Packaging Corp. of America

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 errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. Packaging Corporation of America and United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO- CLC. Case 10-CA-28171 June 14, 1995 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, BROWNING, AND COHEN Upon a charge filed on January 18, 1995, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing on March 13, 1995, 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 following the Union's certification in Case 10-RC-14502. (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 May 22, 1995, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board. On May 24, 1995, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. On June 2, 1995, 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, but attacks the validity of the certification on the basis of its objections to conduct alleged to have affected the results of the election. All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special circumstances that would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding. 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. On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Respondent is, and has been at all times material, a Delaware corporation with an office and manufacturing facility located in Opelika, Alabama, where it is engaged in the manufacture of fiberboard. The Respondent, during the calendar year preceding issuance of the complaint, which period is representative of all times material, sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 from its Opelika, Alabama facility directly to customers located outside the State of Alabama. 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 May 26, 1994, the Union was certified on November 9, 1994, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit:¹ All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical employees and truck drivers employed by the Respondent at its Opelika, Alabama facility, excluding all professional employees, office clerical employees, 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 About November 18, 1994, the Union, by letter, requested the Respondent to bargain, and, since the same day, 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. CONCLUSION OF LAW By refusing on and after November 18, 1994, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- 1 Although the Respondent's answer denies that the foregoing unit is appropriate, it does so solely on the ground that "there is no uncoerced unit appropriate." It appears therefore that the Respondent's denial in this regard is also based on its objections to the election. In any event, by entering into a Stipulated Election Agreement in the underlying representation proceeding, the Respondent agreed that the unit was appropriate, and it is, therefore, precluded from raising any issue as to the appropriateness of the unit in the instant proceeding. 317 NLRB No. 128 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 errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. Packaging Corporation of America and United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO- CLC. Case 10-CA-28171 June 14, 1995 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, BROWNING, AND COHEN Upon a charge filed on January 18, 1995, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing on March 13, 1995, 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 following the Union's certification in Case 10-RC-14502. (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 May 22, 1995, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board. On May 24, 1995, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. On June 2, 1995, 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, but attacks the validity of the certification on the basis of its objections to conduct alleged to have affected the results of the election. All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special circumstances that would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding. 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. On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Respondent is, and has been at all times material, a Delaware corporation with an office and manufacturing facility located in Opelika, Alabama, where it is engaged in the manufacture of fiberboard. The Respondent, during the calendar year preceding issuance of the complaint, which period is representative of all times material, sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 from its Opelika, Alabama facility directly to customers located outside the State of Alabama. 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 May 26, 1994, the Union was certified on November 9, 1994, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit:¹ All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical employees and truck drivers employed by the Respondent at its Opelika, Alabama facility, excluding all professional employees, office clerical employees, 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 About November 18, 1994, the Union, by letter, requested the Respondent to bargain, and, since the same day, 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. CONCLUSION OF LAW By refusing on and after November 18, 1994, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- 1 Although the Respondent's answer denies that the foregoing unit is appropriate, it does so solely on the ground that "there is no uncoerced unit appropriate." It appears therefore that the Respondent's denial in this regard is also based on its objections to the election. In any event, by entering into a Stipulated Election Agreement in the underlying representation proceeding, the Respondent agreed that the unit was appropriate, and it is, therefore, precluded from raising any issue as to the appropriateness of the unit in the instant proceeding. 317 NLRB No. 128 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tices 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 Section 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 understanding in a signed agreement. To ensure that the employees are accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law, we shall construe the initial period of the certification as beginning the date the Respondent 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, Packaging Corporation of America, Opelika, Alabama, 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 bargaining 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 exclusive representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit on terms and conditions of employment 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 plant clerical employees and truck drivers employed by the Respondent at its Opelika, Alabama facility, excluding all professional employees, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Post at its facility in Opelika, Alabama, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10 after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt 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. (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C. June 14, 1995 2If 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." James M. Stephens, Member Margaret A. Browning, Member Member Charles I. Cohen, (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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit. 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 plant clerical employees and truck drivers employed by us at our Opelika, Alabama facility, excluding all professional employees, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA