Great Lake Tissue Co.

1 325 NLRB No. 219 1 Member Hurtgen did not participate in that decision. 2 In its amended answer, the Respondent, with respect to the juris- dictional facts alleged in par. 2 of the complaint, admits only that it is a corporation located in Cheboygan, Michigan, and that it man- ufactures tissue paper, and with respect to the labor organization sta- tus of the Union alleged in par. 5 of the complaint, admits only that the Union purports to be a labor organization. However, by execut- ing the Stipulated Election Agreement in Case 7–RC–20896, the Re- spondent stipulated to the factual pleadings set forth in par. 2 of the complaint and the labor organization status of the Union. 3 In its amended answer, the Respondent states that it ‘‘does not have information sufficient to either admit or deny the allegations concerning the service of the charge.’’ The Acting General Counsel has attached as an exhibit to his Motion for Summary Judgment an affidavit of service by a Board agent certifying that the charge was served on the Respondent on January 22, 1998. The Respondent has not contested the authenticity of this exhibit. Accordingly, we find that service of the charge has been established. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 11 (Anco Electrical), 273 NLRB 183, 191 (1984). 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. Great Lakes Tissue Company and United Paper- workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC. Case 7–CA–40593 July 22, 1998 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN Pursuant to a charge filed on January 22, 1998, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on February 4, 1998, alleg- ing 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 following the Union’s certification in Case 7–RC–20896.1 (Official notice is taken of the ‘‘record’’ in the representation proceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regu- lations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an an- swer and an amended answer admitting in part and de- nying in part the allegations in the complaint.2 On June 10, 1998, the Acting General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.3 On June 11, 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 no response. 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 answers the Respondent admits its refusal to bargain, but attacks the validity of the certification. 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). Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg- ment. On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation with an office and place of business in Cheboygan, Michigan, has been engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of tissue paper. During the year ending December 31, 1997, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, purchased and re- ceived at its Cheboygan facilities goods valued in ex- cess of $50,000 directly from points located outside of the State of Michigan. 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 organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Certification Following the election held September 10 and 11, 1996, the Union was certified on September 18, 1997, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees, including boilerhouse and warehouse employees, employed by the Respond- ent at its Cheboygan, Michigan facilities; but ex- cluding office clerical, managerial and sales em- ployees, and guards, professional employees 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 about December 4, 1997, the Union has re- quested the Respondent to bargain and, since that date, the Respondent has refused. We find that this refusal constitutes an unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) 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.’’ CONCLUSION OF LAW By refusing on and after December 4, 1997, to bar- gain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of employees in the appropriate unit 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. 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, Great Lakes Tissue Company, Cheboygan, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with United Paperworkers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bar- gaining unit. (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 and maintenance employees, including boilerhouse and warehouse employees, employed by the Respond- ent at its Cheboygan, Michigan facilities; but ex- cluding office clerical, managerial and sales em- ployees, and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Cheboygan, Michigan, copies of the at- tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’4 Copies of the no- tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7 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 December 4, 1997. (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. July 22, 1998 llllllllllllllllll Sarah M. Fox, Member llllllllllllllllll Wilma B. Liebman, Member llllllllllllllllll Peter J. Hurtgen, 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 refuse to bargain with United Paper- workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bar- gaining unit. 3 GREAT LAKES TISSUE CO. 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 and maintenance employees, including boilerhouse and warehouse employees, employed by us at our Cheboygan, Michigan facilities; but excluding of- fice clerical, managerial and sales employees, and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. GREAT LAKES TISSUE COMPANY