Honda of America Mfg., Inc.

HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC. 389 Honda of America Mfg., Inc. and International thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- Cause. cultural Implement Workers of America Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the (UAW). Case 8-CA-15050 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- November 25, 1981 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. DECISION AND ORDER Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following: BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZIMMERMAN Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Upon a charge filed on July 27, 1981, by Interna- In its answer to the complaint and response to tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent asserts Agricultural Implement Workers of America that the Union's certification was improperly issued (UAW), herein called the Union, and duly served in Cases 8-RC-12320 and 8-RC-12482 because the on Honda of America Mfg., Inc., herein called Re- unit of boiler operators found appropriate by the spondent, the General Counsel of the National Regional Director is inappropriate for bargaining. Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director Respondent contends that the only appropriate unit for Region 8, issued a complaint on August 17, would consist of all production and maintenance 1981, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent employees at its facility, including the boiler opera- had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor tors. Respondent admits that it has refused, and practices affecting commerce within the meaning continues to refuse, to bargain with the Union, but of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) alleges that it has no legal obligation to do so. of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The General Counsel asserts that Respondent's Copies of the charge and the complaint and notice answer raises no contentions other than those fully of hearing before an administrative law judge were considered and rejected by he Board in the under- duly served on the parties to this proceeding. lying representation proceeding and, since all other With respect to the unfair labor practices, the factual allegations of the complaint stand admitted complaint alleges in substance that on July 19, in Respondent's answer, that there are no matters 1981, following a Board election in Cases 8-RC- in issue requiring a hearing before an administrative 12320 and 8-RC-12482, the Union was duly certi- law judge. fled as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- Our review of the record herein, including the sentative of Respondent's employees in the unit record in Cases 8-RC-12320 and 8-RC-12482, dis- found appropriate;' and that, commencing on or closes that the Union filed a petition for an election about July 17, 1981, and at all times thereafter, Re- on April 27, 1981.2 After a hearing, the Regional spondent has refused, and continues to date to Director, on June 12, 1981, issued a Decision and refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as Direction of Election in which he ordered that an the exclusive bargaining representative. On August election be held among the employees in the fol- 26, 1981, Respondent filed its answer to the corn- lowing appropriate unit: plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the al- All boiler operators employed by the Employ- legations in the complaint. er at its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding On September 10, 1981, counsel for the General all office clerical employees and professional Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for employees, guards, and supervisors as defined Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September in the Act, and all other employees. 16, 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the Respondent filed with the Board a request for proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show review, dated June 24, 1981, of the Regional Direc- Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- tor's Decision and Direction of Election. The mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent Board denied Respondent's request for review on July 8, 1981. ' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding July 8, 1981. Cases 8-RC-12320 and 8-RC-12482, as the term "record" is defined in An election by secret ballot was conducted on Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, July 10, 1981, in which four votes were cast for, as amended. See LTV Electrosystems Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd aainst the Union There 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 and no votes were cast against, the Union. There (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 2 An election petition concerning the same bargaining unit had been 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. We filed in Case 8-RC-12320 by International Union of Operating Engineers. note that the date of issuance of the certification is July 20, 1981. rather Local Union 589, on November 14, 1980. The petitions were consoli- than July 19 as alleged in the complaint. dated for the purpose of hearing. 259 NLRB No. 55 HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC. 389 Honda of America Mfg., Inc. and International thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- Cause. cultural Implement Workers of America Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the (UAW). Case 8-CA-15050 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- November 25, 1981 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. DECISION AND ORDER Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following: BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZIMMERMAN Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Upon a charge filed on July 27, 1981, by Interna- In its answer to the complaint and response to tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent asserts Agricultural Implement Workers of America that the Union's certification was improperly issued (UAW), herein called the Union, and duly served in Cases 8-RC-12320 and 8-RC-12482 because the on Honda of America Mfg., Inc., herein called Re- unit of boiler operators found appropriate by the spondent, the General Counsel of the National Regional Director is inappropriate for bargaining. Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director Respondent contends that the only appropriate unit for Region 8, issued a complaint on August 17, would consist of all production and maintenance 1981, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent employees at its facility, including the boiler opera- had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor tors. Respondent admits that it has refused, and practices affecting commerce within the meaning continues to refuse, to bargain with the Union, but of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) alleges that it has no legal obligation to do so. of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The General Counsel asserts that Respondent's Copies of the charge and the complaint and notice answer raises no contentions other than those fully of hearing before an administrative law judge were considered and rejected by he Board in the under- duly served on the parties to this proceeding. lying representation proceeding and, since all other With respect to the unfair labor practices, the factual allegations of the complaint stand admitted complaint alleges in substance that on July 19, in Respondent's answer, that there are no matters 1981, following a Board election in Cases 8-RC- in issue requiring a hearing before an administrative 12320 and 8-RC-12482, the Union was duly certi- law judge. fied as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- Our review of the record herein, including the sentative of Respondent's employees in the unit record in Cases 8-RC-12320 and 8-RC-12482, dis- found appropriate;' and that, commencing on or closes that the Union filed a petition for an election about July 17, 1981, and at all times thereafter, Re- on April 27, 1981. 2 After a hearing, the Regional spondent has refused, and continues to date to Director, on June 12, 1981, issued a Decision and refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as Direction of Election in which he ordered that an the exclusive bargaining representative. On August election be held among the employees in the fol- 26, 1981, Respondent filed its answer to the com- lowing appropriate unit: plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the al- All boiler operators employed by the Employ- legations in the complaint. er at its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding On September 10, 1981, counsel for the General all office clerical employees and professional Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for employees, guards, and supervisors as defined Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September in the Act, and all other employees. 16, 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the Respondent filed with the Board a request for proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show review, dated June 24, 1981, of the Regional Direc- Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- tor's Decision and Direction of Election. The mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent Board denied Respondent's request for review on ------ -~~~~~~~~~~~July 8, 1981. ' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceedingi J 8, 1981. Cases 8-RC-12320 and 8-RC-12482, as the term "record" is defined in An election by Secret ballot was conducted on Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, July 10, 1981, in which four votes were cast for, as amended. See LTV Elecrosysiems. Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. . atainit the Union There 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 a n d no v o te s w e r e c a s t against, th e Union. Tere (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va. 1967); Follent Corp._ 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 2 An election petition concerning the same bargaining unit had been 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. We filed in Case 8-RC-12320 by International Union of Operating Engineers, note that the date of issuance of the certification is July 20, 1981. rather Local Union 589, on November 14, 1980. The petitions were consoli- than July 19 as alleged in the complaint. dated for the purpose of hearing. 259 NLRB No. 55 HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC. 389 Honda of America Mfg., Inc. and International thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- Cause. cultural Implement Workers of America Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the (UAW). Case 8-CA-15050 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- November 25, 1981 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. DECISION AND ORDER Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following: BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZIMMERMAN Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Upon a charge filed on July 27, 1981, by Interna- In its answer to the complaint and response to tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent asserts Agricultural Implement Workers of America that the Union's certification was improperly issued (UAW), herein called the Union, and duly served in Cases 8-RC-12320 and 8-RC-12482 because the on Honda of America Mfg., Inc., herein called Re- unit of boiler operators found appropriate by the spondent, the General Counsel of the National Regional Director is inappropriate for bargaining. Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director Respondent contends that the only appropriate unit for Region 8, issued a complaint on August 17, would consist of all production and maintenance 1981, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent employees at its facility, including the boiler opera- had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor tors. Respondent admits that it has refused, and practices affecting commerce within the meaning continues to refuse, to bargain with the Union, but of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) alleges that it has no legal obligation to do so. of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The General Counsel asserts that Respondent's Copies of the charge and the complaint and notice answer raises no contentions other than those fully of hearing before an administrative law judge were considered and rejected by he Board in the under- duly served on the parties to this proceeding. lying representation proceeding and, since all other With respect to the unfair labor practices, the factual allegations of the complaint stand admitted complaint alleges in substance that on July 19, in Respondent's answer, that there are no matters 1981, following a Board election in Cases 8-RC- in issue requiring a hearing before an administrative 12320 and 8-RC-12482, the Union was duly certi- law judge. fied as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- Our review of the record herein, including the sentative of Respondent's employees in the unit record in Cases 8-RC-12320 and 8-RC-12482, dis- found appropriate;' and that, commencing on or closes that the Union filed a petition for an election about July 17, 1981, and at all times thereafter, Re- on April 27, 1981. 2 After a hearing, the Regional spondent has refused, and continues to date to Director, on June 12, 1981, issued a Decision and refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as Direction of Election in which he ordered that an the exclusive bargaining representative. On August election be held among the employees in the fol- 26, 1981, Respondent filed its answer to the com- lowing appropriate unit: plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the al- All boiler operators employed by the Employ- legations in the complaint. er at its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding On September 10, 1981, counsel for the General all office clerical employees and professional Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for employees, guards, and supervisors as defined Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September in the Act, and all other employees. 16, 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the Respondent filed with the Board a request for proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show review, dated June 24, 1981, of the Regional Direc- Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- tor's Decision and Direction of Election. The mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent Board denied Respondent's request for review on ------ -~~~~~~~~~~~July 8, 1981. ' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceedingi J 8, 1981. Cases 8-RC-12320 and 8-RC-12482, as the term "record" is defined in An election by Secret ballot was conducted on Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, July 10, 1981, in which four votes were cast for, as amended. See LTV Elecrosysiems. Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. . against the Union There 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 a n d no v o te s w e r e c a s t against, th e Union. Tere (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va. 1967); Follent Corp._ 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 2 An election petition concerning the same bargaining unit had been 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. We filed in Case 8-RC-12320 by International Union of Operating Engineers, note that the date of issuance of the certification is July 20, 1981. rather Local Union 589, on November 14, 1980. The petitions were consoli- than July 19 as alleged in the complaint. dated for the purpose of hearing. 259 NLRB No. 55 HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC. 389 Honda of America Mfg., Inc. and International thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- Cause. cultural Implement Workers of America Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the (UAW). Case 8-CA-15050 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- November 25, 1981 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. DECISION AND ORDER Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following: BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZIMMERMAN Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Upon a charge filed on July 27, 1981, by Interna- In its answer to the complaint and response to tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent asserts Agricultural Implement Workers of America that the Union's certification was improperly issued (UAW), herein called the Union, and duly served in Cases 8-RC-12320 and 8-RC-12482 because the on Honda of America Mfg., Inc., herein called Re- unit of boiler operators found appropriate by the spondent, the General Counsel of the National Regional Director is inappropriate for bargaining. Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director Respondent contends that the only appropriate unit for Region 8, issued a complaint on August 17, would consist of all production and maintenance 1981, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent employees at its facility, including the boiler opera- had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor tors. Respondent admits that it has refused, and practices affecting commerce within the meaning continues to refuse, to bargain with the Union, but of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) alleges that it has no legal obligation to do so. of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The General Counsel asserts that Respondent's Copies of the charge and the complaint and notice answer raises no contentions other than those fully of hearing before an administrative law judge were considered and rejected by he Board in the under- duly served on the parties to this proceeding. lying representation proceeding and, since all other With respect to the unfair labor practices, the factual allegations of the complaint stand admitted complaint alleges in substance that on July 19, in Respondent's answer, that there are no matters 1981, following a Board election in Cases 8-RC- in issue requiring a hearing before an administrative 12320 and 8-RC-12482, the Union was duly certi- law judge. fied as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- Our review of the record herein, including the sentative of Respondent's employees in the unit record in Cases 8-RC-12320 and 8-RC-12482, dis- found appropriate;' and that, commencing on or closes that the Union filed a petition for an election about July 17, 1981, and at all times thereafter, Re- on April 27, 1981. 2 After a hearing, the Regional spondent has refused, and continues to date to Director, on June 12, 1981, issued a Decision and refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as Direction of Election in which he ordered that an the exclusive bargaining representative. On August election be held among the employees in the fol- 26, 1981, Respondent filed its answer to the com- lowing appropriate unit: plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the al- All boiler operators employed by the Employ- legations in the complaint. er at its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding On September 10, 1981, counsel for the General all office clerical employees and professional Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for employees, guards, and supervisors as defined Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September in the Act, and all other employees. 16, 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the Respondent filed with the Board a request for proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show review, dated June 24, 1981, of the Regional Direc- Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- tor's Decision and Direction of Election. The mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent Board denied Respondent's request for review on ------ -~~~~~~~~~~~July 8, 1981. ' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceedingi J 8, 1981. Cases 8-RC-12320 and 8-RC-12482, as the term "record" is defined in An election by Secret ballot was conducted on Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, July 10, 1981, in which four votes were cast for, as amended. See LTV Elecrosysiems. Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. . against the Union There 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 a n d no v o te s w e r e c a s t against, th e Union. Tere (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va. 1967); Follent Corp._ 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 2 An election petition concerning the same bargaining unit had been 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. We filed in Case 8-RC-12320 by International Union of Operating Engineers, note that the date of issuance of the certification is July 20, 1981. rather Local Union 589, on November 14, 1980. The petitions were consoli- than July 19 as alleged in the complaint. dated for the purpose of hearing. 259 NLRB No. 55 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were no challenged ballots. On July 20, 1981, the that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to Acting Regional Director certified the Union as assert jurisdiction herein. the exclusive representative for collective bargain- ing of the employees in the aforementioned unit. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED In a letter to the Union dated July 17, 1981, Re- International Union, United Automobile, Aero- spondent stated that although it had not yet re- space and Agricultural Implement Workers of ceived the Certification of Representative from the America (UAW), is a labor organization within the Regional Director it would not consider such certi- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. fication valid upon its issuance, and therefore Re- spondent would decline to bargain with the Union III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES for the unit of boiler operators. Respondent has re- fused at all times since July 17, 1981, to bargain A. The Representation Proceeding with the Union.3 It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- The following employees of Respondent consti- cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the to relitigate issues which were or could have been Act: litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 4 A All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- ler oerators e loye y ing were or could have been litigated in the prior e r at its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding representation proceeding, and Respondent does a ll o f fic e c le ric a l employees and professional not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- employees, guards, and supervisors as defined ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does in the Act, and all other employees. it allege that any special circumstances exist herein 2. The certification which would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding.5 On July 10, 1981, a majority of the employees of We therefore find that Respondent has not raised Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair conducted under the supervision of the Regional labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant Director for Region 8, designated the Union as the Motion for Summary Judgment. their representative for the purpose of collective On the basis of the entire record, the Board bargaining with Respondent. makes the following: The Union was certified as the collective-bar- FINDINGS OF FACT gaining representative of the employees in said unit FINDINGS OF FACT on July 20, 1981, and the Union continues to be I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT such exclusive representative within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. Respondent is and has been at all times material herein an Ohio corporation engaged in the manu- B. Respondent's Refusal To Bargain facture and sale of motorcycles at its facility locat- ed in Marysville, Ohio. Respondent annually ships Commencing on or about July 17, 1981, and con- goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent Marysville facility to points located outside the has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize State of Ohio. and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre- We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- sentative for collective bargaining of all employees spondent is, and has been at all times material in said unit. herein, an employer engaged in commerce within Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and July 17, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- 3 In view of Respondent's anticipatory repudiation of its bargaining ob- sive representative of the employees in the appro- ligation, we find immaterial the absence of an allegation in the complaint that the Union made a formal request that Respondent meet with it for prate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent purposes of collective bargaining. has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- ' See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c). We find no merit in Respondent's contention that its averred applica- of the Act. tion of the "Japanese approach to labor relations" at its facility consti- tutes special circumstances warranting further consideration by the Board. 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were no challenged ballots. On July 20, 1981, the that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to Acting Regional Director certified the Union as assert jurisdiction herein. the exclusive representative for collective bargain- ing of the employees in the aforementioned unit. 11. T H E L A BO R ORGANIZATION INVOLVED In a letter to the Union dated July 17, 1981, Re- International Union, United Automobile, Aero- spondent stated that although it had not yet re- space and Agricultural Implement Workers of ceived the Certification of Representative from the America (UAW), is a labor organization within the Regional Director it would not consider such certi- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. fication valid upon its issuance, and therefore Re- spondent would decline to bargain with the Union 11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES for the unit of boiler operators. Respondent has re- fused at all times since July 17, 1981, to bargain A. The Representation Proceeding with the Union. 3 . The u It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- The following employees of Respondent consti- cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the to relitigate issues which were or could have been Act: litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 4 All bl 1as p e y e l All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- ing were or could have been litigated in the prior e r a t its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding representation proceeding, and Respondent does a ll o ffi c e c le ric a l employees and professional not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- employees, guards, and supervisors as defined ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does in th e A c t, a n d al l o th e r employees. it allege that any special circumstances exist herein 2. The certification which would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding.' On July 10, 1981, a majority of the employees of We therefore find that Respondent has not raised Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair conducted under the supervision of the Regional labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant Director for Region 8, designated the Union as the Motion for Summary Judgment, their representative for the purpose of collective On the basis of the entire record, the Board bargaining with Respondent. makes the following: The Union was certified as the collective-bar- FINDINGS ,- FACT gaining representative of the employees in said unit FINDINGS Or rACT ioi 1 i n* i on July 20, 1981, and the Union continues to be I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT such exclusive representative within the meaning of D ^ * * j i. u * 11 ** -i ~Section 9(a) of the Act. Respondent is and has been at all times material herein an Ohio corporation engaged in the manu- B. Respondent's Refusal To Bargain facture and sale of motorcycles at its facility locat- ed in Marysville, Ohio. Respondent annually ships Commencing on or about July 17, 1981, and con- goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent Marysville facility to points located outside the h as refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize State of Ohio. a n d bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre- We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- sentative for collective bargaining of all employees spondent is, and has been at all times material in s a id u n it. herein, an employer engaged in commerce within Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and July 17, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- 3 In view of Respondent's anticipatory repudiation of its bargaining ob- sive representative of the employees in the appro- ligation, we find immaterial the absence of an allegation in the complaint . . , , , , „ , - ^ . that the Union made a formal request that Respondent meet with it for Prate Unit, and that, by Such refusal, Respondent purposes of collective bargaining. has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- I See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.R., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); ie th h man o cin ()5 d 1 Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f and 10 2 6 ( c ) . tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) 5 We find no merit in Respondent's contention that its averred applica- of the Act. tion of the "Japanese approach to labor relations" at its facility consti- tutes special circumstances warranting further consideration by the Board. 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were no challenged ballots. On July 20, 1981, the that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to Acting Regional Director certified the Union as assert jurisdiction herein. the exclusive representative for collective bargain- ing of the employees in the aforementioned unit. 11. T H E L A BO R ORGANIZATION INVOLVED In a letter to the Union dated July 17, 1981, Re- International Union, United Automobile, Aero- spondent stated that although it had not yet re- space and Agricultural Implement Workers of ceived the Certification of Representative from the America (UAW), is a labor organization within the Regional Director it would not consider such certi- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. fication valid upon its issuance, and therefore Re- spondent would decline to bargain with the Union 11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES for the unit of boiler operators. Respondent has re- fused at all times since July 17, 1981, to bargain A. The Representation Proceeding with the Union. 3 . The u It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- The following employees of Respondent consti- cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the to relitigate issues which were or could have been Act: litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 4 All bl o e b t Epo All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- ing were or could have been litigated in the prior e r a t its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding representation proceeding, and Respondent does a ll o ffi c e c le ric a l employees and professional not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- employees, guards, and supervisors as defined ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does in th e A c t, a n d al l o th e r employees. it allege that any special circumstances exist herein 2. The certification which would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding.' On July 10, 1981, a majority of the employees of We therefore find that Respondent has not raised Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair conducted under the supervision of the Regional labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant Director for Region 8, designated the Union as the Motion for Summary Judgment, their representative for the purpose of collective On the basis of the entire record, the Board bargaining with Respondent. makes the following: The Union was certified as the collective-bar- FINDINGS ,- FACT gaining representative of the employees in said unit FINDINGS OF rACT ioi 1 i n* i on July 20, 1981, and the Union continues to be I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT such exclusive representative within the meaning of D ^ * * j i. u * 11 ** -i ~Section 9(a) of the Act. Respondent is and has been at all times material herein an Ohio corporation engaged in the manu- B. Respondent's Refusal To Bargain facture and sale of motorcycles at its facility locat- ed in Marysville, Ohio. Respondent annually ships Commencing on or about July 17, 1981, and con- goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent Marysville facility to points located outside the h as refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize State of Ohio. a n d bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre- We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- sentative for collective bargaining of all employees spondent is, and has been at all times material in s a id u n it. herein, an employer engaged in commerce within Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and July 17, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- 3 In view of Respondent's anticipatory repudiation of its bargaining ob- sive representative of the employees in the appro- ligation, we find immaterial the absence of an allegation in the complaint . . , , , , „ , - ^ . that the Union made a formal request that Respondent meet with it for Prate Unit, and that, by Such refusal, Respondent purposes of collective bargaining. has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- I See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.R., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); ie th h man o cin ()5 d 1 Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.7( and 2 ( ) tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) 5 We find no merit in Respondent's contention that its averred applica- of the Act. tion of the "Japanese approach to labor relations" at its facility consti- tutes special circumstances warranting further consideration by the Board. 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were no challenged ballots. On July 20, 1981, the that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to Acting Regional Director certified the Union as assert jurisdiction herein. the exclusive representative for collective bargain- ing of the employees in the aforementioned unit. 11. T H E L A BO R ORGANIZATION INVOLVED In a letter to the Union dated July 17, 1981, Re- International Union, United Automobile, Aero- spondent stated that although it had not yet re- space and Agricultural Implement Workers of ceived the Certification of Representative from the America (UAW), is a labor organization within the Regional Director it would not consider such certi- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. fication valid upon its issuance, and therefore Re- spondent would decline to bargain with the Union 11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES for the unit of boiler operators. Respondent has re- fused at all times since July 17, 1981, to bargain A. The Representation Proceeding with the Union. 3 . The u It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- The following employees of Respondent consti- cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the to relitigate issues which were or could have been Act: litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 4 All bl o e b t Epo All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- ing were or could have been litigated in the prior e r a t its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding representation proceeding, and Respondent does a ll o ffi c e c le ric a l employees and professional not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- employees, guards, and supervisors as defined ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does in th e A c t, a n d al l o th e r employees. it allege that any special circumstances exist herein 2. The certification which would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding.' On July 10, 1981, a majority of the employees of We therefore find that Respondent has not raised Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair conducted under the supervision of the Regional labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant Director for Region 8, designated the Union as the Motion for Summary Judgment, their representative for the purpose of collective On the basis of the entire record, the Board bargaining with Respondent. makes the following: The Union was certified as the collective-bar- FINDINGS ,- FACT gaining representative of the employees in said unit FINDINGS OF FACT ioi 1 i n* i on July 20, 1981, and the Union continues to be I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT such exclusive representative within the meaning of D ^ * * j i. u * 11 ** -i ~Section 9(a) of the Act. Respondent is and has been at all times material herein an Ohio corporation engaged in the manu- B. Respondent's Refusal To Bargain facture and sale of motorcycles at its facility locat- ed in Marysville, Ohio. Respondent annually ships Commencing on or about July 17, 1981, and con- goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent Marysville facility to points located outside the h as refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize State of Ohio. a n d bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre- We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- sentative for collective bargaining of all employees spondent is, and has been at all times material in s a id u n it. herein, an employer engaged in commerce within Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and July 17, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- 3 In view of Respondent's anticipatory repudiation of its bargaining ob- sive representative of the employees in the appro- ligation, we find immaterial the absence of an allegation in the complaint . . , , , , „ , - ^ . that the Union made a formal request that Respondent meet with it for Prate Unit, and that, by Such refusal, Respondent purposes of collective bargaining. has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- I See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.R., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); ie th h man o cin ()5 d 1 Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.7( and 2 ( ) tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) 5 We find no merit in Respondent's contention that its averred applica- of the Act. tion of the "Japanese approach to labor relations" at its facility consti- tutes special circumstances warranting further consideration by the Board. HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC. 391 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE the Act. The activities of Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 5. B refusing on or about July 17, 1981, and at set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the tion with its operations described in section I, above-named labor organization as the exclusive above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- bargaining representative of all the employees of tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent several States and tend to lead to labor disputes has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- burdening and obstructing commerce and the free tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the flow of commerce. 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- ORDER 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- Marysville, Ohio, its mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as officers, agns, sccs, shall the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- 1. Cease aent essos ad a propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 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 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; conditions of employment with International Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em- and the entire record, makes the following: ployees in the following appropriate unit: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW All boiler operators employed by Respondent at its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding all 1. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., is an employer office clerical employees and professional em- engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the Act, and all other employees. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of (b) In any like or related manner interfering America (UAW), is a labor organization within the with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of 3. All boiler operators employed by Respondent the Act. at its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding all office 2. Take the following affirmative action which clerical employees and professional employees, the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and Act: all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named for the purposes of collective bargaining within the labor organization as the exclusive representative meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit 4. Since July 20, 1981, the above-named labor or- with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and ganization has been and now is the certified and ex- other terms and conditions of employment and, if clusive representative of all employees in the afore- an understanding is reached, embody such under- said appropriate unit for the purpose of collective standing in a signed agreement. HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC. 391 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE the Act. The activities of Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 5. By refusing on o r about July 17 , 19 8 1, and at set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the tion with its operations described in section I, above-named labor organization as the exclusive above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- bargaining representative of all the employees of tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent several States and tend to lead to labor disputes has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- burdening and obstructing commerce and the free tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the flow of commerce. 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- ORDER 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- li B he o t Respondent, fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- H Marysville, Ohio, its mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as o , a, a ag 11 the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- 1. Ce as e and dessom: propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 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 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; conditions of employment with International Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em- and the entire record, makes the following: ployees in the following appropriate unit: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW All boiler operators employed by Respondent at its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding all 1. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., is an employer office clerical employees and professional em- engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the Act, and all other employees. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of (b) In any like or related manner interfering America (UAW), is a labor organization within the w ith, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of 3. All boiler operators employed by Respondent the Act. at its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding all office 2. Take the following affirmative action which clerical employees and professional employees, the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and Act: all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named for the purposes of collective bargaining within the labor organization as the exclusive representative meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit 4. Since July 20, 1981, the above-named labor or- with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and ganization has been and now is the certified and ex- other terms and conditions of employment and, if elusive representative of all employees in the afore- an understanding is reached, embody such under- said appropriate unit for the purpose of collective standing in a signed agreement. HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC. 391 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE the Act. The activities of Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 5. By refusing on o r about July 17, 1981, and at set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the tion with its operations described in section I, above-named labor organization as the exclusive above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- bargaining representative of all the employees of tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent several States and tend to lead to labor disputes has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- burdening and obstructing commerce and the free tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the flow of commerce. 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- ORDER 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- li B he o t Respondent, fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- H Marysville, Ohio, its mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as o , a, a ag 11 the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- 1. Ce as e and dessom: propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 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 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; conditions of employment with International Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em- and the entire record, makes the following: ployees in the following appropriate unit: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW All boiler operators employed by Respondent at its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding all 1. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., is an employer office clerical employees and professional em- engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the Act, and all other employees. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of (b) In any like or related manner interfering America (UAW), is a labor organization within the w ith, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of 3. All boiler operators employed by Respondent the Act. at its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding all office 2. Take the following affirmative action which clerical employees and professional employees, the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and Act: all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named for the purposes of collective bargaining within the labor organization as the exclusive representative meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit 4. Since July 20, 1981, the above-named labor or- with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and ganization has been and now is the certified and ex- other terms and conditions of employment and, if elusive representative of all employees in the afore- an understanding is reached, embody such under- said appropriate unit for the purpose of collective standing in a signed agreement. HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC. 391 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE the Act. The activities of Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 5. By refusing on or about July 17, 1981, and at set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the tion with its operations described in section I, above-named labor organization as the exclusive above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- bargaining representative of all the employees of tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent several States and tend to lead to labor disputes has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- burdening and obstructing commerce and the free tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the flow of commerce. 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- ORDER 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- li B he o t Respondent, fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- H Marysville, Ohio, its mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as o , a, a ag 11 the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- 1. Ce as e and dessom: propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 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 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; conditions of employment with International Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em- and the entire record, makes the following: ployees in the following appropriate unit: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW All boiler operators employed by Respondent at its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding all 1. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., is an employer office clerical employees and professional em- engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the Act, and all other employees. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of (b) In any like or related manner interfering America (UAW), is a labor organization within the w ith, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of 3. All boiler operators employed by Respondent the Act. at its Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding all office 2. Take the following affirmative action which clerical employees and professional employees, the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and Act: all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named for the purposes of collective bargaining within the labor organization as the exclusive representative meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit 4. Since July 20, 1981, the above-named labor or- with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and ganization has been and now is the certified and ex- other terms and conditions of employment and, if elusive representative of all employees in the afore- an understanding is reached, embody such under- said appropriate unit for the purpose of collective standing in a signed agreement. 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Post at its Marysville, Ohio, facility copies of other terms and conditions of employment the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of with International Union, United Automobile, said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work- rector for Region 8, after being duly signed by Re- ers of America (UAW), as the exclusive repre- spondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- sentative of the employees in the bargaining spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be unit described below. maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in conspicuous places, including all places where interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to them by Section 7 of the Act. insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the covered by any other material, above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in sentative of all employees in the bargaining writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, unit described below, with respect to rates of what steps have been taken to comply herewith. pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- tions of employment and, if an understanding S In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United i reached, embody such understanding in a States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." All boiler operators employed by us at our Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding all APPENDIX office clerical employees and professional NOTICE To EMPLOYEES employees, guards, and supervisors as de- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE fined in the Act, and all other employees. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Post at its Marysville, Ohio, facility copies of other terms and conditions of employment the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of with International Union, United Automobile, said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work- rector for Region 8, after being duly signed by Re- ers of America (UAW), as the exclusive repre- spondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- sentative of the employees in the bargaining spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be unit described below. maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in conspicuous places, including all places where interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to them by Section 7 of the Act. insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the covered by any other material, above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in sentative of all employees in the bargaining writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, unit described below, with respect to rates of what steps have been taken to comply herewith. pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- ______ ~~~~~~~~~~~tions of employment and, if an understanding * In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United o reached, embody such Understanding in a States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by i , e o s u i a Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- Signed agreement. The bargaining Unit is: ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." All boiler Operators employed by us at our Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding all APPENDIX office clerical employees and professional NOTICE To EMPLOYEES employees, guards, and supervisors as de- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE fin e d in t h e A c t, a n d all o t h e r employees. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Post at its Marysville, Ohio, facility copies of other terms and conditions of employment the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of with International Union, United Automobile, said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work- rector for Region 8, after being duly signed by Re- ers of America (UAW), as the exclusive repre- spondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- sentative of the employees in the bargaining spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be unit described below. maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in conspicuous places, including all places where interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to them by Section 7 of the Act. insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the covered by any other material, above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in sentative of all employees in the bargaining writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, unit described below, with respect to rates of what steps have been taken to comply herewith. pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- ______ ~~~~~~~~~~~tions of employment and, if an understanding * In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United o reached, embody such Understanding in a States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by i , e o s u i a Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- Signed agreement. The bargaining Unit is: ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." All boiler Operators employed by us at our Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding all APPENDIX office clerical employees and professional NOTICE To EMPLOYEES employees, guards, and supervisors as de- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE fin e d in t h e A c t, a n d all o t h e r employees. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Post at its Marysville, Ohio, facility copies of other terms and conditions of employment the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of with International Union, United Automobile, said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work- rector for Region 8, after being duly signed by Re- ers of America (UAW), as the exclusive repre- spondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- sentative of the employees in the bargaining spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be unit described below. maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in conspicuous places, including all places where interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to them by Section 7 of the Act. insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the covered by any other material, above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in sentative of all employees in the bargaining writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, unit described below, with respect to rates of what steps have been taken to comply herewith. pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- ______ ~~~~~~~~~~~tions of employment and, if an understanding * In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United o reached, embody such Understanding in a States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by i , e o s u i a Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- Signed agreement. The bargaining Unit is: ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." All boiler Operators employed by us at our Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding all APPENDIX office clerical employees and professional NOTICE To EMPLOYEES employees, guards, and supervisors as de- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE fin e d in t h e A c t, a n d all o t h e r employees. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Post at its Marysville, Ohio, facility copies of other terms and conditions of employment the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of with International Union, United Automobile, said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work- rector for Region 8, after being duly signed by Re- ers of America (UAW), as the exclusive repre- spondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- sentative of the employees in the bargaining spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be unit described below. maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in conspicuous places, including all places where interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to them by Section 7 of the Act. insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the covered by any other material, above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in sentative of all employees in the bargaining writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, unit described below, with respect to rates of what steps have been taken to comply herewith. pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- ______ ~~~~~~~~~~~tions of employment and, if an understanding * In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United o reached, embody such Understanding in a States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by i , e o s u i a Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- Signed agreement. The bargaining Unit is: ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." All boiler Operators employed by us at our Marysville, Ohio, facility, excluding all APPENDIX office clerical employees and professional NOTICE To EMPLOYEES employees, guards, and supervisors as de- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE fin e d in t h e A c t, a n d all o t h e r employees. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and