Simon Duplex

1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Board volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal er­ rors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. Simon Duplex, Inc. and United Mine Workers of America, AFL–CIO. Case 8–CA–28325 September 6, 1996 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING AND FOX Pursuant to a charge filed on June 10, 1996, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on June 21, 1996, alleging that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing the Union’s request to bargain and to furnish necessary and relevant information following the Union’s certifi­ cation in Case 8–RC–15280. (Official notice is taken of the ‘‘record’’ in the representation proceeding as de- fined in the Board’s Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the com­ plaint. On August 12, 1996, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On August 14, 1996, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the mo­ tion should not be granted. On August 28, 1996, the Respondent filed a response. Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to bargain and to furnish the requested information, but attacks the validity of the certification on the basis of its objections to the election in the representation pro­ ceeding. All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior represen­ tation proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered and pre­ viously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special circumstances that would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation pro­ ceeding. We therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any representation issue that is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941). We also find that there are no factual issues requir­ ing a hearing with respect to the Union’s request for information. The Union requested the following infor­ mation from the Respondent: A list of employees, information regarding the wages and benefits being paid employees, a list of employee classifications and qualifications, and copies of the employee handbook, retirement plan, and medical benefits plan. The Respondent’s answer admits that the Respond­ ent refused to provide this information to the Union. Further, although the Respondent’s answer denies that the information requested is necessary and relevant to the Union’s duties as the exclusive bargaining rep­ resentative of the unit employees, it appears to do so only on the ground that the Union was improperly cer­ tified. In any event, it is well established that such in- formation is presumptively relevant and must be fur­ nished on request. See, e.g., The Trustees of the Ma- sonic Hall, 261 NLRB 436 (1982); and Mobay Chemi­ cal Corp., 233 NLRB 109 (1977). Accordingly, we grant the motion for Summary Judgment. On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all material times, the Respondent, an Ohio cor­ poration, with an office and place of business in Dover, Ohio, has been engaged in the manufacture of truck chassis. Annually, the Respondent in conducting is business operations described above, sells and ships from its Dover facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Ohio. We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organiza­ tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Certification Following the election held September 21, 1995, the Union was certified on March 15, 1996, as the exclu­ sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ­ ees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time production, maintenance, and quality control employees em­ ployed by the Employer at 120 Deeds Drive, Dover, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical em­ ployees, professional employees, technical em­ ployees and all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Union continues to be the exclusive representative under Section 9(a) of the Act. B. Refusal to Bargain Since March 27, 1996, the Union has requested the Respondent to bargain and to furnish information, and, since April 22, 1996, the Respondent has refused. We 322 NLRB No. 21 2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD find that this refusal constitutes an unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSION OF LAW By refusing on and after April 22, 1996, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees in the appropriate unit and to furnish the Union with necessary and relevant infor­ mation, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has violated Sec­ tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist, to bargain on request with the Union, and, if an understanding is reached, to embody the un­ derstanding in a signed agreement. We also shall order the Respondent to furnish the Union the information requested. To ensure that the employees are accorded the serv­ ices of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by the law, we shall construe the initial pe­ riod of the certification as beginning the date the Re­ spondent begins to bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett Construction Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Simon Duplex, Inc., Dover, Ohio, its offi­ cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with United Mine Workers of America, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, and refusing to furnish the Union information that is relevant and necessary to its role as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of the unit employees. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclu­ sive representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit on terms and conditions of employ­ ment, and if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement: All full-time and regular part-time production, maintenance, and quality control employees em­ ployed by the Employer at 120 Deeds Drive, Dover, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical em­ ployees, professional employees, technical em­ ployees and all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Furnish the Union with the information that it requested on March 27, 1996. (c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Dover, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’1 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8 after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep­ resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed­ ings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own ex­ pense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since June 10, 1996. (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C. September 6, 1996 llllllllllllllllll William B. Gould IV, Chairman llllllllllllllllll Margaret A. Browning, Member llllllllllllllllll Sarah M. Fox, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.’’ SIMON DUPLEX 3 APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or­ dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with United Mine Workers of America, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive rep­ resentative of the employees in the bargaining unit, and WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union informa­ tion that is relevant and necessary to its role as the ex­ clusive bargaining representative of the unit employ­ ees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and conditions of employment for our employees in the bargaining unit: All full-time and regular part-time production, maintenance, and quality control employees em­ ployed by us at 120 Deeds Drive, Dover, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical employees, pro­ fessional employees, technical employees and all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL furnish the Union with the information that it requested on March 27, 1996. SIMON DUPLEX, INC.