Graneto Datsun

GRANETO DATSUN Graneto Datsun, A Graneto Company and Automo- tive, Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees Union, Local 618 affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America . Case 14-CA-8194 September 17, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On April 30, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Eu- gene E. Dixon issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Graneto Datsun, A Graneto Company, Manchester, Missouri, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 1 We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that since the issues concerning the Union's status as a labor organization as defined by the Act and the appropriateness of the unit were decided in a prior case involving the same parties , Graneto-Datsun, A Graneto Company, 203 NLRB 550 (1973), they need not be relitigated in this proceeding. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE E. DIXON, Administrative Law Judge: This pro- ceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National La- bor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was heard at St . Louis, Missouri, on March 17, 1975. The complaint, dated February 13, 1975, based upon charges filed and served on October 16, 1974, was issued by the Regional Director for Region 14 (St. Louis, Missou- ri), on behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor 399 Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel and the Board. The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices by failing and refusing to furnish information regarding the wages, hours, and working conditions of its employees relevant and nec- essary to the bargaining representative to enable it to bar- gain effectively with Respondent, thus violating Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. In its duly filed answer Respon- dent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS At all times material Respondent has been a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri. At all times material Respondent has maintained its principal office and place of business in Manchester, Missouri, where it has been engaged in the retail sale of new and used automobiles, automobile parts, and service. During the calendar year 1974 which is a rep- resentative period Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 from the retail sale of new and used automo- biles, automobile parts, and service at its Manchester, Mis- souri, facility. During the same period of time Respondent in the course and conduct of its business operations pur- chased and caused to be transported and delivered to its Manchester, Missouri, place of business, automobiles, and automobile parts and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 of which automobiles and automobile parts valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and de- livered to its place of business in Manchester, Missouri, directly from points outside the State of Missouri. Respon- dent at all times material has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Automotive, Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees Union, Local 618, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and District No. 9, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, at all times material have been labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On May 14, 1973, the Board issued an Order in Case 203 NLRB 550 that Respondent reinstate and make whole cer- tain discharged employees and bargain with Automotive, Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees Union, Local Respondent, as it did in the original case, contends here that District No. 9 is not a labor organization . The Board decided against Respondent there and the matter is thus resjudicaia 220 NLRB No. 60 400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 618, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and District No. 9, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as joint bargaining agent for a unit of Respondent's employees composed of all automobile and truck mechanics and machinists , parts- men, lubrication men, porters , and truckdrivers, excluding salesmen, office clerical and professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act .2 On May 26, 1973, the joint bargaining agent (hereinafter referred to as the Union) requested Respondent to meet for the purpose of collective bargaining pursuant to the Board's Decision and Order. On June 7, 1973, Respondent's attorney re- plied, saying that his client had not yet decided if it was going to comply with the Board's Decision and Order. On September 21, 1973, the General Counsel filed with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals an application for en- forcement of the Board's Order. On December 6, 1973, the Regional Director informed the Board that the Respon- dent was in the process of complying with the Board's Or- der. In this posture the General Counsel on December 11, 1974, filed with the court a motion to withdraw the en- forcement application which motion was granted on De- cember 12, 1974. Thereafter Respondent posted the appropriate notices and offered reinstatement and backpay to two employees as ordered by the Board. On March 6, 1973, the Union wrote a letter to Respondent requesting a meeting for pur- poses of collective bargaining and acknowledging Respondent's compliance . Respondent answered on March 26, 1974, agreeing to meet at a mutually convenient time. Pursuant to further arrangement the parties met on April 10, 1974. At this meeting the Union requested infor- mation from Respondent regarding employee seniority dates, hiring dates, wages, and working conditions, and other fringe benefits enjoyed by the employees . On its part Respondent requested copies of labor agreements to which both unions were presently parties. These were immedi- ately furnished by the respective unions . By letter dated April 15, 1974, the Union confirmed the oral request for information specifically requesting "a current seniority list, prevailing wage rate of all employees in their respective classifications, all other conditions in effect , such as insur- ance, pension plans, holidays, vacations, sick leave, jury duty, company furnished uniforms, profit sharing and hours of work." The letter explained that the foregoing in- formation was necessary to effectively negotiate a contract. On May 20, 1974, the Union followed up its April 15 request by another letter noting the failure to receive a reply to the April 15 request. On May 23, 1974, Respondent's attorney replied that he was awaiting the in- formation himself and would send it as soon as he received it. Finally on July 22, 1974, Respondent's attorney sent a letter containing some of the requested information but failed to give the names of employees in each job classifica- tion, provided no information on overtime, failed to give any details on the life insurance and hospitalization insur- ance provided by Respondent, and failed to give any infor- 2Respondent's dental of the appropnateness of the unit is also res jud:cata. mation concerning seniority, sick leave, jury duty, or profit sharing, and failed to state whether it provided fringe bene- fits other than those specifically requested by the Union. The Union called Respondent's attorney on August 6, 1974, and requested the missing information, explaining that the information supplied was not sufficient to enable the Union to negotiate a contract. The Union confirmed this request in a letter dated August 8, 1974, which specifi- cally requested "information, such as names of employees, their hiring dates, individual rates of pay, paid holidays, if vacations are paid and vacation qualifications, a copy of existing hospitalization and life insurance plans, pension or profit-sharing information, if employees receive sick leave,, jury duty pay, cost of living increases, severance pay, over- time pay, cost of uniforms, and any other gratuities and working conditions which employees enjoy ...." Receiving no response to the August 8, 1974, letter, Lo- cal 618 filed unfair labor practice charges with the Board on October 16, 1974. A settlement agreement in which Re- spondent agreed to provide the Union with the requested information was signed by the parties and subsequently approved by the acting Regional Director on December 13, 1974. On January 27, 1975, the Union wrote a letter re- questing the information specified in the settlement agree- ment. No response was received. On February 7, 1975, the compliance officer for Region 14 informed Respondent's attorney that he was recommending withdrawal of the set- tlement agreement. On February 13, 1975, the Regional Director issued an order revoking the approval of the set- tlement agreement and informing Respondent of such re- vocation. Conclusions Notwithstanding that finally, about a week before the hearing herein, Respondent furnished the requested infor- mation and that "a big part of what was furnished . . . was negative information," on this record I agree with the Gen- eral Counsel that a bargaining order is appropriate here and necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. I so find. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Graneto Datsun, A Graneto Company, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) and (6) of the Act. 2. District No. 9, International Association of Machin- ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and Automotive, Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees Union, Local 618, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All automobile and truck mechanics and machinists, partsmen, lubrication men, porters, and truckdrivers, ex- cluding salesmen, office clerical and professional employ- ees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act em- ployed by Respondent at its Manchester, Missouri, place of business constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes GRANETO DATSUN of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times since May 14, 1973, said labor organiza- tions as joint representative have been the exclusive repre- sentative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By failing and refusing upon request to furnish unit employment information relevant and necessary to the bargaining process Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX5) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Thus it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to bargain with the Union upon request and to cease and desist from refusing to bargain with the Union. Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS Respondent Graneto Datsun, A Graneto Company, Manchester, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with District No. 9, International Association of Machin- ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and Automotive, Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees Union, Local 618, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, as the joint exclusive bargaining representative of all of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit consisting of all automobile and truck mechanics and machinists, partsmen, lubrication men, porters and truckdrivers, ex- cluding salesmen, office clerical and professional employ- ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request furnish unit employment information relevant and necessary to the bargaining process and other- wise bargain collectively with the above-named Unions as the joint exclusive bargaining representative of all Respondent's employees in the above appropriate unit and if an understanding is reached embody such understanding in a signed agreement. 401 (b) Post at its place of business in Manchester, Missouri, copies, of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Cop- ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- rector for Region 14, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive 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 altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respon- dent has taken to comply herewith. 3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 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. 4In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 Dis- trict No. 9, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and Automotive, Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees Union, Lo- cal 618, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, as the joint exclusive-bargaining representa- tive of all our employees in the appropriate unit of all automobile and truck mechanics and machinists, partsmen, lubrication men, porters, and truckdrivers, excluding salesmen, office clercial and professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in Sec- tion 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL, upon request, furnish unit employment in- formation relevant and necesary to the bargaining process and otherwise bargain collectively with the above-named Unions as the joint exclusive bargaining representative of all our employees in the above ap- propriate unit and if an understanding is reached em- body such understanding in a signed agreement. GRANETO DATSUN, A GRANETO COMPANY