Buckley School, The

718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Buckley School and California Federation of Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Teachers, American Federation of Teachers, National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- AFL-CIO. Case 31-CA-11114 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- December 15, 1982 thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. December 15, 1982 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 and in response to Upon a charge filed on May 8, 1981, by Califor- the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent admits nia Federation of Teachers, American Federation that it refused and continues to refuse to recognize of Teachers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa- and duly served on The Buckley School, herein tive of its employees. While it denies that the called Respondent, the General Counsel of the Na- Unon requested bargaining or that it refused to bargain, it does not challenge the authenticity of tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Di- bargain it does not challenge the authenticity of the Union's March 4, 1981, letter requesting bar- rector for Region 31, issued a complaint on June 9 letter re ing 1981, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent gaining and is March 9, 1981, letter refusing the agin ndging i request. (Both letters are attached as exhibits to the had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor General Counsel's motion.) In defense of its con- practices affecting commerce within themeaning duct, Respondent contests the validity of the certi- of Section 8(aX5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) fication issued by the National Labor Relations of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. eof the National Labor Relations Act, as amended Board. Specifically, Respondent asserts that it was Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of improperly denied a hearing on its objections to hearing before an administrative law judge were the conduct of the election ithat it had raised duly served on the parties to this proceeding. substantial and material issues of fact. The General With respect to the unfair labor practices, the Counsel asserts that Respondent improperly seeks complaint alleges in substance that on February 23, to relitigate issues which were raised and decided 1981, following a Board election in Case 31-RC- in the representation case. We agree with the Gen- 4692, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive eral Counsel. collective-bargaining representative of Respond- A review of the record, including the record in ent's employees in the unit found appropriate;1 and Case 31-RC-4692, reveals that, following a hearing that, commencing on or about March 9, 1981, and on the Union's petition, the Regional Director at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and issued a Decision and Direction of Election on Oc- continues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively tober 15, 1980. Respondent thereafter filed a timely with the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre- request for review and supporting brief with the sentative, although the Union has requested and is Board. On November 11, 1980, the Board issued an requesting it to do so. On June 19, 1981, Respond- order finding that substantial issues had been raised ent filed its answer to the complaint admitting in concerning the managerial status of three individ- part, and denying in part, the allegations in the uals which could best be resolved through the complaint. challenged ballot procedure, and in all other re- On August 27, 1981, counsel for the General spects denying Respondent's request for review be- Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for cause it raised no substantial issues warranting Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September review. An election was held on November 13, 2, 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the 1980, in which 33 ballots were cast for, and 30 proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show against, the Union, with 3 challenged ballots. Re- Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- spondent subsequently filed objections to conduct mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent affecting the results of the election and a statement thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show of position concerning the three challenged ballots. Cause. Respondent also requested that a hearing be held for the presentation of evidence and argument. The ' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, Regional Director gave both parties reasonable Case 31-RC-4692, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and otice and opportunity to present all relevant evi- 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electroystems Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th dence, and conducted a full investigation of all ob- Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Ca, 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 jections and challenges. Thereafter, on February F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 23 (D.C.Va. 1967); Folle( t Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 , 1981, the Regional Director issued a Supple- (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. mental Decision and Certification of Representa- 259 NLRB No. 93 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Buckley School and California Federation of Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Teachers, American Federation of Teachers, National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- AFL-CIO. Case 31-CA-11114 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- December 1, 1982 ^thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. December 15, 1982 Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the DECISION AND ORDER Board makes the following: BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Ruling o n t h e Motion for Summary Judgment ZIMMERMAN In its answer to the complaint and in response to Upon a charge filed on May 8, 1981, by Califor- t h e Notice To Show Cause, Respondent admits nia Federation of Teachers, American Federation t hat it refused and continues to refuse to recognize of Teachers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, t he Unio n as t he exclusive bargaining representa- and duly served on The Buckley School, herein ti v e of it s employees. While it denies that the called Respondent, the General Counsel of the Na- Unio n r equ ested bargaining or that it refused to i T i. i .* D A u *i,0 * i T bargain, it does not challenge the authenticity of tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Di- bran tde o hleg h uhniiyo tionl Laor Rlatins Bardby te Reiona Dr e Union's March 4, 1981, letter requesting bar- rector for Region 31, issued a complaint on June 9, t Uc letter requsing the 1981, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent gaining and its March 9, 1981, letter refusing the had engagedin aRepnd was engaging in unfair labor request. (Both letters are attached as exhibits to the had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor General Counsel's motion.) In defense of its con- practices affecting commerce within themeand7g duct, Respondent contests the validity of the certi- of Section 8(aX5) and (1) and Section 2(6) anded. fication issued by the National Labor Relations of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended Board. Specifically, Respondent asserts that it was Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of improperly denied a hearing on its objections to hearing before an administrative law judge were ethe conduct of the election in that it had raised duly served on the parties to this proceeding. substantial and material issues of fact. The General With respect to the unfair labor practices, the Counsel asserts that Respondent improperly seeks complaint alleges in substance that on February 23, to relitigate issues which were raised and decided 1981, following a Board election in Case 31-RC- in the representation case. We agree with the Gen- 4692, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive eral Counsel. collective-bargaining representative of Respond- A review of the record, including the record in ent's employees in the unit found appropriate;' and Case 31-RC-4692, reveals that, following a hearing that, commencing on or about March 9, 1981, and on the Union's petition, the Regional Director at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and issued a Decision and Direction of Election on Oc- continues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively tober 15, 1980. Respondent thereafter filed a timely with the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre- request for review and supporting brief with the sentative, although the Union has requested and is Board. On November 11, 1980, the Board issued an requesting it to do so. On June 19, 1981, Respond- order finding that substantial issues had been raised ent filed its answer to the complaint admitting in concerning the managerial status of three individ- part, and denying in part, the allegations in the uals which could best be resolved through the complaint. challenged ballot procedure, and in all other re- On August 27, 1981, counsel for the General spects denying Respondent's request for review be- Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for cause it raised no substantial issues warranting Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September review. An election was held on November 13, 2, 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the 1980, in which 33 ballots were cast for, and 30 proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show against, the Union, with 3 challenged ballots. Re- Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- spondent subsequently filed objections to conduct mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent affecting the results of the election and a statement thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show of position concerning the three challenged ballots. Cause. Respondent also requested that a hearing be held for the presentation of evidence and argument. The 'Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding.,Regional Director gave both parties reasonable caw 31-RC-4692, as the term "record" is defined in Seas. 102.68 and no t ic e a n d opportunity to present all relevant evi- 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electmsystems Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th dence, and Conducted a full investigation of all ob- Cir. 198); Golden Age Beverage Ca. 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 jections and challenges. Thereafter, on February F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Ca v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 2,18,teRgoa ietrise upe (D.C.Va. 1967), Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), e 323, 1981, the Regional Director issued a Supple- (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. mental Decision and Certification of Representa- 259 NLRB No. 93 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Buckley School and California Federation of Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Teachers, American Federation of Teachers, National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- AFL-CIO. Case 31-CA-11114 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- December 1, 1982 ^thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. December 15, 1982 Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the DECISION AND ORDER Bo ard makes the following: BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Ruling o n t h e Motion for Summary Judgment ZIMMERMAN In its answer to the complaint and in response to Upon a charge filed on May 8, 1981, by Califor- t h e Notice To Show Cause, Respondent admits nia Federation of Teachers, American Federation that it refused and continues to refuse to recognize of Teachers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, t he Unio n as t he exclusive bargaining representa- and duly served on The Buckley School, herein ti v e of it s employees. While it denies that the called Respondent, the General Counsel of the Na- Unio n r equ ested bargaining or that it refused to i T i. i .* D A u *i,0 * i T bargain, it does not challenge the authenticity of tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Di- bran tde o hleg h uhniiyo tionl Laor Rlatins Bardby te Reiona Dr e Union's March 4, 1981, letter requesting bar- rector for Region 31, issued a complaint on June 9, t Uc letter requsing the 1981, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent gaining and its March 9, 1981, letter refusing the had engagedin aRepnd was engaging in unfair labor request. (Both letters are attached as exhibits to the had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor General Counsel's motion.) In defense of its con- practices affecting commerce within themeand7g duct, Respondent contests the validity of the certi- of Section 8(aX5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and(7) fication issued by the National Labor Relations of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended Board. Specifically, Respondent asserts that it was Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of improperly denied a hearing on its objections to hearing before an administrative law judge were ethe conduct of the election in that it had raised duly served on the parties to this proceeding. substantial and material issues of fact. The General With respect to the unfair labor practices, the Counsel asserts that Respondent improperly seeks complaint alleges in substance that on February 23, to relitigate issues which were raised and decided 1981, following a Board election in Case 31-RC- in the representation case. We agree with the Gen- 4692, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive eral Counsel. collective-bargaining representative of Respond- A review of the record, including the record in ent's employees in the unit found appropriate;' and Case 31-RC-4692, reveals that, following a hearing that, commencing on or about March 9, 1981, and on the Union's petition, the Regional Director at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and issued a Decision and Direction of Election on Oc- continues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively tober 15, 1980. Respondent thereafter filed a timely with the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre- request for review and supporting brief with the sentative, although the Union has requested and is Board. On November 11, 1980, the Board issued an requesting it to do so. On June 19, 1981, Respond- order finding that substantial issues had been raised ent filed its answer to the complaint admitting in concerning the managerial status of three individ- part, and denying in part, the allegations in the uals which could best be resolved through the complaint. challenged ballot procedure, and in all other re- On August 27, 1981, counsel for the General spects denying Respondent's request for review be- Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for cause it raised no substantial issues warranting Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September review. An election was held on November 13, 2, 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the 1980, in which 33 ballots were cast for, and 30 proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show against, the Union, with 3 challenged ballots. Re- Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- spondent subsequently filed objections to conduct mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent affecting the results of the election and a statement thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show of position concerning the three challenged ballots. Cause. Respondent also requested that a hearing be held for the presentation of evidence and argument. The 'Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding.,Regional Director gave both parties reasonable caw 31-RC-4692, as the term "record" is defined in Seas. 102.68 and no t ic e a n d opportunity to present all relevant evi- 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electmsystems Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th dence, and Conducted a full investigation of all ob- Cir. 198); Golden Age Beverage Ca. 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 jections and challenges. Thereafter, on February F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Ca v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 2,18,teRgoa ietrise upe (D.C.Va. 1967), Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), e 323, 1981, the Regional Director issued a Supple- (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. mental Decision and Certification of Representa- 259 NLRB No. 93 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Buckley School and California Federation of Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Teachers, American Federation of Teachers, National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- AFL-CIO. Case 31-CA-11114 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- December 1, 1982 ^thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. December 15, 1982 Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the DECISION AND ORDER Bo ard m ak e s th e following: BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Ruling o n t h e Motion for Summary Judgment ZIMMERMAN In its answer to the complaint and in response to Upon a charge filed on May 8, 1981, by Califor- t h e Notice To Show Cause, Respondent admits nia Federation of Teachers, American Federation that it refused and continues to refuse to recognize of Teachers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, t he Unio n as t he exclusive bargaining representa- and duly served on The Buckley School, herein ti v e of it s employees. While it denies that the called Respondent, the General Counsel of the Na- Unio n r equ ested bargaining or that it refused to i T i. i .* D A u *i,0 * i T bargain, it does not challenge the authenticity of tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Di- bran tde o hleg h uhniiyo tionl Laor Rlatins Bardby te Reiona Dr e Union's March 4, 1981, letter requesting bar- rector for Region 31, issued a complaint on June 9, t Uc letter requsing the 1981, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent gaining and its March 9, 1981, letter refusing the had engagedin aRepnd was engaging in unfair labor request. (Both letters are attached as exhibits to the had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor General Counsel's motion.) In defense of its con- practices affecting commerce within themeand7g duct, Respondent contests the validity of the certi- of Section 8(aX5) and (1) and Section 2(6) anded. fication issued by the National Labor Relations of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended Board. Specifically, Respondent asserts that it was Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of improperly denied a hearing on its objections to hearing before an administrative law judge were ethe conduct of the election in that it had raised duly served on the parties to this proceeding. substantial and material issues of fact. The General With respect to the unfair labor practices, the Counsel asserts that Respondent improperly seeks complaint alleges in substance that on February 23, to relitigate issues which were raised and decided 1981, following a Board election in Case 31-RC- in the representation case. We agree with the Gen- 4692, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive eral Counsel. collective-bargaining representative of Respond- A review of the record, including the record in ent's employees in the unit found appropriate;' and Case 31-RC-4692, reveals that, following a hearing that, commencing on or about March 9, 1981, and on the Union's petition, the Regional Director at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and issued a Decision and Direction of Election on Oc- continues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively tober 15, 1980. Respondent thereafter filed a timely with the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre- request for review and supporting brief with the sentative, although the Union has requested and is Board. On November 11, 1980, the Board issued an requesting it to do so. On June 19, 1981, Respond- order finding that substantial issues had been raised ent filed its answer to the complaint admitting in concerning the managerial status of three individ- part, and denying in part, the allegations in the uals which could best be resolved through the complaint. challenged ballot procedure, and in all other re- On August 27, 1981, counsel for the General spects denying Respondent's request for review be- Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for cause it raised no substantial issues warranting Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September review. An election was held on November 13, 2, 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the 1980, in which 33 ballots were cast for, and 30 proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show against, the Union, with 3 challenged ballots. Re- Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- spondent subsequently filed objections to conduct mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent affecting the results of the election and a statement thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show of position concerning the three challenged ballots. Cause. Respondent also requested that a hearing be held for the presentation of evidence and argument. The 'Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding.,Regional Director gave both parties reasonable caw 31-RC-4692, as the term "record" is defined in Seas. 102.68 and no t ic e a n d opportunity to present all relevant evi- 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electmsystems Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th dence, and Conducted a full investigation of all ob- Cir. 198); Golden Age Beverage Ca. 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 jections and challenges. Thereafter, on February F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Ca v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 2,18,teRgoa ietrise upe (D.C.Va. 1967), Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), e 323, 1981, the Regional Director issued a Supple- (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. mental Decision and Certification of Representa- 259 NLRB No. 93 THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL 719 tive, in which he sustained the challenge to one revenues in excess of $1 million. It annually pur- voter's ballot, and concluded that Respondent's ob- chases goods and services valued in excess of jections failed to raise substantial or material issues $5,000 directly from suppliers located outside the which would warrant setting aside the election, State of California. thereby by implication also concluding that a hear- We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- ing was not warranted. Respondent's request for spondent is, and has been at all times material review of the Supplemental Decision and Certifica- herein, an employer engaged in commerce within tion of Representative and request for oral argu- the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and ment was denied by the Board on June 17, 1981. that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- assert jurisdiction herein. covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- I. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled California Federation of Teachers, American to relitigate issues which were or could have been Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga- litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 2 nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- Act. ing were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding, and Respondent does III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- A. The Representation P eedin ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege that any special circumstances exist herein 1. The unit which would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding. We The following employees of Respondent consti- therefore find that Respondent has not raised any tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor wth the of ecton 9 of the practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment. All faculty members employed by the Em- On the basis of the entire record, the Board ployer at its location at 3900 Stansbury makes the following: Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, excluding office clerical employees, janitorial employees, FINDINGS OF FACT bus drivers, and supervisors as defined in the I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTAct Respondent is a California corporation engaged 2. The certification in the operation of a private school with its princi- On November 13, 1980, a majority of the em- pal place of business in Sherman Oaks, California. ployees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret- Within the 12 months preceding the Decision and ballot election conducted under the supervision of Direction of Election, Respondent derived gross the Regional Director for Region 31, designated the Union as their representative for the purpose of See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Ca v. NR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); the on as their representative for the purpose of Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(0 and 102.69(c). In its collective bargaining with Respondent. response to the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent also argues, for the The Union was certified as the collective-bar- first time, that the Regional Director improperly considered and relied gaining representative of the employees in said unit upon evidence that Respondent had not seen in the earlier representation cae. Respondent's failure to timely raise this issue in the representation on February 23, 1981, and the Union continues to proceeding constitutes a waiver precluding it from raising this issue as a be such exclusive representative within the mean- defense to its refusal to bargain with the Union. See Fall River Savings f 9 f Bank. 250 NLRB 935, 936, fn. 12 (1980). enfd. 649 F.2d 50, 57-61 (Ist ing of Section 9(a) o the Act. Cir. 1981); St. Anthony Hospital Systems, 252 NLRB 50 (1980), enforce- ment denied on other grounds 655 F.2d 1028 (10th Cir. 1981). B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Further, in the representation case Respondent did not seek reviewRefusal with respect to the Regional Director's sustaining of the challenge to the ballot of Wendy Jane Lawson. The remaining ballots were then not de- Commencing on or about March 4, 1981, and at terminative. As to the objections, the facts were either essentially undis-e te Union hs r d R- puted, or the Regional Director accepted as true the evidence submitted all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re- by Respondent, apparently investigating only to ascertain whether the spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex- objections were otherwise supported. Finally, Respondent submitted its clusive collective-bargaining representative of all evidence in support of its objections as exhibits to its request for review, and the Board concluded that they were insufficient to warrant granting the employees in the above-described unit. review with respect to the Regional Director's determination that the Commencing on or about March 9, 1981, and Union should be certified without the holding of a hearing. Rewvo D.S. continuin at all time thereafter to date, Respond- Inc., and/or White Cross Stores Inc., No. 14 v. N.LR.B., 653 F.2d 264 cs ereae e e (6th Cir. 1981). ent has refused, and continues to refuse, to recog- THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL 719 tive, in which he sustained the challenge to one revenues in excess of $1 million. It annually pur- voter's ballot, and concluded that Respondent's ob- chases goods and services valued in excess of jections failed to raise substantial or material issues $5,000 directly from suppliers located outside the which would warrant setting aside the election, State of California. thereby by implication also concluding that a hear- We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- ing was not warranted. Respondent's request for spondent is, and has been at all times material review of the Supplemental Decision and Certifica- herein, an employer engaged in commerce within tion of Representative and request for oral argu- the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and ment was denied by the Board on June 17, 1981. that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- assert jurisdiction herein. covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- * TH E LABO R ORGANIZATION INVOLVED leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled California Federation of Teachers, American to relitigate issues which were or could have been Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga- litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 2'nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- Act. ing were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding, and Respondent does I"1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- A. The Representation Proceeding ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege that any special circumstances exist herein 1. The unit which would require the Board to reexamine the T 11 e o R cnt decision made in the representation proceeding. We T h e following employees of Respondent consti- therefore find that Respondent has not raised any pt ute a u nwt appropriate for collective-bargaining issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor p^p0 ^ w lth m t he "^"'"S o f S e c tlo n 9^ o f the practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment. All faculty members employed by the Em- On the basis of the entire record, the Board ployer at its location at 3900 Stansbury makes the following: Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, excluding office clerical employees, janitorial employees, FINDINGS OF FACT bus drivers, and supervisors as defined in the I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT A c t Respondent is a California corporation engaged 2. The certification in the operation of a private school with its princi- On November 13, 1980. a majority of the em- pal place of business in Sherman Oaks, California. ployees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret- Within the 12 months preceding the Decision and ballot election conducted under the supervision of Direction of Election, Respondent derived gross the Regional Director for Region 31, designated 2 see ^ A Plate Glass Ca. v. N.L.R.B. 313 u.s. 146,162 (941); t h e Uni on a s t h e ir representative for the purpose of Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(0 and 102.69(c). In its collective bargaining With Respondent. response to the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent also argues, for the The Union was certified as the collective-bar- first time, that the Regional Director improperly considered and relied gaining representative of the employees in said unit upon evidence that Respondent had not ween in the earlier representation cae. Respondent's failure to timely raise this issue in the representation On February 23, 1981, and the Union continues tO proceeding constitutes a waiver precluding it from raising this issue as a be Such exclusive representative within the mean- defense to its refusal to bargain with the Union. See Fall River Savings p o .t;, ,. o f t>« Act Bank, 250 NLRB 935, 936, fn. 12 (1980), enfd. 649 F.2d 50, 57-61 (1st i o ection 9(a; of te At. Cir. 1981); St. Anthony Hospital Systems, 252 NLRB 50 (1980), enforce- ment denied on other grounds 655 F.2d 1028 (1Oh cir. 1981). B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Further, in the representation case Respondent did not seek review Refusal with respect to the Regional Director's sustaining of the challenge to the ballot of Wendy Jane Lawson. The remaining ballots were then not de- Commencing On Or about March 4, 1981, and at terminative. As to the objections, the facts were either essentially undis- ._ , , - »i, IT; l,.,. , * - puted. or the Regional Director accepted as true the evidence submitted all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re- by Respondent, apparently investigating only to ascertain whether the spondent tO bargain collectively with it as the ex- objections were otherwise supported. Finally, Respondent submitted its elusive collective-bargaining representative of all evidence in support of its objections as exhibits to its request for review, and the Board concluded that they were insufficient to warrant granting the employees in the above-described Unit. review with respect to the Regional Director's determination that the Commencing On Or about March 9, 1981, and Union should be certified without the holding of a hearing. Rewo D.S.. cntiniino at ill timM trirfter tn ritp Rponr- Inc'. and/or white Cross Stores. Inc., No. 14 v. N.LR.B., 653 F.2d 264 continuing at al times thereafer to date, Respond- (6th cir. 1981). ent has refused, and continues to refuse, to recog- THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL 719 tive, in which he sustained the challenge to one revenues in excess of $1 million. It annually pur- voter's ballot, and concluded that Respondent's ob- chases goods and services valued in excess of jections failed to raise substantial or material issues $5,000 directly from suppliers located outside the which would warrant setting aside the election, State of California. thereby by implication also concluding that a hear- We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- ing was not warranted. Respondent's request for spondent is, and has been at all times material review of the Supplemental Decision and Certifica- herein, an employer engaged in commerce within tion of Representative and request for oral argu- the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and ment was denied by the Board on June 17, 1981. that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- assert jurisdiction herein. covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- * TH E LABO R ORGANIZATION INVOLVED leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled California Federation of Teachers, American to relitigate issues which were or could have been Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga- litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 2'nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- Act. ing were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding, and Respondent does I"1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- A. The Representation Proceeding ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege that any special circumstances exist herein 1. The unit which would require the Board to reexamine the T 11 e o R cnt decision made in the representation proceeding. We T h e following employees of Respondent consti- therefore find that Respondent has not raised any pt ute a u nwt appropteate for collective-bargaining issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor p^p0 ^ w lth m t he "^"'"S o f S e c tlo n 9^ o f the practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment. All faculty members employed by the Em- On the basis of the entire record, the Board ployer at its location at 3900 Stansbury makes the following: Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, excluding office clerical employees, janitorial employees, FINDINGS OF FACT bus drivers, and supervisors as defined in the I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT A c t Respondent is a California corporation engaged 2. The certification in the operation of a private school with its princi- On November 13, 1980. a majority of the em- pal place of business in Sherman Oaks, California. ployees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret- Within the 12 months preceding the Decision and ballot election conducted under the supervision of Direction of Election, Respondent derived gross the Regional Director for Region 31, designated 2 see Ats h Plate Gass Ca v. N.L.R.B. 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); t h e Uni o n a s t h e ir representative for the purpose of Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(0 and 102.69(c). In its collective bargaining With Respondent. response to the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent also argues, for the The Union was certified as the collective-bar- first time, that the Regional Director improperly considered and relied gaining representative of the employees in said unit upon evidence that Respondent had not ween in the earlier representation cae. Respondent's failure to timely raise this issue in the representation On February 23, 1981, and the Union continues tO proceeding constitutes a waiver precluding it from raising this issue as a be Such exclusive representative within the mean- defense to its refusal to bargain with the Union. See Fall River Savings p o .t;, ,. o f t>« Act Bank, 250 NLRB 935, 936, fn. 12 (1980), enfd. 649 F.2d 50, 57-61 (1st i o ection 9(a; of te At. Cir. 1981); St. Anthony Hospital Systems, 252 NLRB 50 (1980), enforce- ment denied on other grounds 655 F.2d 1028 (1Oh cir. 1981). B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Further, in the representation case Respondent did not seek review Refusal with respect to the Regional Director's sustaining of the challenge to the ballot of Wendy Jane Lawson. The remaining ballots were then not de- Commencing On Or about March 4, 1981, and at terminative. As to the objections, the facts were either essentially undis- ._ , , - »i, IT; l,.,. , * - puted. or the Regional Director accepted as true the evidence submitted all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re- by Respondent, apparently investigating only to ascertain whether the spondent tO bargain collectively with it as the ex- objections were otherwise supported. Finally, Respondent submitted its elusive collective-bargaining representative of all evidence in support of its objections as exhibits to its request for review, and the Board concluded that they were insufficient to warrant granting the employees in the above-described Unit. review with respect to the Regional Director's determination that the Commencing On Or about March 9, 1981, and Union should be certified without the holding of a hearing. Rewo D.S.. cntinnino at ill timM trirfter tn ritp Rponr- Inc'. and/or white Cross Stores. Inc., No. 14 v. N.LR.B., 653 F.2d 264 continuing at al times thereafer to date, Respond- (6th cir. 1981). ent has refused, and continues to refuse, to recog- THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL 719 tive, in which he sustained the challenge to one revenues in excess of $1 million. It annually pur- voter's ballot, and concluded that Respondent's ob- chases goods and services valued in excess of jections failed to raise substantial or material issues $5,000 directly from suppliers located outside the which would warrant setting aside the election, State of California. thereby by implication also concluding that a hear- We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- ing was not warranted. Respondent's request for spondent is, and has been at all times material review of the Supplemental Decision and Certifica- herein, an employer engaged in commerce within tion of Representative and request for oral argu- the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and ment was denied by the Board on June 17, 1981. that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- assert jurisdiction herein. covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe- cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al- * TH E LABO R ORGANIZATION INVOLVED leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled California Federation of Teachers, American to relitigate issues which were or could have been Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga- litigated in a prior representation proceeding. 2'nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- Act. ing were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding, and Respondent does I"1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov- A. The Representation Proceeding ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege that any special circumstances exist herein 1. The unit which would require the Board to reexamine the T 11 e o R cnt decision made in the representation proceeding. We T h e following employees of Respondent consti- therefore find that Respondent has not raised any pt ute a u nwt appropteate for collective-bargaining issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor p^p0 ^ w lth m t he "^"'"g o f S e c tlo n 9^ o f the practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment. All faculty members employed by the Em- On the basis of the entire record, the Board ployer at its location at 3900 Stansbury makes the following: Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, excluding office clerical employees, janitorial employees, FINDINGS OF FACT bus drivers, and supervisors as defined in the I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT A c t Respondent is a California corporation engaged 2. The certification in the operation of a private school with its princi- On November 13, 1980. a majority of the em- pal place of business in Sherman Oaks, California. ployees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret- Within the 12 months preceding the Decision and ballot election conducted under the supervision of Direction of Election, Respondent derived gross the Regional Director for Region 31, designated 2 see Ats h Plate Gass Ca v. N.L.R.B. 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); t h e Uni o n a s t h e ir representative for the purpose of Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees. 102.67(0 and 102.69(c). In its collective bargaining With Respondent. response to the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent also argues, for the The Union was certified as the collective-bar- first time, that the Regional Director improperly considered and relied gaining representative of the employees in said unit upon evidence that Respondent had not ween in the earlier representation cae. Respondent's failure to timely raise this issue in the representation On February 23, 1981, and the Union continues tO proceeding constitutes a waiver precluding it from raising this issue as a be Such exclusive representative within the mean- defense to its refusal to bargain with the Union. See Fall River Savings p o .t;, ,. o f t>« Act Bank, 250 NLRB 935, 936, fn. 12 (1980), enfd. 649 F.2d 50, 57-61 (1st ng o f Section 9(a; of te At. Cir. 1981); St. Anthony Hospital Systems, 252 NLRB 50 (1980), enforce- ment denied on other grounds 655 F.2d 1028 (1Oh cir. 1981). B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Further, in the representation case Respondent did not seek review Refusal with respect to the Regional Director's sustaining of the challenge to the ballot of Wendy Jane Lawson. The remaining ballots were then not de- Commencing On Or about March 4, 1981, and at terminative. As to the objections, the facts were either essentially undis- ._ , , - »i, IT; l,.,. , * - puted. or the Regional Director accepted as true the evidence submitted all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re- by Respondent, apparently investigating only to ascertain whether the spondent tO bargain collectively with it as the ex- objections were otherwise supported. Finally, Respondent submitted its elusive collective-bargaining representative of all evidence in support of its objections as exhibits to its request for review, and the Board concluded that they were insufficient to warrant granting the employees in the above-described Unit. review with respect to the Regional Director's determination that the Commencing On Or about March 9, 1981, and Union should be certified without the holding of a hearing. Rewo D.S.. cntinnino at ill timM trirfter tn ritp Rponr- Inc'. and/or white Cross Stores. Inc., No. 14 v. N.LR.B., 653 F.2d 264 continuing at al times thereafer to date, Respond- (6th cir. 1981). ent has refused, and continues to refuse, to recog- 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the representative for collective bargaining of all em- Act. ployees in said unit. 3. All faculty members employed by Respondent Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since at its location at 3900 Stansbury Avenue, Sherman March 9, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused Oaks, California, excluding office clerical employ- to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- ees, janitorial employees, bus drivers, and supervi- sive representative of the employees in the appro- sors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro- priate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent priate for the purposes of collective bargaining has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) 4. Since February 23, 1981, the above-named of the Act. labor organization has been and now is the certified IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR and exclusive representative of all employees in the PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) The activities of Respondent set forth in section of the Act. III, above, occurring in connection with its oper- 5. By refusing on or about March 9, 1981, and at ations described in section I, above, have a close, all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- above-named labor organization as the exclusive fic, and commerce among the several States and bargaining representative of all the employees of tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent structing commerce and the free flow of corn- has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- merce. tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. V. THE REMEDY Act. 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- Having found that Respondent has engaged in ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- upon request, bargain collectively with the Union gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices as the exclusive representative of all employees in within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair reached, embody such understanding in a signed labor practices affecting commerce within the agreement. meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. In order to insure that the employees in the ap- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their ORDER selected bargaining agent for the period provided P o io e Nti L Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- elatons ca the Labor fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- lat lons Board herey ders that th e Respondent, mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as l atlo n s B o a rd he r y re thSan he spondentt the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- The Buley chool, Sherman Oaks, California, its propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., officers agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a 1 Cease and desist from: Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, conditions of employment with California Feder- 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). ation of Teachers, American Federation of Teach- The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts ers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining repre- and the entire record, makes the following: sentative of its employees in the following appro- priate unit: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW All faculty members employed by the Em- 1. The Buckley School is an employer engaged ployer at its location at 3900 Stansbury in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, excluding and (7) of the Act. office clerical employees, janitorial employees, 2. California Federation of Teachers, American bus drivers, and supervisors as defined in the Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga- Act. 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the representative for collective bargaining of all em- Act. ployees in said unit. 3. All faculty members employed by Respondent Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since at its location at 3900 Stansbury Avenue, Sherman March 9, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused Oaks, California, excluding office clerical employ- to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- ees, janitorial employees, bus drivers, and supervi- sive representative of the employees in the appro- sors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro- priate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent priate for the purposes of collective bargaining has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) 4. since February 23, 1981, the above-named of the Act. labor organization has been and now is the certified IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR an d e x c l u s i v e representative of all employees in the PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE a fo re s a id appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) The activities of Respondent set forth in section of the Act. Ill, above, occurring in connection with its oper- 5. By refusing on or about March 9, 1981, and at ations described in section I, above, have a close, all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- above-named labor organization as the exclusive fic, and commerce among the several States and bargaining representative of all the employees of tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent structing commerce and the free flow of com- has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- m e r c e . tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Aft. V. THE REMEDY-At 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- Having found that Respondent has engaged in ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- upon request, bargain collectively with the Union gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices as the exclusive representative of all employees in within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair reached, embody such understanding in a signed labor practices affecting commerce within the agreement,.meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. In order to insure that the employees in the ap- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their ORDER selected bargaining agent for the period provided P to Secion \ e National La by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- R el a ns t , s e n ded, th eNtoa L a b o r fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- la ti o n sBo a r h e r d e rs thatNateonaspobornt, mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as The 1" B o a r d u h e r e b y o r d e r s th a t tCalifoprnia it the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- T h e offiers S c h agns s h e r m a n O ak s s California, its propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., o frlc e r s e and" successors, and assigns, shall: 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/la Cease and desist from: Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, conditions of employment with California Feder- 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). ation of Teachers, American Federation of Teach- The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts ers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining repre- and the entire record, makes the following: sentative of its employees in the following appro- priate unit: CONCLUSIONS OF LAWAnr , i All faculty members employed by the Em- 1. The Buckley School is an employer engaged ployer at its location at 3900 Stansbury in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, excluding and (7) of the Act. office clerical employees, janitorial employees, 2. California Federation of Teachers, American bus drivers, and supervisors as defined in the Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga- Act. 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the representative for collective bargaining of all em- Act. ployees in said unit. 3. All faculty members employed by Respondent Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since at its location at 3900 Stansbury Avenue, Sherman March 9, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused Oaks, California, excluding office clerical employ- to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- ees, janitorial employees, bus drivers, and supervi- sive representative of the employees in the appro- sors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro- priate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent priate for the purposes of collective bargaining has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) 4. since February 23, 1981, the above-named of the Act. labor organization has been and now is the certified IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR an d e xclu s i v e representative of all employees in the PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE a fo re s a id appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) The activities of Respondent set forth in section of the Act. Ill, above, occurring in connection with its oper- 5. By refusing on or about March 9, 1981, and at ations described in section I, above, have a close, all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- above-named labor organization as the exclusive fic, and commerce among the several States and bargaining representative of all the employees of tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent structing commerce and the free flow of com- has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- m e r c e . tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Aft. V. THE REMEDY-At 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- Having found that Respondent has engaged in ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- upon request, bargain collectively with the Union gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices as the exclusive representative of all employees in within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair reached, embody such understanding in a signed labor practices affecting commerce within the agreement,.meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. In order to insure that the employees in the ap- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their ORDER selected bargaining agent for the period provided P to Secion \ e National La by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- R el a ns t , s e n ded, th eNtoa L a b o r fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- la ti o n sBo a r h e r d e rs thatNateonaspobornt, mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as The 1" B o a r d u h e r e b y o r d e r s th a t tCalifoprnia it the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- T h e offiers S c h agns s h e r m a n O ak s s California, its propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., o frlc e r s e and" successors, and assigns, shall: 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/la Cease and desist from: Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, conditions of employment with California Feder- 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). ation of Teachers, American Federation of Teach- The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts ers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining repre- and the entire record, makes the following: sentative of its employees in the following appro- priate unit: CONCLUSIONS OF LAWAnr , i All faculty members employed by the Em- 1. The Buckley School is an employer engaged ployer at its location at 3900 Stansbury in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, excluding and (7) of the Act. office clerical employees, janitorial employees, 2. California Federation of Teachers, American bus drivers, and supervisors as defined in the Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga- Act. 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the representative for collective bargaining of all em- Act. ployees in said unit. 3. All faculty members employed by Respondent Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since at its location at 3900 Stansbury Avenue, Sherman March 9, 1981, and at all times thereafter, refused Oaks, California, excluding office clerical employ- to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- ees, janitorial employees, bus drivers, and supervi- sive representative of the employees in the appro- sors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro- priate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent priate for the purposes of collective bargaining has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) 4. since February 23, 1981, the above-named of the Act. labor organization has been and now is the certified IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR an d e xclu s i v e representative of all employees in the PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE a fo re s a id appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) The activities of Respondent set forth in section of the Act. Ill, above, occurring in connection with its oper- 5. By refusing on or about March 9, 1981, and at ations described in section I, above, have a close, all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- above-named labor organization as the exclusive fic, and commerce among the several States and bargaining representative of all the employees of tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent structing commerce and the free flow of com- has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- m e r c e . tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Aft. V. THE REMEDY-At 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- Having found that Respondent has engaged in ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- upon request, bargain collectively with the Union gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices as the exclusive representative of all employees in within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair reached, embody such understanding in a signed labor practices affecting commerce within the agreement,.meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. In order to insure that the employees in the ap- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their ORDER selected bargaining agent for the period provided P to Secion \ e National La by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- R el a ns t , s e n ded, th eNtoa L a b o r fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- la ti o n sBo a r h e r d e rs thatNateonaspobornt, mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as The 1" B o a r d u h e r e b y o r d e r s th a t tCalifoprnia it the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- T h e offiers S c h agns s h e r m a n O ak s s California, its propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., o frlc e r s e and" successors, and assigns, shall: 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/la Cease and desist from: Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, conditions of employment with California Feder- 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). ation of Teachers, American Federation of Teach- The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts ers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining repre- and the entire record, makes the following: sentative of its employees in the following appro- priate unit: CONCLUSIONS OF LAWAnr , i All faculty members employed by the Em- 1. The Buckley School is an employer engaged ployer at its location at 3900 Stansbury in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, excluding and (7) of the Act. office clerical employees, janitorial employees, 2. California Federation of Teachers, American bus drivers, and supervisors as defined in the Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga- Act. THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL 721 (b) In any like or related manner interfering APPENDIX with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of NOTICE To EMPLOYEES the Act. POSTED BY ORDER OF THE 2. Take the following affirmative action which NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the An Agency of the United States Government Act: (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively labor organization as the exclusive representative concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit other terms and conditions of employment with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and with California Federation of Teachers, other terms and conditions of employment and, if American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, an understanding is reached, embody such under- as the exclusive representative of the employ- standing in a signed agreement. ees in the bargaining unit described below. (b) Post at The Buckley School, 3900 Stansbury WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of nterere ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- the b ecti of the Act. rector for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, sentative of all employees in the bargaining in conspicuous places, including all places where unit described below, with respect to rates of notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to tions of employment and, if an understanding insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or is reached, embody such understanding in a covered by any other material. signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, All faculty members employed by the Em- in writing, within 20 days from the date of this ployer at its location at 3900 Stansbury Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, exclud- with. ing office clerical employees, janitorial em- ployees, bus drivers, and supervisors as de- 3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United poyees, bus drivers, and supervisors as de- States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by fined in the Act. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an TH BUCKLEY SCHOOL Order of the National Labor Relations Board."KLEY SCHOOL THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL 721 (b) In any like or related manner interfering APPENDIX with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of NOTICE To EMPLOYEES the Act. POSTED BY ORDER OF THE 2. Take the following affirmative action which NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the An Agency of the United States Government Act: (a) Upon request, bargain 'with the above-named WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively labor organization as the exclusive representative concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit other terms and conditions of employment with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and with California Federation of Teachers, other terms and conditions of employment and, if American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, an understanding is reached, embody such under- as the exclusive representative of the employ- standing in a signed agreement,.ees in the bargaining unit described below. (b) Post at The Buckley School, 3900 Stansbury WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, copies of the attaced nticemarkd "Apendi.113Copis of interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- attached notice marked "Appendix. _ Copies of gaate said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- e i t e o t r gante rector for Region 31, after being duly signed by th em b y S ec tio n 7 o f th e A c t . Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- W E W I LL, upon request, bargain w ith th e spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, sentative of all employees in the bargaining in conspicuous places, including all places where u nit described below, with respect to rates of notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to tio n s o f employment and, if an understanding insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or is reached, embody such understanding in a covered by any other material. signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, All faculty members employed by the Em- in writing, within 20 days from the date of this ployer at its location at 3900 Stansbury Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, exclud- w ith. ing office clerical employees, janitorial em- ~~-"-- , .. ,~~~~~~~~~ployees, bus drivers, and supervisors as de- I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United p b d a States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by fined in the Act. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing anTHE n,,^. crOO> Order of the National Labor Relations Board." THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL 721 (b) In any like or related manner interfering APPENDIX with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of NOTICE To EMPLOYEES the Act. POSTED BY ORDER OF THE 2. Take the following affirmative action which NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the An Agency of the United States Government Act: (a) Upon request, bargain 'with the above-named WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively labor organization as the exclusive representative concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit other terms and conditions of employment with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and with California Federation of Teachers, other terms and conditions of employment and, if American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, an understanding is reached, embody such under- as the exclusive representative of the employ- standing in a signed agreement,.ees in the bargaining unit described below. (b) Post at The Buckley School, 3900 Stansbury WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, copies of the attaced nticemarkd "Apendi.113Copis of interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- attached notice marked "Appendix. _ Copies of gaate said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- e i t e o t r gante rector for Region 31, after being duly signed by th em b y S ec tio n 7 o f th e A c t . Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- W E W I LL, upon request, bargain w ith th e spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, sentative of all employees in the bargaining in conspicuous places, including all places where u nit described below, with respect to rates of notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to tio n s o f employment and, if an understanding insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or is reached, embody such understanding in a covered by any other material. signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, All faculty members employed by the Em- in writing, within 20 days from the date of this ployer at its location at 3900 Stansbury Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, exclud- w ith. ing office clerical employees, janitorial em- ~~-"-- , .. ,~~~~~~~~~ployees, bus drivers, and supervisors as de- I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United p b d a States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by fined in the Act. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing anTHE n,,^. crOO> Order of the National Labor Relations Board." THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL 721 (b) In any like or related manner interfering APPENDIX with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of NOTICE To EMPLOYEES the Act. POSTED BY ORDER OF THE 2. Take the following affirmative action which NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the An Agency of the United States Government Act: (a) Upon request, bargain 'with the above-named WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively labor organization as the exclusive representative concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit other terms and conditions of employment with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and with California Federation of Teachers, other terms and conditions of employment and, if American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, an understanding is reached, embody such under- as the exclusive representative of the employ- standing in a signed agreement,.ees in the bargaining unit described below. (b) Post at The Buckley School, 3900 Stansbury WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, copies of the attaced nticemarkd "Apendi.113Copis of interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- attached notice marked "Appendix. _ Copies of gaate said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- e i t e o t r gante rector for Region 31, after being duly signed by th em b y S ec tio n 7 o f th e A c t . Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- W E W I LL, upon request, bargain w ith th e spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, sentative of all employees in the bargaining in conspicuous places, including all places where u nit described below, with respect to rates of notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to tio n s o f employment and, if an understanding insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or is reached, embody such understanding in a covered by any other material. signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, All faculty members employed by the Em- in writing, within 20 days from the date of this ployer at its location at 3900 Stansbury Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, exclud- w ith. ing office clerical employees, janitorial em- ~~-"-- , .. ,~~~~~~~~~ployees, bus drivers, and supervisors as de- I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United p b d a States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by fined in the Act. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing anTHE n,,^. crOO> Order of the National Labor Relations Board." THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL 721 (b) In any like or related manner interfering APPENDIX with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of NOTICE To EMPLOYEES the Act. POSTED BY ORDER OF THE 2. Take the following affirmative action which NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the An Agency of the United States Government Act: (a) Upon request, bargain 'with the above-named WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively labor organization as the exclusive representative concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit other terms and conditions of employment with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and with California Federation of Teachers, other terms and conditions of employment and, if American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, an understanding is reached, embody such under- as the exclusive representative of the employ- standing in a signed agreement,.ees in the bargaining unit described below. (b) Post at The Buckley School, 3900 Stansbury WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, copies of the attaced nticemarkd "Apendi.113Copis of interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- attached notice marked "Appendix. _ Copies of gaate said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- e i t e o t r gante rector for Region 31, after being duly signed by th em b y S ec tio n 7 o f th e A c t . Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- W E W I LL, upon request, bargain w ith th e spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be above-named Union, as the exclusive repre- maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, sentative of all employees in the bargaining in conspicuous places, including all places where u nit described below, with respect to rates of notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi- sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to tio n s o f employment and, if an understanding insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or is reached, embody such understanding in a covered by any other material. signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, All faculty members employed by the Em- in writing, within 20 days from the date of this ployer at its location at 3900 Stansbury Order, what steps have been taken to comply here- Avenue, Sherman Oaks, California, exclud- w ith. ing office clerical employees, janitorial em- ~~-"-- , .. ,~~~~~~~~~ployees, bus drivers, and supervisors as de- I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United p b d a States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by fined in the Act. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing anTHE n,,^. crOO> Order of the National Labor Relations Board." THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL