Maurice Meyer Co.

MAURICE MEYER COMPANY 735 Maurice Meyer d/b/a Maurice Meyer Company and International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America , AFL-CIO. Case 5-CA-3929 February 12, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN Upon a charge filed by the International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 5, issued a com- plaint dated November 1, 1967, against Maurice Meyer d/b/a Maurice Meyer Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the 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 Ex- aminer were duly served upon the Respondent. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that on September 7, 1967, the Union was duly certified by the Re- gional Director for Region 5 as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of the Respondent's em- ployees in a unit composed of all production and maintenance employees, including laborers, at the Respondent's Baltimore, Maryland, plant, with the customary exclusions , and that, on or about Oc- tober 25, 1967, and thereafter, the Respondent refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as such exclusive bargaining representative, although the Union requested the Respondent to do so. On November 7, 1967, the Respondent filed an answer, admitting its refusal to bargain but denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged. On November 24, 1967, all parties to this proceeding entered into a stipulation by which they waived a hearing before a Trial Examiner and the issuance by him of a Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order, and agreed to submit the case to the National Labor Relations Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order based upon a record consisting of charge, the com- plaint, the answer, the exhibits, and the stipulation of facts. On December 4, 1967, the Board ap- proved the stipulation and ordered the proceedings transferred to the Board. Thereafter, the Respond- ent filed a brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. Upon the basis of the stipulation, brief, and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the fol- lowing: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent Maurice Meyer is engaged in operat- ing a printing plant in Baltimore, Maryland. Respondent, in the course and conduct of its busi- ness operations during the preceding 12-month period, furnished services valued in excess of $50,000 to employers located outside the State of Maryland. The Respondent stipulated and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor or- ganization with the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The record before us establishes that on June 23, 1967, the Union filed a petition in Case 5-RC-6057 seeking to represent an appropriate unit of all production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's Baltimore, Maryland, plant. After a hearing, the Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election on July 28, 1967, in which he found appropriate for bargaining a unit of all production and maintenance employees, includ- ing laborers, at the Respondent's Baltimore, Mary- land, plant, but excluding all office clerical em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. On August 5, 1967, Respondent filed a Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election. The Respondent contended in essence that the lithography and printing em- ployees are craftsmen and should not be included in a unit with the unskilled employees and that the Re- gional Director erred in finding otherwise. After due consideration, the Board, on August 22, 1967, denied the Respondent's Request for Review and thereby affirmed the correctness of the Regional Director's Decision. On August 29, 1967, an election was held in which eight votes were cast for the Union and three against. The Union was certified on September 7, 1967. On October 20, 1967, the Union requested that the Respondent bargain collectively with it. This request was refused, and on October 25, 1967, the Union filed the charge upon which these proceedings are predicated. 169 NLRB No. 103 736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As indicated above, Respondent defends its refusal to bargain on the ground that the Regional Director's finding as to the appropriate unit in the representation proceeding and the Board's approval thereof were erroneous. We reject this defense as without merit. It is well established that absent newly discovered evidence, the appropriateness of a bargaining unit determined in a prior representa- tion proceeding will not be relitigated in a sub- sequent unfair labor practice proceeding.I Respondent in this proceeding has presented no new evidence which would warrant a reconsidera- tion of the unit finding in the representation proceedings. We therefore adhere to the unit finding in the underlying representation proceeding. Accordingly, we find that the Union was selected on August 29, 1967, by a majority of employees in the appropriate unit as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining; that at all times since September 7, 1967, the Union has been the duly certified representative of the employees in the appropriate unit; and that by refusing to bargain with the certified representative of their employees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The acts of the Respondent set forth in section I and II, above, occurring in connection with their operations as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com- merce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that he cease and desist therefrom and, upon request, bar- gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive presentative of all employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Maurice Meyer d/b/a Maurice Meyer Com- pany is engaged, in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All production and maintenance employees, including laborers, at the Respondent's Baltimore, Maryland, plant, but excluding all office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Since September 7, 1967, the above-named labor organization has been the exclusive represen- tative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing on or about October 25, 1967, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the ex- clusive bargaining representative of all the em- ployees in the appropriate unit, the 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, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to 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. 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 Respond- ent, Maurice Meyer d/b/a Maurice Meyer Com- pany, Baltimore , Maryland, his agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em- ployment with International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em- ployees in the following appropriate unit: All production and maintenance employees, in- cluding laborers, at the Respondent's Bal- timore, Maryland , plant, but excluding all of- fice clerical employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. N L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146; S. D. Warren Company, 150 NLRB 288, enfd. 353 F.2d 494 (C.A. 1),cert de- nied 383 U.S. 958. MAURICE MEYER COMPANY 737 (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in 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 appropriate unit, with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its plant in Baltimore, Maryland, co- pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 5, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by him for 60 consecu- tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International Printing Pressmen & Assistants ' Union of North 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 employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you 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 bargain- ing unit described below , with respect to wages, hours, 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 em- ployees, including laborers, at our Bal- timore, Maryland , plant, but excluding all office clerical employees , guards, and su- pervisors as defined in the Act. MAURICE MEYER D/B/A MAURICE MEYER COMPANY (Employer) 2 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 En- forcing an Order " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 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 you that: Dated By (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive 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, Federal Building, Room 1019, Charles Center, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Telephone 962-2909.