Haskins Truck Service

502 - - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Douglas - Haskins, d/b/a Haskins Truck Service and General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 270, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, Ind. Case 15-CA-5540 - - tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority 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 April 22, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Upon a charge filed on December 10, 1974, by Gen- eral Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 270, a/w International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., herein called the Union, and duly served on Douglas Haskins, d/b/a Haskins Truck Service, herein called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 15, issued a complaint on January 7, 1975, against Respondent, alleging that Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair 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 on August 1, 1974, following a Board election in Case 15-RC-5400 the Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the unit found appropriate; and that, commencing on or about August 5, 1974, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative, although the Union has requested and is requesting it to do-so. Re- spondent did not file an answer to the complaint. On January 28, 1975, counsel for the General Coun- sel filed directly with the Board a motion for summary judgment based upon Respondent's failure to file an answer to the complaint as required by Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Subsequently, on February 14, 1975, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a notice to show cause why the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment should not be granted. Respondent failed to file a response to notice to show cause. Pursuant to -the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 'the Na- Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, 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 statement operating as a denial. All allegations in the complaint, if no answer is filed, or any allega- tion in the complaint not specifically denied or explained in an answer filed, unless the respondent shall state in the answer that he is without knowl- edge, shall be deemed to be admitted 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, issued on Janu- ary 7, 1975, and duly served on the Respondent, specifically states that unless an answer to the com- plaint is filed by the Respondent within 10 days of 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." The uncontroverted motion for summary judgment alleges that counsel for the General Counsel sent Re- spondent a telegram on January 21, 1975, requesting that Respondent file its answer by January 23, 1975, and further stated that if no answer was received by said date summary judgment based upon the pleadings would be requested. Despite this communication, no answer had been filed as of January 27, 1975, the date of the General Counsel's motion for summary judg- ment, nor has the Respondent filed a response to the Board's notice to show cause issued on February 14, 1975. No good cause to the contrary having been shown, in accordance with the rule set forth above, the allegations of the complaint are deemed to be admitted 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: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is an individual proprietor doing busi- ness under the trade name and style of Haskins Truck 217 NLRB No. 97 HASKINS TRUCK SERVICE 1 503 Service with his principal office and facility in Metairie, Louisiana, where he is engaged in the business of load- ing, transporting, and unloading mail for the United States Postal Service. During the last 12 months, a representative period, in the course and conduct of its business, Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of $50,000. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respond- ent 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. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED the above-described unit. Commencing on or about August 5, 1974, and continuing at all times thereafter to date, the Respondent has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative for collective bargaining of all employees in said unit.. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has, since August 5, 1974, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 270, a/w International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., is a labor organization 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 consti- tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining pur- poses within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All truck drivers employed by Respondent at its Metairie, Louisiana, facility, exclusive of the me- chanic, all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and/or watchmen, and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. 2. The certification On June 19, 1974, a majority of the employees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election con- ducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 15 designated the Union as their representa- tive for the purpose of collective bargaining with the Respondent. The Union was certified as the collective- bargaining representative of the employees in said unit on August 1, 1974, and the Union continues to be such exclusive representative within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Refusal Commencing on or about August 5, 1974, and at all times thereafter, the Union has requested the Respond- ent to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive col- lective-bargaining representative of all the employees in IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations de- scribed 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 commerce. V THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging 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, bar- gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre- sentative of all employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under- standing in a signed agreement. In order to insure that the employees in the appropri- ate unit will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law, we shall construe the initial period of certification as begin- ning on the date Respondent commences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recognized bargaining representative in the appropriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Com= merce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett Construction Com- pany, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10, 1965). The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record, makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Douglas Haskins, d/b/a Haskins Truck Service, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 504 DECISIONS QF'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers, Local No. 270, a/w International Brotherhood,of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, Ind., is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All truckdrivers employed by Respondent at its Metairie, Louisiana, facility, exclusive of the mechanic, all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and/or watchmen, 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 August 1, 1974, the above-named labor or- ganization has been and now is the certified and exclu- sive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing on or about August 5, 1974, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above- named labor organization 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 in- terfering with, restraining, and coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engag- ing 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. employees, guards and/or watchmen, and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restaining, 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) Upon request, bargain with the above-named la- bor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with re- spect to rates-of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed-agree- ment. (b) Post at its Metairie, Louisiana, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc- tor for Region 15, after being duly signed by Respon- dent'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 al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. t 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." ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Douglas Has- kins, d/b/a Haskins Truck Service, Metairie, Louisi- ana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with General Truck Drivers, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 270, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit: All truck drivers employed by Respondent at its Metairie, Louisiana, facility, exclusive of the me- -chanic, all office clerical employees, professional 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 con- cerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 270, a/w International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. HASKINS TRUCK SERVICE 505 WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above- named Union, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below, with respect to rates of pay , wages, -hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under- standing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is All truck drivers employed by'Respondent at its Metairie, Louisiana, facility, exclusive of the mechanic, all office clerical employees, profes- sional employees, guards and/or watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. DOUGLAS HASKINS, d/b/a HASKINS TRUCK SERVICE