Arizona Public Service Company

484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Arizona Public Service Company and International Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- Local 387. Case 28-CA-6600 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- ~December 3, 1981 thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the DECISION AND ORDER Board makes the following: BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment ZIMMERMAN In its answer to the complaint, Respondent Upon a charge filed on August 17, 1981, by In- admits that the existing systemwide unit of certain ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, of its production and maintenance employees con- AFL-CIO, Local 387, herein called the Union, and stitutes a unit appropriate for purposes of collective duly served on Arizona Public Service Company, bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of the Act, and that the Union is the designated exclu- the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re- sive representative of its production and mainte- gional Director for Region 28, issued a complaint nance employees as set forth in successive collec- on September 1, 1981, against Respondent, alleging tive-bargaining agreements. Respondent, however, that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging stresses that these agreements do not include the in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within Palo Verde production and maintenance employ- the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section ees, and denies that the Palo Verde employees may 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, be part of the systemwide bargaining unit without as amended. Copies of the charge and complaint first having an opportunity to vote in a self-deter- and notice of hearing before an administrative law mination election as to whether they wish to be in- judge were duly served on the parties to this pro- cluded in that unit or to remain unrepresented. ceeding. In the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Gen- With respect to the unfair labor practices, the eral Counsel argues that Respondent's answer at- complaint alleges in substance that, since June 25, tempts to relitigate issues that were raised and de- 1981, following a Board Decision and Order,' and termined by the Board in the underlying represen- at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and tation cases. We agree with the General Counsel. continues to date to refuse, to recognize and to bar- The record, including the record in the underly- gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive ing representation cases, Cases 28-RM-394 and 28- bargaining representative of Respondent's Palo UC-111, shows that, in December 1980, Respond- Verde, Arizona, nuclear power plant production ent filed an RM petition seeking an election among and maintenance employees in the appropriate its production and maintenance employees at its unit,2 although the Union has requested and is re- Palo Verde nuclear power plant, and that the questing it to do so. On September 14, 1981, Re- Union filed a UC petition seeking a clarification of spondent filed its answer to the complaint admit- the existing systemwide production and mainte- ting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in nance unit to include the Palo Verde employees as the complaint. an accretion to the systemwide unit. Following On September 22, 1981, counsel for the General transfer of the cases to the Board by the Regional Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Director, on June 5, 1981, the Board issued a Deci- Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September sion and Order 3 in which it found that Respond- 30, 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the ent's Palo Verde production and maintenance em- proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show ployees were an accretion to the existing system- Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- wide bargaining unit represented by the Union. mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent The Board found that no question concerning rep- thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show resentation of the Palo Verde employees existed, Cause. and therefore dismissed the petition in Case 28- RM-394. '256 NLRB 400 (1981). On June 15, 1981, Respondent filed with the Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding Board a motion for reconsideration of the Board's Cases 28-RM-394 and 28-UC-lll, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, Decision and Order. On June 19, 1981, the Board as amended. See LTV Electrosystems. Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. issued an unpublished Order denying Respondent's 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 motion. On July 1, 1981, Respondent filed with the F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. ' 256 NLRB 400. 259 NLRB No. 72 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Arizona Public Service Company and International Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- Local 387. Case 28-CA-6600 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- December 3, 1981 thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. December 3, 1981^ ^ predigth Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the DECISION AND ORDER Board makes the following: BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment ZIMMERMAN In its answer to the complaint, Respondent Upon a charge filed on August 17, 1981, by In- admits that the existing systemwide unit of certain ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, of its production and maintenance employees con- AFL-CIO, Local 387, herein called the Union, and stitutes a unit appropriate for purposes of collective duly served on Arizona Public Service Company, bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of the Act, and that the Union is the designated exclu- the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re- sive representative of its production and mainte- gional Director for Region 28, issued a complaint nance employees as set forth in successive collec- on September 1, 1981, against Respondent, alleging tive-bargaining agreements. Respondent, however, that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging stresses that these agreements do not include the in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within Palo Verde production and maintenance employ- the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section ees, and denies that the Palo Verde employees may 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, be part of the systemwide bargaining unit without as amended. Copies of the charge and complaint first having an opportunity to vote in a self-deter- and notice of hearing before an administrative law mination election as to whether they wish to be in- judge were duly served on the parties to this pro- cluded in that unit or to remain unrepresented. ceeding. In the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Gen- With respect to the unfair labor practices, the eral Counsel argues that Respondent's answer at- complaint alleges in substance that, since June 25, tempts to relitigate issues that were raised and de- 1981, following a Board Decision and Order,' and termined by the Board in the underlying represen- at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and tation cases. We agree with the General Counsel. continues to date to refuse, to recognize and to bar- The record, including the record in the underly- gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive ing representation cases, Cases 28-RM-394 and 28- bargaining representative of Respondent's Palo UC-111, shows that, in December 1980, Respond- Verde, Arizona, nuclear power plant production ent filed an RM petition seeking an election among and maintenance employees in the appropriate its production and maintenance employees at its unit,2 although the Union has requested and is re- Palo Verde nuclear power plant, and that the questing it to do so. On September 14, 1981, Re- Union filed a UC petition seeking a clarification of spondent filed its answer to the complaint admit- the existing systemwide production and mainte- ting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in nance unit to include the Palo Verde employees as the complaint. an accretion to the systemwide unit. Following On September 22, 1981, counsel for the General transfer of the cases to the Board by the Regional Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Director, on June 5, 1981, the Board issued a Deci- Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September sion and Order 3 in which it found that Respond- 30. 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the ent's Palo Verde production and maintenance em- proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show ployees were an accretion to the existing system- Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- wide bargaining unit represented by the Union. mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent The Board found that no question concerning rep- thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show resentation of the Palo Verde employees existed, Cause. and therefore dismissed the petition in Case 28- RM-394. '256 NLRB 400 (1981). On June 15, 1981, Respondent filed with the official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, Board a motion for reconsideration of the Board's Cases 28-RM-394 and 28-UC-lll, as the term "record" is defined in Sees. 102.68 and 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, Decision and Order. On June 19, 1981, the Board as amended. See LTV Electrosystemsn Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. issued an unpublished Order denying Respondent's 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage C., 167 NLRB 151 -„.„,- r> T..I, 1 11 V ^^^ t filx . ;*l, tl, (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 motion. On July 1, 1981, Respondent filed With the F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. 3256 NLRB 400. 259 NLRB No. 72 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Arizona Public Service Company and International Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- Local 387. Case 28-CA-6600 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- December 3, 1981 thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. December 3, 1981^ ^ predigth Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the DECISION AND ORDER Board makes the following: BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment ZIMMERMAN In its answer to the complaint, Respondent Upon a charge filed on August 17, 1981, by In- admits that the existing systemwide unit of certain ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, of its production and maintenance employees con- AFL-CIO, Local 387, herein called the Union, and stitutes a unit appropriate for purposes of collective duly served on Arizona Public Service Company, bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of the Act, and that the Union is the designated exclu- the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re- sive representative of its production and mainte- gional Director for Region 28, issued a complaint nance employees as set forth in successive collec- on September 1, 1981, against Respondent, alleging tive-bargaining agreements. Respondent, however, that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging stresses that these agreements do not include the in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within Palo Verde production and maintenance employ- the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section ees, and denies that the Palo Verde employees may 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, be part of the systemwide bargaining unit without as amended. Copies of the charge and complaint first having an opportunity to vote in a self-deter- and notice of hearing before an administrative law mination election as to whether they wish to be in- judge were duly served on the parties to this pro- cluded in that unit or to remain unrepresented. ceeding. In the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Gen- With respect to the unfair labor practices, the eral Counsel argues that Respondent's answer at- complaint alleges in substance that, since June 25, tempts to relitigate issues that were raised and de- 1981, following a Board Decision and Order,' and termined by the Board in the underlying represen- at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and tation cases. We agree with the General Counsel. continues to date to refuse, to recognize and to bar- The record, including the record in the underly- gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive ing representation cases, Cases 28-RM-394 and 28- bargaining representative of Respondent's Palo UC-111, shows that, in December 1980, Respond- Verde, Arizona, nuclear power plant production ent filed an RM petition seeking an election among and maintenance employees in the appropriate its production and maintenance employees at its unit,2 although the Union has requested and is re- Palo Verde nuclear power plant, and that the questing it to do so. On September 14, 1981, Re- Union filed a UC petition seeking a clarification of spondent filed its answer to the complaint admit- the existing systemwide production and mainte- ting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in nance unit to include the Palo Verde employees as the complaint. an accretion to the systemwide unit. Following On September 22, 1981, counsel for the General transfer of the cases to the Board by the Regional Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Director, on June 5, 1981, the Board issued a Deci- Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September sion and Order 3 in which it found that Respond- 30. 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the ent's Palo Verde production and maintenance em- proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show ployees were an accretion to the existing system- Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- w ide bargaining unit represented by the Union. mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent The Board found that no question concerning rep- thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show resentation of the Palo Verde employees existed, Cause. and therefore dismissed the petition in Case 28- RM-394. '256 NLRB 400 (1981). On June 15, 1981, Respondent filed with the official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, Board a motion for reconsideration of the Board's Cases 28-RM-394 and 28-UC-lll, as the term "record" is defined in Sees. 102.68 and 102.69(8) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, Decision and Order. On June 19, 1981, the Board as amended. See LTV Electrosystemsn Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. issued an unpublished Order denying Respondent's 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage C., 167 NLRB 151 -„.„,- r> T..I, 1 11 V ^^^ t filx . ;*l, tl, (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 motion. On July 1, 1981, Respondent filed With the F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. 3256 NLRB 400. 259 NLRB No. 72 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Arizona Public Service Company and International Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- Local 387. Case 28-CA-6600 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- December 3, 1981ithority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. December 3, 1981^ ^ predigth Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the DECISION AND ORDER Board makes the following: BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment ZIMMERMAN In its answer to the complaint, Respondent Upon a charge filed on August 17, 1981, by In- admits that the existing systemwide unit of certain ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, of its production and maintenance employees con- AFL-CIO, Local 387, herein called the Union, and stitutes a unit appropriate for purposes of collective duly served on Arizona Public Service Company, bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of the Act, and that the Union is the designated exclu- the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re- sive representative of its production and mainte- gional Director for Region 28, issued a complaint nance employees as set forth in successive collec- on September 1, 1981, against Respondent, alleging tive-bargaining agreements. Respondent, however, that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging stresses that these agreements do not include the in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within Palo Verde production and maintenance employ- the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section ees, and denies that the Palo Verde employees may 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, be part of the systemwide bargaining unit without as amended. Copies of the charge and complaint first having an opportunity to vote in a self-deter- and notice of hearing before an administrative law mination election as to whether they wish to be in- judge were duly served on the parties to this pro- cluded in that unit or to remain unrepresented. ceeding. In the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Gen- With respect to the unfair labor practices, the eral Counsel argues that Respondent's answer at- complaint alleges in substance that, since June 25, tempts to relitigate issues that were raised and de- 1981, following a Board Decision and Order,' and termined by the Board in the underlying represen- at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and tation cases. We agree with the General Counsel. continues to date to refuse, to recognize and to bar- The record, including the record in the underly- gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive ing representation cases, Cases 28-RM-394 and 28- bargaining representative of Respondent's Palo UC-111, shows that, in December 1980, Respond- Verde, Arizona, nuclear power plant production ent filed an RM petition seeking an election among and maintenance employees in the appropriate its production and maintenance employees at its unit,2 although the Union has requested and is re- Palo Verde nuclear power plant, and that the questing it to do so. On September 14, 1981, Re- Union filed a UC petition seeking a clarification of spondent filed its answer to the complaint admit- the existing systemwide production and mainte- ting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in nance unit to include the Palo Verde employees as the complaint. an accretion to the systemwide unit. Following On September 22, 1981, counsel for the General transfer of the cases to the Board by the Regional Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Director, on June 5, 1981, the Board issued a Deci- Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September sion and Order 3 in which it found that Respond- 30. 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the ent's Palo Verde production and maintenance em- proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show ployees were an accretion to the existing system- Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- w ide bargaining unit represented by the Union. mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent The Board found that no question concerning rep- thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show resentation of the Palo Verde employees existed, Cause. and therefore dismissed the petition in Case 28- RM-394. '256 NLRB 400 (1981). On June 15, 1981, Respondent filed with the official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, Board a motion for reconsideration of the Board's Cases 28-RM-394 and 28-UC-lll, as the term "record" is defined in Sees. 102.68 and 102.69(8) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, Decision and Order. On June 19, 1981, the Board as amended. See LTV Electrosystemsn Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. issued an unpublished Order denying Respondent's 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage C., 167 NLRB 151 -„.„,- r> T..I, 1 11 V ^^^ t filx . ;*l, tl, (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 motion. On July 1, 1981, Respondent filed With the F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va. 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. 3256 NLRB 400. 259 NLRB No. 72 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 485 Board a renewed motion for reconsideration of the FINDINGS OF FACT Board's Decision and Order. On July 9, 1981, the Board issued an unpublished Order denying Re- THE BUSINESS OF ESNDENT spondent's renewed motion. Respondent, an Arizona corporation, is engaged On June 24 and July 13, 1981, the Union request- as a public utility in the generation, transmission, ed Respondent to recognize it as the exclusive rep- distribution, and sale of electricity and natural gas. resentative of the Palo Verde production and main- During the past 12-month period, which period is tenance employees and to bargain collectively re- representative of its operations generally, Respond- garding those employees' rates of pay, wages, ent, in the course and conduct of its business oper- hours of employment, and other terms and condi- ations, derived gross revenues in excess of tions of employment. Respondent, by letters dated $250,000, and during the same period of time pur- June 25 and July 20, 1981, refused to recognize and chased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported in interstate com- to bargain with the Union, and has continued to $50000 whchwere transported in nterstate com- merce and delivered to its operations in the State refuse to recognize and to bargain with the Union of Arizona directly from suppliers located in State as the exclusive bargaining representative of its of the United States other than the State of Arizo- Palo Verde employees. Respondent asserts as rea- na. sons for its continued refusal to recognize and to We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- bargain with the Union that the Board ignored acts spondent is, and has been at all times material which make the application of the accretion doc- herein, an employer engaged in commerce within trine inappropriate in this case, that the Palo Verde the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and employees constitute a new and distinct grouping, that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to and that Board law requires that such employees assert jurisdiction herein. be granted a self-determination election as to whether they wish to be represented by the Union . THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED or remain unrepresented-arguments previously International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, presented to and considered by the Board. Thus, it AFL-CIO, Local 387, is a labor organization appears that Respondent is attempting to raise in within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. this proceeding issues which were raised and deter- III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES mined in the underlying representation cases. It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- A. The Representation Proceeding covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al-e un leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled The following employees of Respondent consti- to relitigate issues which were or could have been tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 4 purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- Act: ing were or could have been litigated in the prior All production and maintenance employees representation proceeding, and Respondent does employed by Respondent throughout Re- not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- spondent's systemwide operations. ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does The it allege that any special circumstances exist herein T h e rec which would require the Board to reexamine the At all times material herein, the Union has been decision made in the representation proceeding. We the designated exclusive collective-bargaining rep- therefore find that Respondent has not raised any resentative of Respondent's employees in the unit issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor described above, and has been recognized as such practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the by Respondent. Such recognition has been em- Motion for Summary Judgment. bodied in successive collective-bargaining agree- On the basis of the entire record, the Board ments, the most recent of which is effective by its makes the following: terms from April 1, 1980, to April 1, 1982. 3. The Board's Decision and Order On June 5, 1981, the Board issued a Decision and Order,5 finding, inter alia, that certain produc- See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(0 and 102.69(c). 256 NLRB 400. ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 485 Board a renewed motion for reconsideration of the FINDINGS OF FACT Board's Decision and Order. On July 9, 1981, the Board issued an unpublished Order denying Re- L T H E BU SI N ESS O F RESPONDENT spondent's renewed motion. Respondent, an Arizona corporation, is engaged On June 24 and July 13, 1981, the Union request- as a public utility in the generation, transmission, ed Respondent to recognize it as the exclusive rep- distribution, and sale of electricity and natural gas. resentative of the Palo Verde production and main- During the past 12-month period, which period is tenance employees and to bargain collectively re- representative of its operations generally, Respond- garding those employees' rates of pay, wages, en t, in th e c o u r se a n d conduct of its business oper- hours of employment, and other terms and condi- ations, derived gross rev enu es in excess of tions of employment. Respondent, by letters dated $250,000, and during the same period of time pur- June 25 and July 20, 1981, refused to recognize and c hased goods and m aterials v al u ed in ex c ess of to bargain with the Union, and has continued to $50 ,000 w h ic h w ere t pot in inter state c om - refuse to recognize and to bargain with the Union merce and delivered to its operations in the State refuse to recognize and to bargain with the Union of Arizona directly from suppliers located in States as the exclusive bargaining representative of its of th Unte Sttes other than the State of Arizo- Palo Verde employees. Respondent asserts as rea- ot he sons for its continued refusal to recognize and to we find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- bargain with the Union that the Board ignored acts spondent is, and has been at all times material which make the application of the accretion doc- herein, an employer engaged in commerce within trine inappropriate in this case, that the Palo Verde the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and employees constitute a new and distinct grouping, that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to and that Board law requires that such employees assert jurisdiction herein. be granted a self-determination election as to whether they wish to be represented by the Union "* T HE L ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED or remain unrepresented-arguments previously International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, presented to and considered by the Board. Thus, it AFL-CIO, Local 387, is a labor organization appears that Respondent is attempting to raise in within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. this proceeding issues which were raised and deter- .* .,. -. ,. ... ~~~~~~~III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES mined in the underlying representation cases. It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- A. The Representation Proceeding covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled The following employees of Respondent consti- to relitigate issues which were or could have been tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining litigated in a prior representation proceeding.' purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- A c t : ing were or could have been litigated in the prior All production and maintenance employees representation proceeding, and Respondent does employed by Respondent throughout Re- not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- spondent's systemwide operations. ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does 2 Th g it allege that any special circumstances exist herein - T h e "^"S" 1110 " which would require the Board to reexamine the At all times material herein, the Union has been decision made in the representation proceeding. We the designated exclusive collective-bargaining rep- therefore find that Respondent has not raised any resentative of Respondent's employees in the unit issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor described above, and has been recognized as such practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the by Respondent. Such recognition has been em- Motion for Summary Judgment. bodied in successive collective-bargaining agree- On the basis of the entire record, the Board m e n ts, th e m o st re c e n t o f w h ic h is effective by its makes the following: te r m s fr o m April 1, 19 8 0, to April 1, 19 82 . 3. The Board's Decision and Order On June 5, 1981, the Board issued a Decision and Order,, finding, inter alia, that certain produc- *Se Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c). a 256 NLRB 400. ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 485 Board a renewed motion for reconsideration of the FINDINGS OF FACT Board's Decision and Order. On July 9, 1981, the Board issued an unpublished Order denying Re- L T H E BU SI N ESS O F RESPONDENT spondent's renewed motion. Respondent, an Arizona corporation, is engaged On June 24 and July 13, 1981, the Union request- as a public utility in the generation, transmission, ed Respondent to recognize it as the exclusive rep- distribution, and sale of electricity and natural gas. resentative of the Palo Verde production and main- During the past 12-month period, which period is tenance employees and to bargain collectively re- representative of its operations generally, Respond- garding those employees' rates of pay, wages, en t, in th e course and conduct of its business oper- hours of employment, and other terms and condi- ations, derived gross rev enu es in excess of tions of employment. Respondent, by letters dated $250,000, and during the same period of time pur- June 25 and July 20, 1981, refused to recognize and c hased goods and m aterials v al u ed in ex c ess of to bargain with the Union, and has continued to $50 ,000 w h ic h w ere t pot in inter state c om - refuse to recognize and to bargain with the Union merce and delivered to its operations in the State refuse to recognize and to bargain with the Union of Arizona directly from suppliers located in States as the exclusive bargaining representative of its of th Unte Sttes other than the State of Arizo- Palo Verde employees. Respondent asserts as rea- ot he sons for its continued refusal to recognize and to we find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- bargain with the Union that the Board ignored acts spondent is, and has been at all times material which make the application of the accretion doc- herein, an employer engaged in commerce within trine inappropriate in this case, that the Palo Verde the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and employees constitute a new and distinct grouping, that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to and that Board law requires that such employees assert jurisdiction herein. be granted a self-determination election as to whether they wish to be represented by the Union "* T HE L ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED or remain unrepresented-arguments previously International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, presented to and considered by the Board. Thus, it AFL-CIO, Local 387, is a labor organization appears that Respondent is attempting to raise in within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. this proceeding issues which were raised and deter- .* .,. -. ,. ... ~~~~~~~III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES mined in the underlying representation cases. It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- A. The Representation Proceeding covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled The following employees of Respondent consti- to relitigate issues which were or could have been tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining litigated in a prior representation proceeding.' purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- Act: ing were or could have been litigated in the prior All production and maintenance employees representation proceeding, and Respondent does employed by Respondent throughout Re- not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- spondent's systemwide operations. ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does 2 Th g it allege that any special circumstances exist herein - T h e recognition which would require the Board to reexamine the At all times material herein, the Union has been decision made in the representation proceeding. We the designated exclusive collective-bargaining rep- therefore find that Respondent has not raised any resentative of Respondent's employees in the unit issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor described above, and has been recognized as such practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the by Respondent. Such recognition has been em- Motion for Summary Judgment. bodied in successive collective-bargaining agree- On the basis of the entire record, the Board m e n ts, th e m o st r ec e n t of w h ic h is effective by its makes the following: te r m s fr o m A pri l 1, 19 8 0, to April 1, 1982. 3. The Board's Decision and Order On June 5, 1981, the Board issued a Decision and Order,, finding, inter alia, that certain produc- *Se Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c). a 256 NLRB 400. ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 485 Board a renewed motion for reconsideration of the FINDINGS OF FACT Board's Decision and Order. On July 9, 1981, the Board issued an unpublished Order denying Re- L T H E BU SI N ESS O F RESPONDENT spondent's renewed motion. Respondent, an Arizona corporation, is engaged On June 24 and July 13, 1981, the Union request- as a public utility in the generation, transmission, ed Respondent to recognize it as the exclusive rep- distribution, and sale of electricity and natural gas. resentative of the Palo Verde production and main- During the past 12-month period, which period is tenance employees and to bargain collectively re- representative of its operations generally, Respond- garding those employees' rates of pay, wages, en t, in th e course and conduct of its business oper- hours of employment, and other terms and condi- ations, derived gross re v e n u es in excess of tions of employment. Respondent, by letters dated $250,000, and during the same period of time pur- June 25 and July 20, 1981, refused to recognize and c hased goods and m aterials v al u ed in ex c ess of to bargain with the Union, and has continued to $50 ,000 w h ic h w ere t pot in inter state c om - refuse to recognize and to bargain with the Union merce and delivered to its operations in the State refuse to recognize and to bargain with the Union of Arizona directly from suppliers located in States as the exclusive bargaining representative of its of th Unte Sttes other than the State of Arizo- Palo Verde employees. Respondent asserts as rea- ot he sons for its continued refusal to recognize and to we find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- bargain with the Union that the Board ignored acts spondent is, and has been at all times material which make the application of the accretion doc- herein, an employer engaged in commerce within trine inappropriate in this case, that the Palo Verde the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and employees constitute a new and distinct grouping, that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to and that Board law requires that such employees assert jurisdiction herein. be granted a self-determination election as to whether they wish to be represented by the Union "* T HE L ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED or remain unrepresented-arguments previously International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, presented to and considered by the Board. Thus, it AFL-CIO, Local 387, is a labor organization appears that Respondent is attempting to raise in within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. this proceeding issues which were raised and deter- .* .,. -. ,. ... ~~~~~~~III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES mined in the underlying representation cases. It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- A. The Representation Proceeding covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled The following employees of Respondent consti- to relitigate issues which were or could have been tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining litigated in a prior representation proceeding.' purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- A ct : ing were or could have been litigated in the prior All production and maintenance employees representation proceeding, and Respondent does employed by Respondent throughout Re- not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- spondent's systemwide operations. ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does 2 Th g it allege that any special circumstances exist herein - T h e recognition which would require the Board to reexamine the At all times material herein, the Union has been decision made in the representation proceeding. We the designated exclusive collective-bargaining rep- therefore find that Respondent has not raised any resentative of Respondent's employees in the unit issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor described above, and has been recognized as such practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the by Respondent. Such recognition has been em- Motion for Summary Judgment. bodied in successive collective-bargaining agree- On the basis of the entire record, the Board ments, the most recent of which is effective by its makes the following: te r m s fr o m A pri l 1, 19 8 0, to April 1, 1982. 3. The Board's Decision and Order On June 5, 1981, the Board issued a Decision and Order,, finding, inter alia, that certain produc- *Se Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c). a 256 NLRB 400. ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 485 Board a renewed motion for reconsideration of the FINDINGS OF FACT Board's Decision and Order. On July 9, 1981, the Board issued an unpublished Order denying Re- L T H E BU SI N ESS O F RESPONDENT spondent's renewed motion. Respondent, an Arizona corporation, is engaged On June 24 and July 13, 1981, the Union request- as a public utility in the generation, transmission, ed Respondent to recognize it as the exclusive rep- distribution, and sale of electricity and natural gas. resentative of the Palo Verde production and main- During the past 12-month period, which period is tenance employees and to bargain collectively re- representative of its operations generally, Respond- garding those employees' rates of pay, wages, en t, in th e course and conduct of its business oper- hours of employment, and other terms and condi- ations, derived gross re v e n u es in excess of tions of employment. Respondent, by letters dated $250,000, and during the same period of time pur- June 25 and July 20, 1981, refused to recognize and c hased goods and m aterials v al u ed in ex c ess of to bargain with the Union, and has continued to $50 ,000 w h ic h w ere t pot in inter state c om - refuse to recognize and to bargain with the Union merce and delivered to its operations in the State refuse to recognize and to bargain with the Union of Arizona directly from suppliers located in States as the exclusive bargaining representative of its of th Unte Sttes other than the State of Arizo- Palo Verde employees. Respondent asserts as rea- ot he sons for its continued refusal to recognize and to we find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- bargain with the Union that the Board ignored acts spondent is, and has been at all times material which make the application of the accretion doc- herein, an employer engaged in commerce within trine inappropriate in this case, that the Palo Verde the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and employees constitute a new and distinct grouping, that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to and that Board law requires that such employees assert jurisdiction herein. be granted a self-determination election as to whether they wish to be represented by the Union "* T HE L ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED or remain unrepresented-arguments previously International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, presented to and considered by the Board. Thus, it AFL-CIO, Local 387, is a labor organization appears that Respondent is attempting to raise in within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. this proceeding issues which were raised and deter- .* .,. -. ,. ... ~~~~~~~III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES mined in the underlying representation cases. It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- A. The Representation Proceeding covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled The following employees of Respondent consti- to relitigate issues which were or could have been tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining litigated in a prior representation proceeding.' purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- A ct : ing were or could have been litigated in the prior All production and maintenance employees representation proceeding, and Respondent does employed by Respondent throughout Re- not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- spondent's systemwide operations. ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does 2 Th g it allege that any special circumstances exist herein - T h e recognition which would require the Board to reexamine the At all times material herein, the Union has been decision made in the representation proceeding. We the designated exclusive collective-bargaining rep- therefore find that Respondent has not raised any resentative of Respondent's employees in the unit issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor described above, and has been recognized as such practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the by Respondent. Such recognition has been em- Motion for Summary Judgment. bodied in successive collective-bargaining agree- On the basis of the entire record, the Board ments, the most recent of which is effective by its makes the following: te r m s fr o m A pri l 1, 19 8 0, to April 1, 1982. 3. The Board's Decision and Order On June 5, 1981, the Board issued a Decision and Order,, finding, inter alia, that certain produc- *Se Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c). a 256 NLRB 400. 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion and maintenance employees employed by Re- 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- spondent at its Palo Verde, Arizona, nuclear power ers, AFL-CIO, Local 387, is a labor organization plant, which is currently in the process of being within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. constructed, are an accretion to, and included in, 3. All production and maintenance employees the unit described above. employed by Respondent throughout Respondent's systemwide operations constitute a unit appropriate B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's for the purposes of collective bargaining within the Refusal meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. Commencing on or about June 24, 1981, and at 4. At all times material herein, the above-named all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re- labor organization has been and now is the desig- spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex- nated exclusive representative of all employees in elusive collective-bargaining representative of all the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of the employees in the above-described unit. Com- collective bargaining within the meaning of Section mencing on or about June 25, 1981, and continuing 9(a) of the Act. at all times thereafter to date, Respondent has re- 5. By refusing on or about June 25, 1981, and at fused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the bargain with the Union as the exclusive representa- above-named labor organization as the exclusive tive for collective bargaining of all employees in bargaining representative of all the employees of said unit. Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- June 25, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- Act. sive representative of the employees in the appro- 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- priate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed of the Act. them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- IV. TH FFCT OF TH UNFAIR ABORgaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PTRACTICSF UPON COMMR within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair The activities of Respondent set forth in section labor practices affecting commerce within the III, above, occurring in connection with its oper- meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- ORDER fic, and commerce among the several States and Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- structing commerce and the free flow of com- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, merce. Arizona Public Service Company, Palo Verde, Ari- v. THE REMEDY zona, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: Having found that Respondent has engaged in 1. Cease and desist from: and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, conditions of employment with International upon request, bargain collectively with the Union Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in Local 387, as the exclusive bargaining representa- the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is tive of its employees in the following appropriate reached, embody such understanding in a signed nit agreement. The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts All production and maintenance employees and the entire record, makes the following: employed by Respondent throughout Re- spondent's systemwide operations. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (b) In any like or related manner interfering 1. Arizona Public Service Company is an em- with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the Act. 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion and maintenance employees employed by Re- 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- spondent at its Palo Verde, Arizona, nuclear power ers, AFL-CIO, Local 387, is a labor organization plant, which is currently in the process of being within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. constructed, are an accretion to, and included in, 3. All production and maintenance employees the unit described above. employed by Respondent throughout Respondent's B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's systemwide operations constitute a unit appropriate B. The Reqest To Bargain and Respondents the purposes of collective bargaining within the Re <<y """ meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. Commencing on or about June 24, 1981, and at 4. At all times material herein, the above-named all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re- labor organization has been and now is the desig- spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex- nated exclusive representative of all employees in elusive collective-bargaining representative of all the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of the employees in the above-described unit. Com- collective bargaining within the meaning of Section mencing on or about June 25, 1981, and continuing 9(a) of the Act. at all times thereafter to date, Respondent has re- 5. By refusing on or about June 25, 1981, and at fused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the bargain with the Union as the exclusive representa- above-named labor organization as the exclusive tive for collective bargaining of all employees in bargaining representative of all the employees of said unit. Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- June 25, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- Act. sive representative of the employees in the appro- 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- priate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed of the Act. them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR g a g e d in a n d is engaging in u n f a i r la b o r Practices IV. 1H ME CJTTL 1F U1 E. UlNFAlK LAHBtOR-. * fr<.'r vi *iA. PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE wit h in t h e meaning o f Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. PRACI ICrA UrUN CUMMh-KRC_ . „ *. „ 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair The activities of Respondent set forth in section labor practices affecting commerce within the III, above, occurring in connection with its oper- meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- ORDER fic, and commerce among the several States and Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- structing commerce and the free flow of com- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, m e rc e . Arizona Public Service Company, Palo Verde, Ari- v. THE REMEDY zona, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: Having found that Respondent has engaged in 1. Cease and desist from: and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, conditions of employment with International upon request, bargain collectively with the Union Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in Local 387, as the exclusive bargaining representa- the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is tive of its employees in the following appropriate reached, embody such understanding in a signed unit: agreement. The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts All production and maintenance employees and the entire record, makes the following: employed by Respondent throughout Re- spondent's systemwide operations. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (b) In any like or related manner interfering 1. Arizona Public Service Company is an em- with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the Act. 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion and maintenance employees employed by Re- 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- spondent at its Palo Verde, Arizona, nuclear power ers, AFL-CIO, Local 387, is a labor organization plant, which is currently in the process of being within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. constructed, are an accretion to, and included in, 3. All production and maintenance employees the unit described above. employed by Respondent throughout Respondent's B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's systemwide operations constitute a unit appropriate B. The Reqest To Bargain and Respondents the purposes of collective bargaining within the Re <<y """ meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. Commencing on or about June 24, 1981, and at 4. At all times material herein, the above-named all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re- labor organization has been and now is the desig- spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex- nated exclusive representative of all employees in elusive collective-bargaining representative of all the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of the employees in the above-described unit. Com- collective bargaining within the meaning of Section mencing on or about June 25, 1981, and continuing 9(a) of the Act. at all times thereafter to date, Respondent has re- 5. By refusing on or about June 25, 1981, and at fused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the bargain with the Union as the exclusive representa- above-named labor organization as the exclusive tive for collective bargaining of all employees in bargaining representative of all the employees of said unit. Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- June 25, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- Act. sive representative of the employees in the appro- 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- priate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed of the Act. them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR g a g e d in a n d is engaging in u n f a i r la b o r Practices IV. 1H ME CJTTL 1F U1 E, UlNFAlK LAHBtOR-. * fr<.'r vi *iA. PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE wit h in t h e meaning o f Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. PRACI ICrA UrUN CUMMh-KRC_ . „ *. „ 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair The activities of Respondent set forth in section labor practices affecting commerce within the III, above, occurring in connection with its oper- meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- ORDER fic, and commerce among the several States and Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- structing commerce and the free flow of com- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, m e rc e . Arizona Public Service Company, Palo Verde, Ari- v. THE REMEDY zona, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: Having found that Respondent has engaged in 1. Cease and desist from: and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, conditions of employment with International upon request, bargain collectively with the Union Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in Local 387, as the exclusive bargaining representa- the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is tive of its employees in the following appropriate reached, embody such understanding in a signed unit: agreement. The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts All production and maintenance employees and the entire record, makes the following: employed by Respondent throughout Re- spondent's systemwide operations. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (b) In any like or related manner interfering 1. Arizona Public Service Company is an em- with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the Act. 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion and maintenance employees employed by Re- 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- spondent at its Palo Verde, Arizona, nuclear power ers, AFL-CIO, Local 387, is a labor organization plant, which is currently in the process of being within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. constructed, are an accretion to, and included in, 3. All production and maintenance employees the unit described above. employed by Respondent throughout Respondent's B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's systemwide operations constitute a unit appropriate B. The Reqest To Bargain and Respondents the purposes of collective bargaining within the Re <<y """ meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. Commencing on or about June 24, 1981, and at 4. At all times material herein, the above-named all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re- labor organization has been and now is the desig- spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex- nated exclusive representative of all employees in elusive collective-bargaining representative of all the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of the employees in the above-described unit. Com- collective bargaining within the meaning of Section mencing on or about June 25, 1981, and continuing 9(a) of the Act. at all times thereafter to date, Respondent has re- 5. By refusing on or about June 25, 1981, and at fused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the bargain with the Union as the exclusive representa- above-named labor organization as the exclusive tive for collective bargaining of all employees in bargaining representative of all the employees of said unit. Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- June 25, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused to tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- Act. sive representative of the employees in the appro- 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- priate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed of the Act. them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR g a g e d in a n d is engaging in u n f a i r la b o r Practices IV. 1H ME CTr'EL 1 Ur1 E, UlNFAlK LADBtOR-. * fr<.'r vi *iA. PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE wit h in t h e meaning o f Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. PRACI ICEa UrUN CUMMh-KRC_ . „ *. „ 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair The activities of Respondent set forth in section labor practices affecting commerce within the III, above, occurring in connection with its oper- meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- ORDER fic, and commerce among the several States and Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- structing commerce and the free flow of com- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, m e rc e . Arizona Public Service Company, Palo Verde, Ari- v. THE REMEDY zona, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: Having found that Respondent has engaged in 1. Cease and desist from: and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, conditions of employment with International upon request, bargain collectively with the Union Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in Local 387, as the exclusive bargaining representa- the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is tive of its employees in the following appropriate reached, embody such understanding in a signed unit: agreement. The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts All production and maintenance employees and the entire record, makes the following: employed by Respondent throughout Re- spondent's systemwide operations. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (b) In any like or related manner interfering 1. Arizona Public Service Company is an em- with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. the Act. ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 487 2. Take the following affirmative action which APPENDIX the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the EMPLOYEES NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES Act: POSTED BY ORDER OF THE (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named NATIO LT B OR RLAON OARD labor organization as the exclusive representative An Agency of the United Stats of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and collectively other terms and conditions of employment and, if concerning rates of a concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and an understanding is reached, embody such under- other terms and conditions of employment standing in a signed agreement. with International Brotherhood of Electrical (b) Post at its Palo Verde, Arizona, facility Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 387, as the exclu- copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." sive representative of the employees in the Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the bargaining unit described below. Regional Director for Region 28, after being duly WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner signed by Respondent's representative, shall be interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive them by Section 7 of the Act. days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the places where notices to employees are customarily above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- sentative of all employees in the bargaining spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, unit described below, with respect to rates of defaced, or covered by any other material. pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, tions of employment and, if an understanding in writing, within 20 days from the date of this is reached, embody such understanding in a Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: with. ~~~~~~~~~with. ~All production and maintenance employees In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United employed by us throughout our systemwide States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by operations. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY Order of the National Labor Relations Board."ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 487 2. Take the following affirmative action which APPENDIX the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the N EMPLOYEES Act: ~~~~~~~~~~~POSTED BY ORDER OF THE (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor organization as the exclusive representative An AABOc of BOARD of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and W collectively other terms and conditions of employment and, if concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and an understanding is reached, embody such under- other terms and conditions of employment standing in a signed agreement. with International Brotherhood of Electrical (b) Post at its Palo Verde, Arizona, facility Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 387, as the exclu- copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' sive representative of the employees in the Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the bargaining unit described below. Regional Director for Region 28, after being duly WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner signed by Respondent's representative, shall be interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive them by Section 7 of the Act. days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the places where notices to employees are customarily above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- sentative of all employees in the bargaining spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, unit described below, with respect to rates of defaced, or covered by any other material. pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, tions of employment and, if an understanding in writing, within 20 days from the date of this is reached, embody such understanding in a Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: with.„ *i All production and maintenance employees *In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United employed by us throughout our systemwide States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by operations. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing anAniTOtA PII SPBVICF CnMPANV Order of the National Labor Relations Board."ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 487 2. Take the following affirmative action which APPENDIX the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the N EMPLOYEES Act: ~~~~~~~~~~~POSTED BY ORDER OF THE (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor organization as the exclusive representative An AABOc of BOARD of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and W collectively other terms and conditions of employment and, if concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and an understanding is reached, embody such under- other terms and conditions of employment standing in a signed agreement. with International Brotherhood of Electrical (b) Post at its Palo Verde, Arizona, facility Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 387, as the exclu- copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' sive representative of the employees in the Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the bargaining unit described below. Regional Director for Region 28, after being duly WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner signed by Respondent's representative, shall be interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive them by Section 7 of the Act. days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the places where notices to employees are customarily above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- sentative of all employees in the bargaining spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, unit described below, with respect to rates of defaced, or covered by any other material. pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, tions of employment and, if an understanding in writing, within 20 days from the date of this is reached, embody such understanding in a Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: with.„ *i All production and maintenance employees *In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United employed by us throughout our systemwide States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by operations. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing anAniTOtA PII SPBVICF CnMPANV Order of the National Labor Relations Board."ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 487 2. Take the following affirmative action which APPENDIX the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the N EMPLOYEES Act: ~~~~~~~~~~~POSTED BY ORDER OF THE (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor organization as the exclusive representative An AABOc of BOARD of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and W collectively other terms and conditions of employment and, if concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and an understanding is reached, embody such under- other terms and conditions of employment standing in a signed agreement. with International Brotherhood of Electrical (b) Post at its Palo Verde, Arizona, facility Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 387, as the exclu- copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' sive representative of the employees in the Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the bargaining unit described below. Regional Director for Region 28, after being duly WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner signed by Respondent's representative, shall be interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive them by Section 7 of the Act. days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the places where notices to employees are customarily above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- sentative of all employees in the bargaining spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, unit described below, with respect to rates of defaced, or covered by any other material. pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, tions of employment and, if an understanding in writing, within 20 days from the date of this is reached, embody such understanding in a Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: with.„ *i All production and maintenance employees *In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United employed by us throughout our systemwide States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by operations. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing anAniTOtA Pnm Ir SPBVICF CnMPANV Order of the National Labor Relations Board."ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 487 2. Take the following affirmative action which APPENDIX the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the N EMPLOYEES Act: ~~~~~~~~~~~POSTED BY ORDER OF THE (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor organization as the exclusive representative An AABOc of BOARD of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and W collectively other terms and conditions of employment and, if concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and an understanding is reached, embody such under- other terms and conditions of employment standing in a signed agreement. with International Brotherhood of Electrical (b) Post at its Palo Verde, Arizona, facility Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 387, as the exclu- copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' sive representative of the employees in the Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the bargaining unit described below. Regional Director for Region 28, after being duly WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner signed by Respondent's representative, shall be interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive them by Section 7 of the Act. days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the places where notices to employees are customarily above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- sentative of all employees in the bargaining spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, unit described below, with respect to rates of defaced, or covered by any other material. pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, tions of employment and, if an understanding in writing, within 20 days from the date of this is reached, embody such understanding in a Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: with.„ *i All production and maintenance employees *In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United employed by us throughout our systemwide States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by operations. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing anARIZTIA PII SPBVICF OMPANV Order of the National Labor Relations Board."ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY