Unique Handicraft Corp.

930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Unique Handicraft Corp. and Local 1814, Interna- Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on October 7, tional Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO. 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the Case 29-CA-8998 proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show January 7, 1982 Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent DECISION AND ORDER thereafter filed a brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the ZIMMERMAN National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- Upon a charge filed on July 6, 1981, by Local tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- 1814, International Longshoremen's Association, thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and duly Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the served on Unique Handicraft Corp., herein called Board makes the following: Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Motion for Summary Judgment Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 29, issued a complaint on August 11, In its answer to the complaint Respondent affir- 1981, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent matively pleads that it is under no duty to recog- had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor nize and bargain with the Union because the practices affecting commerce within the meaning Union's certification is based upon an election of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) which should have been set aside due to a misrep- of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. resentation by the Union and the Union's designa- Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of tion of an ineligible person to act as its election ob- hearing before an administrative law judge were server. duly served on the parties to this proceeding. Respondent reiterates these contentions in its With respect to the unfair labor practices, the brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion complaint alleges in substance that on May 27, for Summary Judgment and essentially repeats the 1981, following a Board election in Case 29-RC- arguments made in its exceptions to the Regional 5202, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive Director's Report on Objections in the underlying collective-bargaining representative of Respond- representation case. The General Counsel contends ent's employees in the unit found appropriate;' and that Respondent admits the material allegations of that, commencing on various dates since May 27, the complaint and is merely attempting to relitigate 1981, including particularly June 2 and 15 and July issues which were or could have been disposed of 8, 1981, Respondent has refused, and continues to in the underlying representation case. We agree date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the with the General Counsel. Union as the exclusive bargaining representative, Our review of the record, including the record although the Union has requested and is requesting in the underlying representation case (Case 29-RC- it to do so. On August 20 and September 23, 1981, 5202), reveals that pursuant to a Stipulation for Respondent filed its answer and amended answer Certification an election was conducted on Decem- to the complaint admitting in part, and denying in ber 5, 1980, in a unit of all warehousemen em- part, the allegations in the complaint. Specifically ployed by Respondent at its premises located at Respondent admits that it refused to bargain collec- 37-11 48th Avenue, Long Island City, New York, tively with the Union commencing on the various including packers, pickers and shipping clerks, and dates alleged in the complaint. In addition, Re- excluding all office clerical employees, guards and spondent stated by letter dated June 11, 1981, that supervisors as defined in the Act. The tally of bal- it declined the Union's request to begin collective- lots indicated nine votes for the Union and eight bargaining negotiations on the basis of its belief votes against; there were no challenged ballots. Re- that the certification of the Union is invalid. spondent filed timely objections alleging (1) the On October 1, 1981, counsel for the General Union improperly designated Robert Evans as an Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for observer since he was not an employee at the time of the election; (2) the Union distributed a letter 'Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, which misrepresented the nature of a Board settle- Case 29-RC-5202, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and ment in Case 29-CA-7986; and (3) the list of eligi- 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electrosystems Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th ble employees failed to include the name of em- Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 ployee Robert Limehouse, an eligible employee, F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 i mehousee (D.C.Va. 1967); Folletr Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 and Limehouse therefore was deprived of his right (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. to vote. On January 16, 1981, the Regional Direc- 259 NLRB No. 119 930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Unique Handicraft Corp. and Local 1814, Interna- Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on October 7, tional Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO. 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the Case 29-CA-8998 proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show January 7, 1982 Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent DECISION AND ORDER thereafter filed a brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the ZIMMERMAN National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- Upon a charge filed on July 6, 1981, by Local t i o n a l Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- 1814, International Longshoremen's Association, thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and duly UpOn t h e e n t i re record in this proceeding, the served on Unique Handicraft Corp., herein called B o a rd m a k es t h e following: Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 29, issued a complaint on August 11, In its answer to the complaint Respondent affir- 1981, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent matively pleads that it is under no duty to recog- had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor nize and bargain with the Union because the practices affecting commerce within the meaning Union's certification is based upon an election of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) which should have been set aside due to a misrep- of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. resentation by the Union and the Union's designa- Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of tion of an ineligible person to act as its election ob- hearing before an administrative law judge were server. duly served on the parties to this proceeding. Respondent reiterates these contentions in its With respect to the unfair labor practices, the brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion complaint alleges in substance that on May 27, for Summary Judgment and essentially repeats the 1981, following a Board election in Case 29-RC- arguments made in its exceptions to the Regional 5202, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive Director's Report on Objections in the underlying collective-bargaining representative of Respond- representation case. The General Counsel contends ent's employees in the unit found appropriate;' and that Respondent admits the material allegations of that, commencing on various dates since May 27, the complaint and is merely attempting to relitigate 1981, including particularly June 2 and 15 and July issues which were or could have been disposed of 8, 1981, Respondent has refused, and continues to in the underlying representation case. We agree date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the with the General Counsel. Union as the exclusive bargaining representative, Our review of the record, including the record although the Union has requested and is requesting in the underlying representation case (Case 29-RC- it to do so. On August 20 and September 23, 1981, 5202), reveals that pursuant to a Stipulation for Respondent filed its answer and amended answer Certification an election was conducted on Decem- to the complaint admitting in part, and denying in ber 5, 1980, in a unit of all warehousemen em- part, the allegations in the complaint. Specifically ployed by Respondent at its premises located at Respondent admits that it refused to bargain collec- 37-11 48th Avenue, Long Island City, New York, tively with the Union commencing on the various including packers, pickers and shipping clerks, and dates alleged in the complaint. In addition, Re- excluding all office clerical employees, guards and spondent stated by letter dated June 11, 1981, that supervisors as defined in the Act. The tally of bal- it declined the Union's request to begin collective- lots indicated nine votes for the Union and eight bargaining negotiations on the basis of its belief votes against; there were no challenged ballots. Re- that the certification of the Union is invalid. spondent filed timely objections alleging (1) the On October 1, 1981, counsel for the General Union improperly designated Robert Evans as an Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for observer since he was not an employee at the time of the election; (2) the Union distributed a letter ' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, which misrepresented the nature of a Board Settle- Case 29-RC-5202, as the term "record" is defined in Sees. 102.68 and ment in Case 29-CA-7986; and (3) the list of eligi- 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th ble employees failed to include the name of em- Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967). enfd. 415ployee Robert Limehouse, an eligible employee, F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penelh, 269 F.Supp. 573 lo Rb Li mehouse * . e an eligible em plo re (D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 a n d Limehouse therefore was deprived of his right (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended,.to vote. On January 16, 1981, the Regional Direc- 259 NLRB No. 119 930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Unique Handicraft Corp. and Local 1814, Interna- Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on October 7, tional Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO. 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the Case 29-CA-8998 proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show January 7, 1982 Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent DECISION AND ORDER thereafter filed a brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the ZIMMERMAN National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- Upon a charge filed on July 6, 1981, by Local t i o n a l Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- 1814, International Longshoremen's Association, thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and duly UpOn the e n t i re record in this proceeding, the served on Unique Handicraft Corp., herein called B o a rd m a k es t h e following: Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 29, issued a complaint on August 11, In its answer to the complaint Respondent affir- 1981, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent matively pleads that it is under no duty to recog- had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor nize and bargain with the Union because the practices affecting commerce within the meaning Union's certification is based upon an election of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) which should have been set aside due to a misrep- of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. resentation by the Union and the Union's designa- Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of tion of an ineligible person to act as its election ob- hearing before an administrative law judge were server. duly served on the parties to this proceeding. Respondent reiterates these contentions in its With respect to the unfair labor practices, the brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion complaint alleges in substance that on May 27, for Summary Judgment and essentially repeats the 1981, following a Board election in Case 29-RC- arguments made in its exceptions to the Regional 5202, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive Director's Report on Objections in the underlying collective-bargaining representative of Respond- representation case. The General Counsel contends ent's employees in the unit found appropriate;' and that Respondent admits the material allegations of that, commencing on various dates since May 27, the complaint and is merely attempting to relitigate 1981, including particularly June 2 and 15 and July issues which were or could have been disposed of 8, 1981, Respondent has refused, and continues to in the underlying representation case. We agree date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the with the General Counsel. Union as the exclusive bargaining representative, Our review of the record, including the record although the Union has requested and is requesting in the underlying representation case (Case 29-RC- it to do so. On August 20 and September 23, 1981, 5202), reveals that pursuant to a Stipulation for Respondent filed its answer and amended answer Certification an election was conducted on Decem- to the complaint admitting in part, and denying in ber 5, 1980, in a unit of all warehousemen em- part, the allegations in the complaint. Specifically ployed by Respondent at its premises located at Respondent admits that it refused to bargain collec- 37-11 48th Avenue, Long Island City, New York, tively with the Union commencing on the various including packers, pickers and shipping clerks, and dates alleged in the complaint. In addition, Re- excluding all office clerical employees, guards and spondent stated by letter dated June 11, 1981, that supervisors as defined in the Act. The tally of bal- it declined the Union's request to begin collective- lots indicated nine votes for the Union and eight bargaining negotiations on the basis of its belief votes against; there were no challenged ballots. Re- that the certification of the Union is invalid. spondent filed timely objections alleging (1) the On October 1, 1981, counsel for the General Union improperly designated Robert Evans as an Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for observer since he was not an employee at the time of the election; (2) the Union distributed a letter ' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, which misrepresented the nature of a Board Settle- Case 29-RC-5202, as the term "record" is defined in Sees. 102.68 and ment in Case 29-CA-7986; and (3) the list of eligi- 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th ble employees failed to include the name of em- Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967). enfd. 415ployee Robert Limehouse, an eligible employee, F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penelh, 269 F.Supp. 573 lo Rb Li mehouse * . e an eligible em plo re (D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 a n d Limehouse therefore was deprived of his right (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended,.to vote. On January 16, 1981, the Regional Direc- 259 NLRB No. 119 930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Unique Handicraft Corp. and Local 1814, Interna- Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on October 7, tional Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO. 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the Case 29-CA-8998 proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show January 7, 1982 Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent DECISION AND ORDER thereafter filed a brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the ZIMMERMAN National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- Upon a charge filed on July 6, 1981, by Local t i o n a l Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- 1814, International Longshoremen's Association, thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and duly UpOn the e n t i re record in this proceeding, the served on Unique Handicraft Corp., herein called B o a rd m a k es t h e following: Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 29, issued a complaint on August 11, In its answer to the complaint Respondent affir- 1981, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent matively pleads that it is under no duty to recog- had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor nize and bargain with the Union because the practices affecting commerce within the meaning Union's certification is based upon an election of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) which should have been set aside due to a misrep- of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. resentation by the Union and the Union's designa- Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of tion of an ineligible person to act as its election ob- hearing before an administrative law judge were server. duly served on the parties to this proceeding. Respondent reiterates these contentions in its With respect to the unfair labor practices, the brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion complaint alleges in substance that on May 27, for Summary Judgment and essentially repeats the 1981, following a Board election in Case 29-RC- arguments made in its exceptions to the Regional 5202, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive Director's Report on Objections in the underlying collective-bargaining representative of Respond- representation case. The General Counsel contends ent's employees in the unit found appropriate;' and that Respondent admits the material allegations of that, commencing on various dates since May 27, the complaint and is merely attempting to relitigate 1981, including particularly June 2 and 15 and July issues which were or could have been disposed of 8, 1981, Respondent has refused, and continues to in the underlying representation case. We agree date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the with the General Counsel. Union as the exclusive bargaining representative, Our review of the record, including the record although the Union has requested and is requesting in the underlying representation case (Case 29-RC- it to do so. On August 20 and September 23, 1981, 5202), reveals that pursuant to a Stipulation for Respondent filed its answer and amended answer Certification an election was conducted on Decem- to the complaint admitting in part, and denying in ber 5, 1980, in a unit of all warehousemen em- part, the allegations in the complaint. Specifically ployed by Respondent at its premises located at Respondent admits that it refused to bargain collec- 37-11 48th Avenue, Long Island City, New York, tively with the Union commencing on the various including packers, pickers and shipping clerks, and dates alleged in the complaint. In addition, Re- excluding all office clerical employees, guards and spondent stated by letter dated June 11, 1981, that supervisors as defined in the Act. The tally of bal- it declined the Union's request to begin collective- lots indicated nine votes for the Union and eight bargaining negotiations on the basis of its belief votes against; there were no challenged ballots. Re- that the certification of the Union is invalid. spondent filed timely objections alleging (1) the On October 1, 1981, counsel for the General Union improperly designated Robert Evans as an Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for observer since he was not an employee at the time of the election; (2) the Union distributed a letter ' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, which misrepresented the nature of a Board Settle- Case 29-RC-5202, as the term "record" is defined in Sees. 102.68 and ment in Case 29-CA-7986; and (3) the list of eligi- 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th ble employees failed to include the name of em- Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967). enfd. 415ployee Robert Limehouse, an eligible employee, F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penelh, 269 F.Supp. 573 lo Rb Li mehouse * . e an eligible em plo re (D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 a n d Limehouse therefore was deprived of his right (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended,.to vote. On January 16, 1981, the Regional Direc- 259 NLRB No. 119 UNIQUE HANDICRAFT CORP. 931 tor for Region 29 issued his Report on Objections warehousing, sale, and distribution of decorative in which he overruled the Employer's objections in housewares and related products. During the past their entirety and recommended that a certification year, a representative period, Respondent in the of representative issue. On January 23, 1981, Re- course and conduct of its business operations pur- spondent filed with the Board exceptions to the chased and caused to be transported and delivered Regional Director's report arguing that the Re- to its Queens warehouse brass ornaments and relat- gional Director erred in overruling Employer's Ob- ed products and other goods and materials valued jections I and 2 above because, inter alia, he failed in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials to acknowledge that a copy of the Board's settle- valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and ment notice was attached to the Union's letter. On delivered to its Queens warehouse in interstate May 27, 1981, the Board issued a Decision and commerce directly from States of the United States Certification of Representative (not published in other than the State of New York, and from for- bound volumes) in which it adopted the Regional en contre Director's report overruling the Employer's Objec- r. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- tions 1, 2, and 3 above. Therein the Board specifi- spondent is theas been at all ti at Rer cally found no merit to the Employer's contention spnent is and has been at al times mateial that the Regional Director erred by failing to refer herein, an employer engaged in commerce within to a Board settlement notice attached to the the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and to a Board settlement notice attached to the Union's campaign letter at issue in the Employer's that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to Objection 2 because, if anything, the attachment re- assert jurisdiction herein. inforced the Regional Director's finding that there. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED had been no substantial misrepresentation of the Board document. It thus appears that Respondent Local 1814, International Longshoremen's Asso- is attempting to relitigate matters which were or ciation, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within could have been heard and determined in the rep- the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. resentation proceeding. It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- II1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- A. The Representtion Proceeding cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled 1. The unit to relitigate issues which were or could have been litigated in a prior representation proceeding. The following employees of Respondent consti- All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining ing were or could have been litigated in the prior purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the representation proceeding, and Respondent does Act: not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- All warehousemen employed by the Respond- ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does ent at its premises located at 37-11 48th it allege that any special circumstances exist herein Avenue, Long Island City, New York, includ- which would require the Board to reexamine the ing packers, pickers and shipping clerks, ex- decision made in the representation proceeding. We cluding all office clerical employees, guards therefore find that Respondent has not raised any and supervisors as defined in the Act. issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the 2. The certification Motion for Summary Judgment. On the basis of the entire record, the Board On December 5, 1980, a majority of the employ- makes the following: ees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election conducted under the supervision of the FINDINGS OF FACT Regional Director for Region 29, designated the Union as their representative for the purpose of I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT . . . collective bargaining with Respondent. Respondent, a corporation organized under the The Union was certified as the collective-bar- laws of the State of New York, operates a facility gaining representative of the employees in said unit located at 47-09 30th Street in the Borough of on May 27, 1981, and the Union continues to be Queens, New York, where it is engaged in the such exclusive representative within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. ' See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Ca v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f and 102.69(c). UNIQUE HANDICRAFT CORP. 931 tor for Region 29 issued his Report on Objections warehousing, sale, and distribution of decorative in which he overruled the Employer's objections in housewares and related products. During the past their entirety and recommended that a certification year, a representative period, Respondent in the of representative issue. On January 23, 1981, Re- course and conduct of its business operations pur- spondent filed with the Board exceptions to the chased and caused to be transported and delivered Regional Director's report arguing that the Re- to its Queens warehouse brass ornaments and relat- gional Director erred in overruling Employer's Ob- ed products and other goods and materials valued jections 1 and 2 above because, inter alia, he failed in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials to acknowledge that a copy of the Board's settle- valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and ment notice was attached to the Union's letter. On delivered to its Queens warehouse in interstate May 27, 1981, the Board issued a Decision and commerce directly from States of the United States Certification of Representative (not published in other than the State of New York, and from for- bound volumes) in which it adopted the Regional e . Director's report overruling the Employer's Objec- W f o the is o the r t Re- tions 1, 2, and 3 above. Therein the Board specifi- p e is, °n h a s b e at a i at er cally found no merit to the Employer's contention hpereint , s, a n d h a s b ee n g a t a i n t c m e s m a te wt a l that the Regional Director erred by failing to refer h er e a n, a " employer engaged in commerce within to a Board settlement notice attached to the the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. and Union's campaign letter at issue in the Employer's th at it w ill effectuate the policies of the Act to Objection 2 because, if anything, the attachment re- asser t Jurisdiction herein. inforced the Regional Director's finding that there 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED had been no substantial misrepresentation of the Board document. It thus appears that Respondent Local 1814, International Longshoremen's Asso- is attempting to relitigate matters which were or ciation, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within could have been heard and determined in the rep- the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. resentation proceeding. It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- III. T H E UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- A. The Representation Proceeding cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled 1. The unit to relitigate issues which were or could have been T f e of R c litigated in a prior representation proceeding.2 r h € following employees of Respondent consti- All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- tu te a u n it appropriate for collective-bargaining ing were or could have been litigated in the prior purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the representation proceeding, and Respondent does Ac t : not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- All warehousemen employed by the Respond- ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does ent at its premises located at 37-11 48th it allege that any special circumstances exist herein Avenue, Long Island City, New York, includ- which would require the Board to reexamine the ing packers, pickers and shipping clerks, ex- decision made in the representation proceeding. We eluding all office clerical employees, guards therefore find that Respondent has not raised any and supervisors as defined in the Act. issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the 2. The certification Motion for Summary Judgment. __ . ,,,a> ** ri On the basis of the entire record, the Board On December 5, 1980, a majority of the employ- makes s of following: ees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election conducted under the supervision of the FINDINGS OF FACT Regional Director for Region 29, designated the Union as their representative for the purpose of I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT . ' .. ,. collective bargaining with Respondent. Respondent, a corporation organized under the The Union was certified as the collective-bar- laws of the State of New York, operates a facility gaining representative of the employees in said unit located at 47-09 30th Street in the Borough of on May 27, 1981, and the Union continues to be Queens, New York, where it is engaged in the such exclusive representative within the meaning of ------ ~~~~~~~~~~~Section 9(a) of the Act. ' See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Ca v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(0 and 102.69(c). UNIQUE HANDICRAFT CORP. 931 tor for Region 29 issued his Report on Objections warehousing, sale, and distribution of decorative in which he overruled the Employer's objections in housewares and related products. During the past their entirety and recommended that a certification year, a representative period, Respondent in the of representative issue. On January 23, 1981, Re- course and conduct of its business operations pur- spondent filed with the Board exceptions to the chased and caused to be transported and delivered Regional Director's report arguing that the Re- to its Queens warehouse brass ornaments and relat- gional Director erred in overruling Employer's Ob- ed products and other goods and materials valued jections 1 and 2 above because, inter alia, he failed in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials to acknowledge that a copy of the Board's settle- valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and ment notice was attached to the Union's letter. On delivered to its Queens warehouse in interstate May 27, 1981, the Board issued a Decision and commerce directly from States of the United States Certification of Representative (not published in other than the State of New York, and from for- bound volumes) in which it adopted the Regional e . Director's report overruling the Employer's Objec- W f o the is o the r t Re- tions 1, 2, and 3 above. Therein the Board specifi- p e is, °n h a s b e at a i at er cally found no merit to the Employer's contention hpereint , s, a n d h a s b ee n g a t a i n t c m e s m a te wt a l that the Regional Director erred by failing to refer h er e a n, a " employer engaged in commerce within to a Board settlement notice attached to the the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. and Union's campaign letter at issue in the Employer's th at it w ill effectuate the policies of the Act to Objection 2 because, if anything, the attachment re- asser t Jurisdiction herein. inforced the Regional Director's finding that there 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED had been no substantial misrepresentation of the Board document. It thus appears that Respondent Local 1814, International Longshoremen's Asso- is attempting to relitigate matters which were or ciation, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within could have been heard and determined in the rep- the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. resentation proceeding. It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- III. T H E UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- A. The Representation Proceeding cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled 1. The unit to relitigate issues which were or could have been T f e of R c litigated in a prior representation proceeding.2 r h € following employees of Respondent consti- All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- tu te a u n it appropriate for collective-bargaining ing were or could have been litigated in the prior purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the representation proceeding, and Respondent does Ac t : not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- All warehousemen employed by the Respond- ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does ent at its premises located at 37-11 48th it allege that any special circumstances exist herein Avenue, Long Island City, New York, includ- which would require the Board to reexamine the ing packers, pickers and shipping clerks, ex- decision made in the representation proceeding. We eluding all office clerical employees, guards therefore find that Respondent has not raised any and supervisors as defined in the Act. issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the 2. The certification Motion for Summary Judgment. __ . ,,,a> ** ri On the basis of the entire record, the Board On December 5, 1980, a majority of the employ- makes s of following: ees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election conducted under the supervision of the FINDINGS OF FACT Regional Director for Region 29, designated the Union as their representative for the purpose of I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT . ' .. ,. collective bargaining with Respondent. Respondent, a corporation organized under the The Union was certified as the collective-bar- laws of the State of New York, operates a facility gaining representative of the employees in said unit located at 47-09 30th Street in the Borough of on May 27, 1981, and the Union continues to be Queens, New York, where it is engaged in the such exclusive representative within the meaning of ------ ~~~~~~~~~~~Section 9(a) of the Act. ' See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Ca v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(0 and 102.69(c). UNIQUE HANDICRAFT CORP. 931 tor for Region 29 issued his Report on Objections warehousing, sale, and distribution of decorative in which he overruled the Employer's objections in housewares and related products. During the past their entirety and recommended that a certification year, a representative period, Respondent in the of representative issue. On January 23, 1981, Re- course and conduct of its business operations pur- spondent filed with the Board exceptions to the chased and caused to be transported and delivered Regional Director's report arguing that the Re- to its Queens warehouse brass ornaments and relat- gional Director erred in overruling Employer's Ob- ed products and other goods and materials valued jections 1 and 2 above because, inter alia, he failed in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials to acknowledge that a copy of the Board's settle- valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and ment notice was attached to the Union's letter. On delivered to its Queens warehouse in interstate May 27, 1981, the Board issued a Decision and commerce directly from States of the United States Certification of Representative (not published in other than the State of New York, and from for- bound volumes) in which it adopted the Regional e . Director's report overruling the Employer's Objec- on the basi o the r t Re- tions 1, 2, and 3 above. Therein the Board specifi- p e is, °n h a s b e at a i at er cally found no merit to the Employer's contention hpereint , s, a n d h a s b ee n g a t a i n t c m e s m a te wt a l that the Regional Director erred by failing to refer h er e a n, a " employer engaged in commerce within to a Board settlement notice attached to the the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. and Union's campaign letter at issue in the Employer's th at it w ill effectuate the policies of the Act to Objection 2 because, if anything, the attachment re- assert Jurisdiction herein. inforced the Regional Director's finding that there 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED had been no substantial misrepresentation of the Board document. It thus appears that Respondent Local 1814, International Longshoremen's Asso- is attempting to relitigate matters which were or ciation, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within could have been heard and determined in the rep- the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. resentation proceeding. It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- III. T H E UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- A. The Representation Proceeding cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled 1. The unit to relitigate issues which were or could have been T f e of R c litigated in a prior representation proceeding.2 r h € following employees of Respondent consti- All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- tu te a u n it appropriate for collective-bargaining ing were or could have been litigated in the prior purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the representation proceeding, and Respondent does Ac t : not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- All warehousemen employed by the Respond- ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does ent at its premises located at 37-11 48th it allege that any special circumstances exist herein Avenue, Long Island City, New York, includ- which would require the Board to reexamine the ing packers, pickers and shipping clerks, ex- decision made in the representation proceeding. We eluding all office clerical employees, guards therefore find that Respondent has not raised any and supervisors as defined in the Act. issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the 2. The certification Motion for Summary Judgment. __ . ,,,a> ** ri On the basis of the entire record, the Board On December 5, 1980, a majority of the employ- makes s of following: ees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election conducted under the supervision of the FINDINGS OF FACT Regional Director for Region 29, designated the Union as their representative for the purpose of I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT . ' .. ,. collective bargaining with Respondent. Respondent, a corporation organized under the The Union was certified as the collective-bar- laws of the State of New York, operates a facility gaining representative of the employees in said unit located at 47-09 30th Street in the Borough of on May 27, 1981, and the Union continues to be Queens, New York, where it is engaged in the such exclusive representative within the meaning of ------ ~~~~~~~~~~~Section 9(a) of the Act. ' See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Ca v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(0 and 102.69(c). 932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; Refusal Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, Commencing on various dates since May 27, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). 1981, including particularly June 2 and 15 and July The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts 8, 1981, and at all times thereafter, the Union has and the entire record, makes the following: requested Respondent to bargain collectively with CONCLUSIONS OF LAW it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of all the employees in the above-described 1. Unique Handicraft Corp. is an employer en- unit. gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section Commencing on various dates since May 27, 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1981, including particularly June 2 and 15 and July 2. Local 1814, International Longshoremen's As- 8, 1981, and continuing at all times thereafter to sociation, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within date, Respondent has refused, and continues to the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. refuse, to recognize and bargain with the Union as 3. All warehousemen employed by Respondent the exclusive representative for collective bargain- at its premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, Long ing of all employees in said unit. Island City, New York, including packers, pickers Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since and shipping clerks, excluding all office clerical May 27, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes sive representative of the employees in the appro- of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- priate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent tion 9(b) of the Act. has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- 4. Since May 27, 1981, the above-named labor tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) organization has been and now is the certified and of the Act. exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE of the Act. The activities of Respondent set forth in section 5. By refusing on or about May 27, 1981, and at III, above, occurring in connection with its oper- all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the ations described in section I, above, have a close, above-named labor organization as the exclusive intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- bargaining representative of all the employees of fic, and commerce among the several States and Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- structing commerce and the free flow of com- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the merce. Act. 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- V. THE REMEDY ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices upon request, bargain collectively with the Union within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. as the exclusive representative of all employees in 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is labor practices affecting commerce within the reached, embody such understanding in a signed meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. agreement. In order to insure that the employees in the ap- OR propriate unit will be accorded the services of their Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor selected bargaining agent for the period provided Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- Unique Handicraft Corp., Long Island City, New mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- shall: propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 1. Cease and desist from: 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and 932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; Refusal Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, Commencing on various dates since May 27, 14 2 1 ( 19 6 4), en f d . 3 50 F. 2 d 5 7 (1Ot h Ci r . 19 6 5). 1981, including particularly June 2 and 15 and July T h e B o a r d , upon t h e b a sis o f t h e foregoing facts 8, 1981, and at all times thereafter, the Union has a n d t h e en tir e re c o r d , m a k e s t h e following: requested Respondent to bargain collectively with CONCLUSIONS OF LAW it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of all the employees in the above-described 1. Unique Handicraft Corp. is an employer en- unit. gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section Commencing on various dates since May 27, 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1981, including particularly June 2 and 15 and July 2. Local 1814, International Longshoremen's As- 8, 1981, and continuing at all times thereafter to sociation, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within date, Respondent has refused, and continues to the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. refuse, to recognize and bargain with the Union as 3. All warehousemen employed by Respondent the exclusive representative for collective bargain- at its premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, Long ing of all employees in said unit. Island City, New York, including packers, pickers Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since and shipping clerks, excluding all office clerical May 27, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes sive representative of the employees in the appro- of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- priate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent tion 9(b) of the Act. has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- 4. Since May 27, 1981, the above-named labor tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) organization has been and now is the certified and of the Act. exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE of the Act. The activities of Respondent set forth in section 5. By refusing on or about May 27, 1981, and at III, above, occurring in connection with its oper- all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the ations described in section I, above, have a close, above-named labor organization as the exclusive intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- bargaining representative of all the employees of fic, and commerce among the several States and Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- structing commerce and the free flow of com- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the merce. Act. 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- V. THE REMEDY ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices upon request, bargain collectively with the Union within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. as the exclusive representative of all employees in 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is labor practices affecting commerce within the reached, embody such understanding in a signed meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. agreement.ORDER In order to insure that the employees in the ap- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor selected bargaining agent for the period provided Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- Unique Handicraft Corp., Long Island City, New mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- shall: propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 1. Cease and desist from: 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and 932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; Refusal Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, Commencing on various dates since May 27, 14 2 1 ( 19 6 4), en f d . 3 50 F. 2 d 5 7 (1Ot h Ci r . 19 6 5). 1981, including particularly June 2 and 15 and July T h e B o a r d , upon t h e b a sis o f t h e foregoing facts 8, 1981, and at all times thereafter, the Union has a n d t h e en tir e re c o r d , m a k e s t h e following: requested Respondent to bargain collectively with CONCLUSIONS OF LAW it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of all the employees in the above-described 1. Unique Handicraft Corp. is an employer en- unit. gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section Commencing on various dates since May 27, 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1981, including particularly June 2 and 15 and July 2. Local 1814, International Longshoremen's As- 8, 1981, and continuing at all times thereafter to sociation, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within date, Respondent has refused, and continues to the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. refuse, to recognize and bargain with the Union as 3. All warehousemen employed by Respondent the exclusive representative for collective bargain- at its premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, Long ing of all employees in said unit. Island City, New York, including packers, pickers Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since and shipping clerks, excluding all office clerical May 27, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes sive representative of the employees in the appro- of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- priate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent tion 9(b) of the Act. has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- 4. Since May 27, 1981, the above-named labor tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) organization has been and now is the certified and of the Act. exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE of the Act. The activities of Respondent set forth in section 5. By refusing on or about May 27, 1981, and at III, above, occurring in connection with its oper- all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the ations described in section I, above, have a close, above-named labor organization as the exclusive intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- bargaining representative of all the employees of fic, and commerce among the several States and Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- structing commerce and the free flow of com- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the merce. Act. 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- V. THE REMEDY ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices upon request, bargain collectively with the Union within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. as the exclusive representative of all employees in 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is labor practices affecting commerce within the reached, embody such understanding in a signed meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. agreement.ORDER In order to insure that the employees in the ap- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor selected bargaining agent for the period provided Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- Unique Handicraft Corp., Long Island City, New mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- shall: propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., \. Cease and desist from: 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and 932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; Refusal Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, Commencing on various dates since May 27, 14 2 1 ( 19 6 4), en f d . 3 50 F. 2 d 5 7 (1Ot h Ci r . 19 6 5). 1981, including particularly June 2 and 15 and July T h e B o a r d , upon t h e b a sis o f t h e foregoing facts 8, 1981, and at all times thereafter, the Union has a n d t h e en tir e re c o r d , m a k e s t h e following: requested Respondent to bargain collectively with CONCLUSIONS OF LAW it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of all the employees in the above-described 1. Unique Handicraft Corp. is an employer en- unit. gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section Commencing on various dates since May 27, 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1981, including particularly June 2 and 15 and July 2. Local 1814, International Longshoremen's As- 8, 1981, and continuing at all times thereafter to sociation, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within date, Respondent has refused, and continues to the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. refuse, to recognize and bargain with the Union as 3. All warehousemen employed by Respondent the exclusive representative for collective bargain- at its premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, Long ing of all employees in said unit. Island City, New York, including packers, pickers Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since and shipping clerks, excluding all office clerical May 27, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes sive representative of the employees in the appro- of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- priate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent tion 9(b) of the Act. has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- 4. Since May 27, 1981, the above-named labor tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) organization has been and now is the certified and of the Act. exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE of the Act. The activities of Respondent set forth in section 5. By refusing on or about May 27, 1981, and at III, above, occurring in connection with its oper- all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the ations described in section I, above, have a close, above-named labor organization as the exclusive intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- bargaining representative of all the employees of fic, and commerce among the several States and Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- structing commerce and the free flow of com- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the merce. Act. 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- V. THE REMEDY ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices upon request, bargain collectively with the Union within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. as the exclusive representative of all employees in 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is labor practices affecting commerce within the reached, embody such understanding in a signed meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. agreement.ORDER In order to insure that the employees in the ap- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor selected bargaining agent for the period provided Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- Unique Handicraft Corp., Long Island City, New mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- shall: propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., \. Cease and desist from: 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and UNIQUE HANDICRAFT CORP. 933 conditions of employment with Local 1814, Inter- by Respondent to insure that said notices are not national Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, ployees in the following appropriate unit: in writing, within 20 days from the date of this All warehousemen employed by Respondent Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- All warehousemen employed by Respondent th at its premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, Long Island City, New York, including pack- APPENDIX ers, pickers and shipping clerks, excluding all office clerical employees, guards and supervi- NOTICE To EMPLOYEES sors as defined in the Act. POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) In any like or related manner interfering An Agency of the United States Government with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively the Act. concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and 2. Take the following affirmative action which other terms and conditions of employment the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the with Local 1814, International Longshore- Act: men's Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named representative of the employees in the bargain- labor organization as the exclusive representative ing unit described below. of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- other terms and conditions of employment and, if ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed an understanding is reached, embody such under- them by Section 7 of the Act. standing in a signed agreement. WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the (b) Post at Respondent's Queens, New York, fa- above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- cility copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- sentative of all employees in the bargaining pendix." 3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided unit described below, with respect to rates of by the Regional Director for Region 29, after pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- being duly signed by Respondent's representative, tions of employment and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon s r ea c h e d embody such understanding in a receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- All warehousemen employed by us at our cluding all places where notices to employees are premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken Long Island City, New York, including packers, pickers and shipping clerks, exclud- 'In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United ing all office clerical employees, guards and States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by supervisors as defined in the Act. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." UNIQUE HANDICRAF CORP. UNIQUE HANDICRAFT CORP. 933 conditions of employment with Local 1814, Inter- by Respondent to insure that said notices are not national Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, ployees in the following appropriate unit: in writing, within 20 days from the date of this All warehousemen employed by Respondent Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- All warehousemen employed by Respondent wth. at its premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, Long Island City, New York, including pack- APPENDIX ers, pickers and shipping clerks, excluding all office clerical employees, guards and supervi-PNOTICE To ERMPLOYEES sors as defined in the Act.,, PSE YODRO H NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) In any like or related manner interfering An Agency of the United States Government with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively the Act. concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and 2. Take the following affirmative action which other terms and conditions of employment the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the with Local 1814, International Longshore- Act: men's Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named representative of the employees in the bargain- labor organization as the exclusive representative ing unit described below. of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit W E W ILL NOT in any like or related manner with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- other terms and conditions of employment and, if ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed an understanding is reached, embody such under- them by Section 7 of the Act. standing in a signed agreement. W E W IL L, upon request, bargain with the (b) Post at Respondent's Queens, New York, fa- above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- cility copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- sentative of all employees in the bargaining pendix."3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided u nit described below, with respect to rates of by the Regional Director for Region 29, after pay, wages, h o u r s, an d o th e r terms and condi- being duly signed by Respondent's representative, t io n s o f employment and if an understanding shall be posted by Respondent immediately uponi s r ea c h e d, embody such understanding in a receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- s n e d agreement. The bargaining unit is: secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- All warehousemen employed by us at our eluding all places where notices to employees are premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken Long Island City, New York, including packers, pickers and shipping clerks, exclud- 'In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United ing all office clerical employees, guards and States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by supervisors as defined in the Act. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." UNIQUE HANDICRAFT CORP. UNIQUE HANDICRAFT CORP. 933 conditions of employment with Local 1814, Inter- by Respondent to insure that said notices are not national Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, ployees in the following appropriate unit: in writing, within 20 days from the date of this All warehousemen employed by Respondent Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- All warehousemen employed by Respondent wth. at its premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, Long Island City, New York, including pack- APPENDIX ers, pickers and shipping clerks, excluding all office clerical employees, guards and supervi-PNOTICE To ERMPLOYEES sors as defined in the Act.,, PSE YODRO H NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) In any like or related manner interfering An Agency of the United States Government with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively the Act. concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and 2. Take the following affirmative action which other terms and conditions of employment the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the with Local 1814, International Longshore- Act: men's Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named representative of the employees in the bargain- labor organization as the exclusive representative ing u nit described below. of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit W E W ILL NOT in any like or related manner with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- other terms and conditions of employment and, if ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed an understanding is reached, embody such under- them by Section 7 of the Act. standing in a signed agreement. W E W IL L, upon request, bargain with the (b) Post at Respondent's Queens, New York, fa- above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- cility copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- sentative of all employees in the bargaining pendix."3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided u nit described below, with respect to rates of by the Regional Director for Region 29, after pay, wages, h o u r s, an d o th e r terms and condi- being duly signed by Respondent's representative, t io n s o f employment and if an understanding shall be posted by Respondent immediately uponi s r ea c h e d, embody such understanding in a receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- s n e d agreement. The bargaining unit is: secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- All warehousemen employed by us at our eluding all places where notices to employees are premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken Long Island City, New York, including packers, pickers and shipping clerks, exclud- 'In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United ing all office clerical employees, guards and States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by supervisors as defined in the Act. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." UNIQUE HANDICRAFT CORP. UNIQUE HANDICRAFT CORP. 933 conditions of employment with Local 1814, Inter- by Respondent to insure that said notices are not national Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, ployees in the following appropriate unit: in writing, within 20 days from the date of this All warehousemen employed by Respondent Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- All warehousemen employed by Respondent wth. at its premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, Long Island City, New York, including pack- APPENDIX ers, pickers and shipping clerks, excluding all office clerical employees, guards and supervi-PNOTICE To ERMPLOYEES sors as defined in the Act.,, PSE YODRO H NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) In any like or related manner interfering An Agency of the United States Government with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively the Act. concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and 2. Take the following affirmative action which other terms and conditions of employment the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the with Local 1814, International Longshore- Act: men's Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named representative of the employees in the bargain- labor organization as the exclusive representative ing u nit described below. of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit W E W ILL NOT in any like or related manner with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- other terms and conditions of employment and, if ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed an understanding is reached, embody such under- them by Section 7 of the Act. standing in a signed agreement. W E W IL L, upon request, bargain with the (b) Post at Respondent's Queens, New York, fa- above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- cility copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- sentative of all employees in the bargaining pendix."3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided u nit described below, with respect to rates of by the Regional Director for Region 29, after pay, wages, h o u r s, an d o th e r terms and condi- being duly signed by Respondent's representative, t io n s o f employment and if an understanding shall be posted by Respondent immediately uponi s r ea c h e d, embody such understanding in a receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- s n e d agreement. The bargaining unit is: secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- All warehousemen employed by us at our eluding all places where notices to employees are premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken Long Island City, New York, including packers, pickers and shipping clerks, exclud- 'In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United ing all office clerical employees, guards and States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by supervisors as defined in the Act. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." UNIQUE HANDICRAFT CORP. UNIQUE HANDICRAFT CORP. 933 conditions of employment with Local 1814, Inter- by Respondent to insure that said notices are not national Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, ployees in the following appropriate unit: in writing, within 20 days from the date of this All warehousemen employed by Respondent Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- All warehousemen employed by Respondent wth. at its premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, Long Island City, New York, including pack- APPENDIX ers, pickers and shipping clerks, excluding all office clerical employees, guards and supervi-PNOTICE To ERMPLOYEES sors as defined in the Act.,, PSE YODRO H NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) In any like or related manner interfering An Agency of the United States Government with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively the Act. concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and 2. Take the following affirmative action which other terms and conditions of employment the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the with Local 1814, International Longshore- Act: men's Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named representative of the employees in the bargain- labor organization as the exclusive representative ing u nit described below. of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit W E W ILL NOT in any like or related manner with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- other terms and conditions of employment and, if ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed an understanding is reached, embody such under- them by Section 7 of the Act. standing in a signed agreement. W E W IL L, upon request, bargain with the (b) Post at Respondent's Queens, New York, fa- above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- cility copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- sentative of all employees in the bargaining pendix."3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided u nit described below, with respect to rates of by the Regional Director for Region 29, after pay, wages, h o u r s, an d o th e r terms and condi- being duly signed by Respondent's representative, t io n s o f employment and if an understanding shall be posted by Respondent immediately uponi s r ea c h e d, embody such understanding in a receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- s n e d agreement. The bargaining unit is: secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- All warehousemen employed by us at our eluding all places where notices to employees are premises located at 37-11 48th Avenue, customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken Long Island City, New York, including packers, pickers and shipping clerks, exclud- 'In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United ing all office clerical employees, guards and States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by supervisors as defined in the Act. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." UNIQUE HANDICRAFT CORP.