Maremont Corp.

1 325 NLRB No. 29 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. Maremont Corporation/a Division of Arvin Indus- tries and International Association of Machin- ists & Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO. Case 10– CA–30577 December 31, 1997 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND LIEBMAN Pursuant to a charge and amended charge filed on October 14 and 21, 1997, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on October 31, 1997, 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 bar- gain and to furnish information following the Union’s certification in Case 10–RC–14720. (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 com- plaint. On November 24, 1997, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On November 26, 1997, the Board issued an order transferring the pro- ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed a 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 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 objections to the election in the representa- tion proceeding. 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 Delaware corporation, with an office and place of business in Loudon, Tennessee, has been engaged in the manufac- ture of exhaust systems for the automotive industry. During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di- rectly from suppliers located outside the State of Ten- nessee. 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 August 9, 1996, the Union was certified on September 23, 1997, as the ex- clusive collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time production and hourly maintenance employees, except temporary employees employed by the Respondent at its Loudon, Tennessee facility, excluding office cleri- cal employees, professional, salaried maintenance, temporary employees, guards and supervisors, in- cluding as supervisors all team leaders, 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 October 1, 1997, the Union has re- quested the Respondent to bargain and to furnish infor- mation, and, since about October 9, 1997, the Re- spondent has refused. We find that this refusal con- stitutes 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 October 9, 1997, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees in the appropriate unit and to furnish the Union requested information, the Re- spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2 DECISIONS OF THE 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.’’ 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 in a timely fash- ion the information requested about October 1, 1997. 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, Maremont Corporation/A Division of Arvin Industries, Loudon, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with International Associa- tion of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employ- ees in the bargaining unit and refusing to furnish the Union information that is relevant and necessary to its role as the exclusive bargaining 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 and hourly maintenance employees, except temporary employees employed by the Respondent at its Loudon, Tennessee facility, excluding office cleri- cal employees, professional, salaried maintenance, temporary employees, guards and supervisors, in- cluding as supervisors all team leaders, as defined in the Act. (b) Furnish to the Union in a timely fashion the in- formation it requested in its letter dated October 1, 1997, information that is relevant and necessary to its role as the exclusive representative of the unit employ- ees. (c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Loudon, Tennessee, copies of the at- tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’1 Copies of the no- tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10 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 October 9, 1997. (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 attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C. December 31, 1997 llllllllllllllllll William B. Gould IV, Chairman llllllllllllllllll Sarah M. Fox, Member llllllllllllllllll Wilma B. Liebman, 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 International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO as the exclusive representative of the em- 3 MAREMONT CORP. ployees in the bargaining unit and WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union information that is relevant and necessary to its role as the exclusive bargaining rep- resentative 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: All full-time and regular part-time production and hourly maintenance employees, except temporary employees employed by us at our Loudon, Ten- nessee facility, excluding office clerical employ- ees, professional, salaried maintenance, temporary employees, guards and supervisors, including as supervisors all team leaders, as defined in the Act. WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely fashion the information it requested in its letter dated October 1, 1997, information that is relevant and necessary to its role as the exclusive representative of the unit em- ployees. MAREMONT CORPORATION/A DIVISION OF ARVIN INDUSTRIES