Special Projects Mfg.

1 325 NLRB No. 209 1 In its answer, the Respondent denies that the requested informa- tion is necessary for and relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties. We note, however, that the description of the information sought on its face relates directly to the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of the unit employees and we so find. In addition, the Respondent has not attempted to rebut the relevance of the information in response to the Notice to Show Cause. Accord- ingly, we find that the Respondent’s denial does not raise any issues warranting a hearing. See Verona Dyestuff Division, 233 NLRB 109, 110 (1977). 2 Member Brame notes that he did not participate in the underlying representation proceeding. 3 We therefory deny the Respondent’s cross-motion for summary judgment. 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. Special Projects Manufacturing, Inc. and Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, AFL–CIO. Case 16–CA–19330 July 16, 1998 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FOX, HURTGEN, AND BRAME Pursuant to a charge filed on May 20, 1998, the Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued a complaint on May 22, 1998, al- leging that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refus- ing the Union’s request to bargain and to provide in- formation following the Union’s certification in Case 16–RC–9970. (Official notice is taken of the ‘‘record’’ in the representation proceeding as defined 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 complaint. On June 15, 1998, the Acting General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 18, 1998, 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. The Respondent filed a re- sponse. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to bargain and to furnish information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s role as bargaining representa- tive, but attacks the validity of the certification on the basis of its arguments in support of its objections to the election and the Board’s disposition of certain chal- lenged ballots in the representation proceeding. In ad- dition, the Respondent, in its answer denies that the in- formation requested by the Union is necessary and rel- evant.1 All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior represen- tation proceeding.2 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). Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.3 On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all material times, the Respondent, a Texas cor- poration with a facility in White Settlement, Texas, has been engaged in the manufacture of oilfield flow con- trol products. During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint, the Respondent, in conduct- ing its business operations, purchased and received at its White Settlement, Texas facility goods and mate- rials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources located outside the State of Texas. We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Certification Following the election held October 24, 1997, the Union was certified on April 14, 1998, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: INCLUDED: All production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its White Settlement, Texas facility, including plant clerical employees, quality assurance employees, and warehouse employees. EXCLUDED: All other employees, including office clerical employees, professional employees, leadpersons, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Union continues to be the exclusive representative under Section 9(a) of the Act. 2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 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.’’ B. Refusal to Bargain On about April 21 and May 8, 1998, the Union re- quested the Respondent to bargain and to furnish infor- mation, and, since about May 15, 1998, the Respond- ent has failed and refused. We find that this failure and refusal constitutes an unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSION OF LAW By failing and refusing on and after May 15, 1998, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of employees in the appro- priate unit and to furnish the Union requested informa- tion, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 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, Special Projects Manufacturing, Inc., White Settlement, Texas, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing and refusing to bargain with International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, and failing and refusing to furnish the Union information that is rel- evant 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: INCLUDED: All production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its White Settlement, Texas facility, including plant clerical employees, quality assurance employees, and warehouse employees. EXCLUDED: All other employees, including office clerical employees, professional employees, leadpersons, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Furnish the Union the information that it re- quested on April 21 and May 8, 1998. (c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in White Settlement, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16 after being signed by the Respondent’s au- thorized representative, shall be posted by the Re- spondent 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 no- tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these pro- ceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Re- spondent at any time since May 15, 1998. (d) 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 3 SPECIAL PROJECTS MANUFACTURING attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C. July 16, 1998 llllllllllllllllll Sarah M. Fox, Member llllllllllllllllll Peter J. Hurtgen, Member llllllllllllllllll J. Robert Brame III, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 fail and refuse to bargain with Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, and WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish the Union information that is relevant and necessary to its role as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of the unit employees. 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: INCLUDED: All production and maintenance employees employed by us at our White Settle- ment, Texas facility, including plant clerical em- ployees, quality assurance employees, and ware- house employees. EXCLUDED: All other employees, including office clerical employees, professional employees, leadpersons, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL furnish the Union the information it re- quested on April 21 and May 8, 1998. SPECIAL PROJECTS MANUFACTURING, INC.