AAA Alternator Rebuilders

507 305 NLRB No. 54 AAA ALTERNATOR REBUILDERS AAA Alternator Rebuilders, Inc. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO. Cases 10–CA–25447–1, –2 October 31, 1991 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS DEVANEY AND OVIATT On August 22, 1991, the General Counsel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board issued a complaint 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 and to provide in- formation following the Union’s certification in Case 10–RC–14035. (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 October 2, 1991, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 8, 1991, 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. On October 22, 1991, 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 and response to the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent admits its refusal to bargain and to furnish information, but challenges the validity of the Union’s certification on the ground that the elec- tion was held in an inappropriate unit, i.e., at the em- ployer’s Field Street, Atlanta, Georgia facility on the eve of the facility’s closure. In addition, the Respond- ent asserts that the information requested by the Union is insufficiently described and is overly broad, and is therefore not relevant or required for collective bar- gaining. 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). We also reject the Respondent’s assertion that the information requested by the Union is not relevant or required for collective bargaining. The Union’s letter requesting information stated in relevant part as fol- lows: At this time we would like to request certain pre- liminary data relative to the IAM bargaining unit which the Union feels is essential to bargain intel- ligently on the issue of wages and working condi- tions in the forthcoming negotiations. Specifically, the Union is asking for the data outlined below: 1. A detailed breakdown of aggregate, total em- ployment costs for bargaining unit employees for the most recent annual period prior to contract ex- piration for which data is available, as well as the most recent 26-week period, showing: (A) Straight time pay. (B) Any differentials (i.e., evening and night, by shift; overtime premium, broken down by premium rate paid, if possible. (C) Pay for time not worked broken down by item, (i.e., vacations, holidays, jury duty, sick leave, bereavement, etc.). (D) All payments outside the payroll (i.e., pensions, death benefits, severance, SUB, life insurance, basic health insurance, major med- ical insurance, dental, prescription, eye cov- erage, etc.). If possible, this data should be provided both on the aggregate annual and quarterly basis and on an average weekly basis, and on a per hour actu- ally worked basis. 2. Hours information is needed by the fol- lowing breakdown: (A) Aggregate hours worked. (B) Aggregate hours paid. (C) Aggregate overtime hours. (D) Average weekly hours paid. (E) Average weekly overtime hours (broken down by premium rate paid, (i.e., time and one- half, double time, etc.). (F) Average weekly hours paid for but not worked. (G) Average weekly hours worked. 3. Breakdown of bargaining unit employees by occupation, showing the number of each wage step and the average wage for the occupation (data should be within most recent quarter, if pos- sible). 4. A current service, age, sex, and earnings dis- tribution of employees, including the overall cur- rent average age and average length of service of employees. 5. A current breakdown of employees by shift, and average basic earnings by shift. 508 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 See, e.g., Masonic Hall, 261 NLRB 436 (1982); Mobay Chemical Corp., 233 NLRB 109 (1977). Contrary to the Respondent’s conten- tion, we find that the Union’s request is limited to information re- garding bargaining unit employees. The Union’s letter begins by re- questing ‘‘certain preliminary data relative to the IAM bargaining unit’’ (emphasis added), and expressly states with respect to some of the specific information outlined thereafter that only information regarding ‘‘bargaining unit employees’’ is being sought. In any event, even assuming arguendo that the Union’s request is ambig- uous and/or overbroad to the extent that some of the specifically out- lined information is not expressly limited to bargaining unit employ- ees, this would not excuse the Respondent’s blanket refusal to pro- vide any of the information requested by the Union. See Keauhou Beach Hotel, 298 NLRB 702 (1990), and cases cited there. 6. With regard to the various insurance and medical benefits plans, the Union is requesting, for the most recent available monthly period, cer- tain information. Specifically, the Union wants to know the number of employees covered (both ac- tive and retired), the number of dependents cov- ered, as well as the ‘‘premium’’ for each group for each of the following benefits: Life Insurance, AD&D Weekly Sickness and Accident, Medical Expense Insurance (daily hospital, miscellaneous expenses, outpatient care, maternity, surgical, in- hospital doctors calls, X-ray and lab fees, major medical, etc.). 7. The following information for each pension plan, based upon the latest actuarial projection for the current year: (A) The number of covered employees for which the projection was made. (B) The annual cost. (C) The total accrued liability to the date of projection, including the: (1) Liability for retired pensioners. (2) Liability for vested termination. (3) Balance of accrued liability for active employees. (D) Total unfunded past service liability. (E) Period of amortization of unpaid past service liability. (F) Annual payment on past service liability. (G) Current value of total assets of the fund used in the projection. (H) Statement of assumption used, including: (1) Interest. (2) Average effective age of retirement. (3) Method of computation of liability. (4) Earnings progression. (5) Rates of turnover. (6) Mortality. 8. With regard to the Pension Fund, itself: (A) A list of the investments of the fund. (B) The earnings of each investment. (C) The original purchase price and current market value of each investment. (D) The identity of firms managing the fund and fees paid to such managers. (E) The relationship between the firms man- aging the funds and the employer. (F) The relationship between the firm man- aging the funds and those financial institution that service the employer. (G) An itemized breakdown of the cost of administering the fund. (H) Instructions trustees have given to invest- ment managers. (I) How stock voting rights have been exer- cised. Contrary to the Respondent, we find that the foregoing information is sufficiently described. Further, it is well-established that such information is presumptively relevant and must be furnished on request.1 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 a Georgia corporation, with an office and place of business located at Atlanta, Geor- gia, where it is engaged in the remanufacture of auto- motive alternators and starters. During the calendar year preceding issuance of the complaint, the Respond- ent purchased and received at its Atlanta, Georgia fa- cility materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of Georgia. 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 7, 1990, the Union was certified on February 7, 1991, as the collec- tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time production, maintenance, warehouse and plant clerical em- ployees employed at the Respondent’s metropoli- tan Atlanta, Georgia facilities, excluding all office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. 509 AAA ALTERNATOR REBUILDERS 2 We take official notice that the record in the underlying represen- tation case indicates that the Respondent completed moving its oper- ation from its Field Street, Atlanta, Georgia facilities to a single fa- cility on Koppers Road in Rex, Georgia, on November 20, 1990. Accordingly, the Respondent is also ordered to post copies of the attached notice at its facility in Rex, Georgia. 3 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.’’ The Union continues to be the exclusive representative under Section 9(a) of the Act. B. Refusal to Bargain Since on or about April 25, 1991, the Union has re- quested the Respondent to bargain and to furnish infor- mation, and, since on or about the same day, including specifically by letter dated May 14, 1991, 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 April 25, 1991, 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. 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 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, AAA Alternator Rebuilders, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with International Associa- tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em- ployees 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, maintenance, warehouse and plant clerical em- ployees employed at the Respondent’s metropoli- tan Atlanta, Georgia facilities, excluding all office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. (b) On request, furnish the Union information that is relevant and necessary to its role as the exclusive rep- resentative of the unit employees. (c) Post at its facility in Atlanta, Georgia,2 copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3 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 Re- spondent 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 Re- spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 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 and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO as the exclusive representative of the em- ployees in the bargaining unit, and WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union information that is relevant 510 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and necessary to its role as the exclusive 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: All full-time and regular part-time production, maintenance, warehouse and plant clerical em- ployees employed at the Respondent’s metropoli- tan Atlanta, Georgia facilities, excluding all office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. AAA ALTERNATOR REBUILDERS, INC.