supported by the evidence,
and are correct. Like the Trial Examiner we find no unresolved issues
necessitating a hearing and, accordingly, we shall adopt the Trial Examin-
er's findings, conclusions, and recommendations
2 The Trial Examiner found that the Board in Case 10-RC-7626
denied the Respondent's request for review of the Regional Director's
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative, but, in doing
so, found it unnecessary to pass upon his sustaining three challenges
As the record shows that the Board's denial of review was unqualified,
and left standing the Regional Director ' s action in sustaining all five
challenges, the Trial Examiner's inadvertent finding is hereby corrected
Volt Technical Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order, as herein modified:
In the last paragraph of the notice between the words
"WE WILL" and "bargain" insert the words "upon re-
quest "
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Representation Proceeding'
CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER, Trial Examiner: Upon peti-
tion filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. 159(c)) on December 13,
1968, by the Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union,
Local No. 8, subordinate to International Printing Press-
men and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, the Regional Director for Region
10 of the Board, after hearing, issued a Decision and
Direction of Election dated February 14, 1969, in an
appropriate bargaining unit, described hereinafter, of
the employees of Volt Technical Corporation, herein
called the Respondent.
On February 24, 1969, Respondent filed a request
for review with the Board in Washington, D.C., question-
ing the appropriateness of the election unit and certain
exclusions therefrom. This request was denied by the
Board on March 10, 1969, as raising "no substantial
issues warranting review."
Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Region-
al Director on March 12, 1969, among the employees
in the appropriate unit to determine the question of
representation. Upon conclusion of the balloting, the
parties were furnished a tally of the ballots which showed
that of approximately 18 eligible voters, 8 cast valid
votes for, and 4 cast valid votes against the Union,
and 5 cast challenged ballots. Timely objections to the
conduct of the election were filed by the Respondent,
in which Respondent reiterated its objections to the
appropriate unit , and further asserted that the Union
offered certain material benefits to an employee for
supporting the Union in the election. The Respondent
requested a hearing on its objections.
On April 14, 1969, the Regional Director for Region
10 issued his Supplemental Decision and Certification
of Representative, in which he found the Respondent's
objections to the election to be without merit and over-
ruled them. The Regional Director further sustained
' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
Case 10-RC-7628, as the term "record" is defined in Sec 102 68
and 102.69(f) of the Board's rules (Rules and Regulations and Statements
of Procedure, National Labor Relations Board, Series 8, as amended)
See LTV Electrosystems, Inc , 166 NLRB 938, enfd 388 F 2d 683
(C A 4, 1968), Golden Age Beverage Co , 167 NLRB 151, enfd 415
F 2d 36, Intertype Co v Penello, 269 F.Supp 573 (D C Va , 1967),
Intertype Co v N L R B , 401 F 2d 41 (C A 4, 1968), Follett Corp ,
et al , 164 NLRB 378, enfd 397 F 2d 91 (C A 7, 1968), Sec 9(d)
of the National Labor Relations Act
182 NLRB No. 46
VOLT TECHNICAL CORP.
the challenges on the ground that the voters involved
were not regular part-time employees. The Regional
Director thereupon certified the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative in the appropriate unit. No
hearing was held on the Respondent's objections to
the election.
On April 28, 1969, the Respondent filed with the
National Labor Relations Board a request for review
asserting therein that the Regional Director for Region
10 had erred in summarily overruling, without hearing,
its objections to election and in sustaining the above-
mentioned challenges. This request was denied by the
Board on June 2, 1969, as raising "no substantial issues
warranting review." The Board found it unnecessary
to rule on the issues raised with respect to the ballots
of three of the voters on the ground that their votes
could not affect the results of the election
The Unfair Labor Practice Case
On July 1, 1969, the Union filed the unfair labor
practice charge involved in the instant case, in which
it alleged that since on or about April 15, 1969, the
Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with
the Union.
On July 30, 1969, the General Counsel, by the Acting
Regional Director for Region 10, issued a complaint
and notice of hearing alleging that Respondent had com-
mitted unfair labor practices in violation of Sections
8(a)(1) and (5) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act by refusing
to bargain with the Union upon request. In due course,
the Respondent filed its answer and amended answer
and affirmative defense on August 12, 1969, and August
28, 1969, respectively. In its answer Respondent denied
each and all of the allegations in the complaint.
In its amended answer Respondent admits the follow-
ing allegations of'the complaint: (1) filing and service
of the charge, (2) the jurisdictional facts, (3) that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act, (4) that the above-described election was held
and that the Regional Director for Region 10 certified
the Union, and (5) that the Respondent has refused
to bargain with the Union. Respondent denied allegations
in the complaint to the effect that (1) the unit is
appropriate, (2) that the Union is the bargaining repre-
sentative and (3 ) that the Respondent is engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of the Act. -
In its amended answer Respondent also reiterated
its contentions raised in the representation proceeding
as to the appropriate unit, the exclusions therefrom,
its objections to the election, reasserting that the deci-
sions of the Regional Director on those issues, and
the Board's refusal to review them, were erroneous,
and that the failure to accord Respondent a hearing
on the objections and challenges deprived Respondent
of due process of law.
On September 2, 1969, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed a motion for summary judgment, in which
he stated there is no issue of fact or law requiring
hearing and praying issuance of an order to show cause
315
as to why decision should not issue fikiding the violations
alleged in the complaint, and that such Decision there-
after issue.
On September 5, 1969, I issued an order to show
cause on General Counsel's motion for summary judg-
ment. Thereafter, in response, the Respondent filed a
cross motion to dismiss motion for summary judgment
No other responses have been received
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its cross motion the Respondent opposes the motion
for summary judgment. The Respondent's basic position
is that its objections to the election and to the, Regional
Director's decisions were meritorious, and that in any
event it is entitled to a hearingon the objections.
It is established Board policy, in absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence not to
permit litigation before a Trial, Examiner in an unfair
labor practice case of issues which were or could have
been litigated in a prior related representation proceed-
ing 2 This policy is applicable even though no formal
hearing on objections has been provided by the Board
Such a hearing is not a matter of right unless substantial
and material issues are raised a Respondent does not
claim to present any newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence.
The Regional Director found in the representation
proceeding that the Respondent's contentions as to the
appropriate unit, the exclusions therefrom, the Respond-
ent's objections to the election, and its position on
the challenged ballots, were without merit The Board
found that the Respondent's opposition to those conclu-
sions raised "no substantial issues warranting review "
At this stage of the proceedings those findings are the
law of the case and binding on the Trial Examiner-
though the Respondent is free to request the Board
for reconsideration, and if the decision is adverse to
seek review in the Court of Appeals. The Respondent's
request that the Trial Examiner hold a hearing and
take evidence on those issues is therefore denied.
There are thus no unresolved matters requiring an
evidential hearing. The General Counsel's motion for
summary judgment is consequently granted.
On the basis of the record I make the following
further-
2 Krieger-Ragsdale & Co , Inc . 159 NLRB 490, enfd 379 F 2d
517 (C A 7, 1967), cert denied 389 U S 1041, NLRB v Macomb
Pottery. 376 F 2d 450 (C A 7 1967), Has and Johnson Conipan, 164
NLRB 801, Metropolitan Life Insurance Compani. 163 NLRB 579
See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v N L R B , 313 U S 146, 162 (1941).
NLRB Rules and Regulations Secs 102 67(f) and 102 69(c)
9 0 K Van and Storage, Inc , 127 NLRB 1537, enfd 297 F 2d
74 (C A 5, 1961) See Air Control Windoir Products of St Petersburg.
Inc . 335 F 2d 245, 249 (C A 5, 1964) "If there is nothing to hear,
then a hearing is a senseless and useless formality " See also N L R B
v Bata Shoe Co . 377 F 2d 821. 826 (C A 4, 1967) " there
is no requirement , constitutional or otherwise, that there be a hearing
in the absence of substantial and material issues crucial to determination
of whether NLRB election results are to be accepted for purposes
of certification "
316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
i FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Volt Technical Corporation, the Respondent, at all
times material herein has been and is a Delaware corpora-
tion, with branches in various cities in the United States,
including Atlanta, Georgia, where it is engaged in engi-
neering and technical service assistance . Only Respond-
ent's Atlanta, Georgia, branch is involved in the instant
proceeding.
Respondent, during the past calendar year, which
period is representative of all times material herein,
sold and shipped goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the
State of Georgia. Respondent is now and has been
at all times material herein engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is and has been at all times material
herein a labor organization within,the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act. ,
III.. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
All full-time and regular part-time lithographic produc-
tion employees (offset press operators, cameramen,
platemakers, strippers, and opaquers) of the Respondent
at its Atlanta, Georgia, branch, excluding collators and
other bindery employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
At all times since April 14, 1969, the Union has
been the certified representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining of the employees in the appropriate
unit, and by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act has
been and is now the exclusive representative of the
employees in the said unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment and other terms and conditions of
employment.
It is admitted and found that the Respondent refuses
to bargain with the Union.
By thus refusing to bargain collectively with the Union
the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections
8(a)(1) and (5) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record in the case, I recommend that the Board
issue the following:
ORDER
A. For the purpose of determining the duration of
the certification the initial year of certification shall
be deemed to begin on the date the Respondent com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the recognized exclusive bargaining representative in
the appropriate unit.4
B. Volt Technical Corporation , its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
,(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Atlanta Print-
ing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union, Local No . 8, subor-
dinate to International Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union of North America , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the following
appropriate bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part -time' lithographic pro-
duction employees (offset press operators , camera-
men, platemakers , strippers , and opaquers) of the
Respondent at its Atlanta , Georgia , branch, exclud-
ing collators and other bindery employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Interfering with the efforts of said Union to negoti-
ate for or represent employees as such exclusive collec-
tive -bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Atlanta
Printing Pressmen and ,Assistants ', Union , Local No.
8, subordinate to International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants ' Union of North America , AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment , and other terms and conditions
of employment , and embody in a signed agreement
any understanding reached.
(b) Post at its office and place of business at its
Atlanta, Georgia , branch , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."5 Copies of said notice , on forms
to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region
10, shall , after being duly signed by an authorized repre-
sentative of the Respondent , be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
" The purpose of this provision is to insure that the employees
in the appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their selected
bargaining agent for the period provided by law See Mar-Jac Poultry
Co , Inc., 136 NLRB 785, Commerce Co dl bl a Lamar Hotel, 140
NLRB 226, 229, enfd 328 F 2d 600 (C.A 5), cert denied 379 U S
817 (1964), Burnett Construction Co , 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd
350 F 2d 57 (C A 10, 1965).
° In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board,
the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recommended Order,
herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations,
be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and
order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
In the event that the Board's 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 be
changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board."
VOLT TECHNICAL CORP 317 1
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from receipt of this Recommended
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith 6
6 In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board
this provision shall be modified to read Notify the Regional Director
for Region 1 0 in writing within 10 days from receipt of this Order
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Atlanta Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union,
Local No 8 , subordinate to International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all the following employees
All full-time and regular part-time lithographic
production employees (offset press operators,
cameramen , platemakers , strippers and opa-
quers) at our Atlanta, Georgia , branch , exclud-
ing collators and other bindery employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the
Union to negotiate for or represent employees as
exclusive collective-bargaining representative
WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit, and if
an understanding is reached WE WILL sign a con-
tract with the Union
Dated By
VOLT TECHNICAL
CORPORATION
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone
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
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's
Office, 730 Peachtree Street, N E , Atlanta, Georgia
30308, Telephone 404-526-5760
I