Laidlaw Transit

<DOC> Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] 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. LAIDLAW TRANSIT, INC. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 323 NLRB No. 43 Laidlaw Transit, Inc. and Public, Professional & Office Clerical Employees and Drivers, Local Union No. 763, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO. Case 19-CA-24729-1 MARCH 24, 1997 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND HIGGINS Upon a charge filed by the Union on August 19, 1996, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on October 22, 1996, against Laidlaw Transit, Inc., the Respondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. Although properly served copies of the charge and complaint, the Respondent failed to file an answer. On February 24, 1997, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board. On February 25, 1997, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed no response. The allegations in the motion are therefore undisputed. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board's Rules and Regulations provide that the allegations in the complaint shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days from service of the complaint, unless good cause is shown. In addition, the complaint affirmatively notes that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of service, all the allegations in the complaint will be considered admitted. Further, the undisputed allegations in the Motion for Summary Judgment disclose that the Region, by letter dated January 29, 1997, notified the Respondent that unless an answer were received by February 7, 1997, a Motion for Summary Judgment would be filed. In the absence of good cause being shown for the failure to file a timely answer, we grant the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. 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 Seattle, Washington, has been engaged in the business of providing transportation services. During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint, a representative period, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, had gross sales of goods and services valued in excess of $500,000. In addition, during that same time period, the Respondent sold and shipped goods or provided services from its facilities within the State of Washington to customers outside that State, or sold and shipped goods or provided services to customers within the State, which customers were themselves engaged in interstate commerce by other than indirect means, of a total value in excess of $50,000. Furthermore, the Respondent, during that same time period, purchased and caused to be transferred and delivered to its facilities within the State of Washington, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside that State, or from suppliers within that State which in turn obtained such goods and materials directly from sources outside the State. 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 organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All drivers employed by the Respondent at its Seattle, Washington facilities, excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. At all material times the Union has been the designated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit, and the Union has been recognized as the representative by the Respondent. This recognition has been embodied in successive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is effective from September 1, 1994, through August 31, 1997. At all material times, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit. Since June 11, 1996, the Union, by letter, has requested that the Respondent furnish the Union with the following information regarding the new Para Transit operations in Seattle, King County, Washington: The parent organization or corporate name; The current Board of Directors and corporate officers and executives; The corporate organizational chart; The divisional and/or affiliate names; The divisional and/or affiliate organizational charts; The personnel that hires and fires at the various levels; The personnel that negotiates contracts in the divisions and/or affiliates; The major stockholders in the parent corporation, divisions and/or affiliates. Since July 12, 1996, the Union, by letter, has requested that the Respondent furnish it with the following information regarding the new Para Transit operations in Seattle, King County, Washington: The training manuals and materials used for training new employees; The names of individuals who did the training, their job classifications and title; and What division was responsible for compensating the trainers and trainees, along with the name of division heads. The requested information described above is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union's performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit. The Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the Union with this requested information. CONCLUSION OF LAW By the acts and conduct described above, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having found that the Respondent has failed to provide the Union information that is relevant and necessary to its role as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employees, we shall order the Respondent to furnish the Union the information requested. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Laidlaw Transit, Inc., Seattle, Washington, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing to provide Public, Professional & Office Clerical Employees and Drivers, Local Union No. 763, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO with requested information that is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union's performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the following unit: All drivers employed by the Respondent at its Seattle, Washington facilities, excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (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) Provide the Union the information it requested on June 11, and July 12, 1996. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Seattle, Washington, copies of the attached notice marked ``Appendix.''\1\ Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, 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 proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, 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 Respondent at any time since August 19, 1996. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (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. March 24, 1997 ____________________________________ William B. Gould IV, Chairman ____________________________________ Sarah M. Fox, Member ____________________________________ John E. Higgins, Jr., 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice. We will not fail to provide Public, Professional & Office Clerical Employees and Drivers, Local Union NO. 763, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO with requested information that is necessary for, and relevant to, its performance of its duties as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the following unit: All drivers employed by us at our Seattle, Washington facilities, excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 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 provide the Union the information it requested on June 11, and July 12, 1996. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.