Fruehauf Corp.

78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fruehauf Corporation and Lodge No. 778 of District No. 71 of the International Association of Machin- ists, AFL-CIO, and Local Union No. 552 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Jointly). Case 17-CA-5486 July 27, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Upon a charge filed on February 8, 1973, and an amended charge filed on March 14, 1973, by Lodge No. 778 of District No. 71 of the International Associ- ation of Machinists, AFL-CIO, and Local No. 552 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Joint- ly), herein called IAM, Teamsters, or the Unions, and duly served on Fruehauf Corporation, herein called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 17, issued a complaint (and notice of hearing) on March 27, 1973, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in un- fair labor practices affecting commerce 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 an Administrative Law Judge were duly served on the parties to this proceeding. With respect to the unfair labor practices the com- plaint alleges, in substance, that for a number of years in the past, the Respondent has recognized, bargained with, and entered into successive collective-bargain- ing agreements with the respective Unions, in the re- spective units, as described in paragraph 4 of the complaint, the last of which collective-bargaining agreements expired on June 30, 1971; that both before and after June 30, 1971, the Respondent negotiated with the Unions with a view toward obtaining new collective-bargaining agreements; that these negotia- tions resulted in collective-bargaining agreements be- tween the Respondent and the respective Unions, in the respective units, which agreements were reached after August 14, 1971, at a time when the Respondent was on notice that some kind of controls would re- main on the economy after the expiration of the wage- price freeze; and that since on or about January 1, 1973, the Respondent has failed and refused, and con- tinues to fail and refuse, to implement, and to be bound by, the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements entered into after August 14, 1971. The Respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint. On April 23, 1973, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Order Transferring Proceeding to Board and for Summary Judgment, with exhibits, based on Respondent' s fail- ure to file an answer as required by Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Ser- ies 8, as amended. Subsequently, on April 27, 1973, the Board issued an Order Transferring Proceeding to the Board and Notice To Show Cause why the Gener- al Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent did not file a response to the Notice To Show Cause. 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 au- thonty in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following: Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, provides as follows: The respondent shall, within 10 days from the service of the complaint, file an answer thereto. The respondent shall specifically admit, deny or explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint, unless the respondent is without knowledge, in which case the respondent shall so state, such statements operating as a denial. All allegations in the complaint, if no answer is filed, or any allegation in the complaint not specifically de- nied or explained in an answer filed, unless the respondent shall state in the answer that he is without knowledge, shall be deemed to be admit- ted to be true and shall be so found by the Board, unless good cause to the contrary is shown. The complaint and notice of hearing served on the Respondent specifically stated that unless an answer to the complaint was filed within 10 days from the service thereof "all of the allegations in the complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and may be so found by the Board." As the Respondent had not filed an answer within 10 days from the service of the complaint, and as no good cause to the contrary has been shown, in accordance with the rule set forth above, the allegations of the complaint herein are deemed to be admitted to be true and are so found to be true.' We shall, accordingly, grant the Motion for Summary Judgment. On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes the following: Wilson & Sons, 193 NLRB 350, and cases cited therein. 205 NLRB No. 11 FRUEHAUF CORPORATION 79 FINDINGS OF FACT in subparagraph (a)(2) by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act. I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Michigan corporation, is en- gaged at its North Kansas City, Missouri, plant, the only facility herein involved, in the manufacture, sale, service, and distribution of truck trailers and related products. In the course and conduct of its business, the Respondent annually sells goods and/or renders services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to cus- tomers located in States other than the State of Mis- souri, and annually purchases goods and/or services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located in States other than the State of Missouri. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respon- dent 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, and that it will effectu- ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Lodge No. 778 of District No. 71 of the Internation- al Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, and Local Union No. 552 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Jointly) are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Units (a) The following employees of the Respondent constitute units appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: (1) All classifications of parts room employees at the Respondent's North Kansas City, Missouri, facto- ry service branch, excluding service and maintenance employees, clerical and all other employees. (2) All service and maintenance employees, includ- ing working foremen, at the Respondent's North Kansas City, Missouri, factory service branch, ex- cluding clerical employees , parts room employees and supervisory employees. (b) At all material times herein, Teamsters has been, and still is, the exclusive collective -bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit de- scribed above in subparagraph (a)(1) by virtue of Sec- tion 9(a) of the Act. (c) At all material times herein , IAM has been, and still is, the exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of all the employees in the unit described above B. Respondent's Refusal To Bargain Since or about January 1, 1973, the Respondent has failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to implement, and to be bound by, the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements entered into after August 14, 1971. Accordingly, we find that, by the conduct described above, the Respondent has engaged in and is engag- ing 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 activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations described in section 1, above , have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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. THE REMEDY Having found that 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, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As the Respondent, since on or about January 1, 1973, has failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to implement, and to be bound by, the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements entered into after August 14, 1971, we shall order that the Respon- dent bargain collectively in good faith with the duly designated and selected representatives of its employ- ees by implementing, and being bound by, the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements entered into after August 14, 1971. The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record, makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Fruehauf Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Lodge No. 778 of District No. 71 of the Interna- tional Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, and Lo- cal Union No. 552 of the International Brotherhood 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America (Jointly) are labor organizations with- in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The appropriate units are: All classifications of parts room employees at the Respondent's North Kansas City, Missouri, factory service branch, excluding service and maintenance employees, clerical and all other employees, consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. All service and maintenance employees, including working foremen, at the Respondent's North Kansas City, Missouri, factory service branch, excluding cler- ical employees, parts room employees, and superviso- ry employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. By refusing since on or about January 1, 1973, to implement, and to be bound by, the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements entered into after August 14, 1971, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 5. By the aforesaid conduct, Respondent has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing 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 Rela- tions Board hereby orders that Respondent, Fruehauf Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the re- spective Unions, Lodge No. 779 of District No. 71 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL- CIO, and Local Union No. 552 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, as the exclusive repre- sentatives of all the employees in the respective appropriate bargaining units by failing and refusing to implement, and to be bound by, the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements entered into after August 14, 1971. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Implement, and be bound by, the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements entered into after August 14, 1971. (b) Post at its North Kansas City, Missouri, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 17, 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 17, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 2 In the event that 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 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 the respective Unions, Lodge No. 778 of District No. 71 of the International Association of Ma- chinists, AFL-CIO, and Local No. 552 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Jointly) as the exclusive representatives of all the employees in the respective bargaining units de- scribed below, by failing and refusing to imple- ment, and to be bound by, the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements entered into af- ter August 14, 1971. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in- terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL implement, and be bound by, the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements en- FRUEHAUF CORPORATION tered into after August 14, 1971. The bargaining units are: All classifications of parts room employees at the Respondent's North Kansas City, Missou- ri, factory service branch, excluding service and maintenance employees, clerical and all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. All service and maintenance employees, in- cluding working foremen, at the Respondent's North Kansas City, Missouri, factory service branch, excluding clerical employees, parts room employees, and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 81 FRUEHAUF CORPORATION (Employer) Dated By (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 compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 616-Two Gateway Center, Fourth at State, Kansas City, Kansas 64101, Telephone 816-374 -4518.