Sonoco Products Co.

SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY Sonoco Products Company and Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and Warehouse, Processing and Allied Workers Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's and semen's Union. Case 20-CA-4336. June 19,1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA Upon an amended charge filed by Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and Warehouse, Processing and Allied Workers Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, herein called the Unions, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 20, issued a complaint dated February 16, 1967, against Sonoco Products Company, herein called Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served on the Respondent. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that on September 30, 1966, the Regional Director for Region 20 duly certified the Unions as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the unit found to be appropriate by the Regional Director and that, since on or about February 2, 1967, and continuing to date, Respondent has refused and is refusing to recognize or bargain with the Unions as such exclusive bargaining representative, although the Unions have requested and are requesting it to do so. On March 2, 1967, the Respondent filed its answer denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged. On April 10, 1967, the General Counsel filed with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting, in view of admissions contained in the Respondent's answer and other relevant material annexed as appendices to the moving papers, that there are no issues of fact or law requiring a hearing, and praying the issuance of a Decision and Order finding the violations as alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, on April 11, 1967, the Board issued an Order Transferring Proceeding to the Board, and, on ' The Unions also tiled separate petitions (Case 20-RC-66742 and 20-RC-6770) which together covered the same employees sought in the joint petition 619 the same date, a Notice to Show Cause on or before April 25,1967, why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. On April 24, 1967, the Respondent filed a Response to the Notice to Show Cause. 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. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following: RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The record establishes that on February 3, 1966, the Unions filed a joint petition seeking to represent certain employees of Respondent (Case 20-RC-6773).' The Regional Director ordered a consolidated hearing to determine whether any of the three units sought in the petitions was appropriate. On February 24, 1966, the Regional Director issued his Decision, Order, and Direction of Election in which he dismissed the two independent petitions and directed an election in the overall unit sought in the joint petition. The appropriate unit consisted of the following employees of Respondent: All production and maintenance employees and shipping department employees, including truckdrivers, of the Employer at its Hayward, California, plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. On March 23, 1966, an election was conducted among the employees in the above unit with the Union receiving less than a majority of the valid votes cast. On or about March 30, 1966, the Unions filed Objections to Conduct Affecting Results of Election. On July 13, 1966, the Regional Director issued his Supplemental Decision and Order in which he sustained the objections, set aside the election, and ordered a new election. On or about August 2, 1966, Respondent filed with the Board a Request for Review of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and Order. Ten days later the Board telegraphed an Order denying the request. On August 17, 1966, a second election was held among the employees in the aforementioned appropriate unit with the Unions receiving a majority of the valid votes cast. Respondent timely filed objections to the election. On September 30, 1966, the Regional Director overruled the objections and certified the Unions as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit . On or about October 5, 1966, Respondent filed with the Board a Request for Review of the Regional Director's decision, which the Board denied by telegraphic order on November 14, 1966. 165 NLRB No. 68 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD By letter dated January 27, 1967, the Unions requested Respondent to meet with them for the purpose of negotiating a collective-bargaining agreement . By letter dated February 2, 1967, Respondent refused the request. In its Response to the Notice to Show Cause, Respondent defends its refusal to bargain on the ground that its objections to the second election raise issues of fact which can only be resolved at a hearing. We disagree. In its Response, Respondent indicates that it is ready to prove that (1) three Teamsters officials threatened employee Mendonca on the day of the first election; (2) Gonzales, a union organizer, attempted to persuade employees to vote for the Unions while they were waiting in line to vote; and (3) Fagerhaugh, another union organizer, falsely informed an employee that he was going to be discharged unless he voted for the Unions, which would protect him. The record indicates that Respondent raised the identical allegations, inter alia, in its Objections to the Second Election, as well as in its Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision overruling the objections. Both the Regional Director and the Board considered the allegations and found them to be lacking in merit." Respondent further contends that the election of March 23, 1966, which the Unions lost, was a valid election and, as such, constituted a bar to the second election held within a year of the first election. However, again, both the Regional Director and the Board considered and rejected this contention. As Respondent does not allege any fact not previously considered by the Board, we see no reason to disturb our previous findings. Accordingly, there are no issues of fact or law which require a hearing. Thus, as all material issues have been decided by the Board in accordance with the allegations in the complaint, the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. On the basis of the record before it, the Board makes the following: FINDING OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is a South Carolina corporation engaged in the manufacture of spiral paper tubing at its place of business in Hayward, California. During the past year, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, sold and delivered goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of California. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and Warehouse, Processing and Allied Workers Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Representation Proceeding 1. The unit The following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees and shipping department employees, including truckdrivers, of Respondent at its Hayward, California, plant, excluding office clerical employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. The certification On or about August 17, 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 20, designated the Unions as their collective-bargaining representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with Respondent. On September 30, 1966, the Regional Director certified the Unions as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in said unit, and the Unions continue to be such representative. B. The Request to Bargain and the Respondent's Refusal Commencing on or about January 27, 1967, and continuing to date, the Unions have requested and are requesting Respondent to bargain collectively with them as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in the above- described unit. Since February 2, 1967, and continuing to date, Respondent has refused, and continues to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Unions as exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all employees in said unit. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and 2 See the Regional Director's Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative , attached to the formal papers in this case as Appendix 10, and also the Board's Order of November 14, 1966, denying Respondent's Request for Review SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow, of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that 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 Unions as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Sonoco Products Company is an Employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and Warehouse, Processing and Allied Workers Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All production and maintenance employees and shipping department employees, including truckdrivers, of Respondent at its Hayward, California, plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, 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. Since September 20, 1966, the above-named labor organizations have been the exclusive representative 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 February 2, 1967, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organizations as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) 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 them 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. ' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the 621 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, Sonoco Products Company, Hayward, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment with Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and Warehouse, Processing and Allied Workers Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, as the exclusive - bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: All production and maintenance employees and shipping department employees, including truckdrivers, of Respondent at its Hayward, California, plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the rights guaranteed 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 aboved-named labor organizations as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its Hayward, California, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, 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 days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order " 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to 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 you that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and Warehouse, Processing and Allied Workers Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and Warehouse, Processing and Allied Workers Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, 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. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-named Unions as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees and shipping department employees, including truckdrivers, at our Hayward, California, plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY (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, 13050 Federal Building, 50 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-3197.