Case Corp.

CASE CORP. Case Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. Case 33-CA-9626 February 26, 1992 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS OVIATT AND RAUDABAUGH On December 18, 1991, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint 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 33- RC-3532. (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 January 21, 1992, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On January 24, 1992, 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 February 18, 1992, the Respondent filed a response. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a threemember 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, but attacks the validity of the certification on the basis of the Board's unit determination in the representation proceeding. 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, a Delaware corporation with an office and place of business located at East Moline, Illinois, is engaged in the business of manufacturing combines and other agricultural implements. During the 12 months preceding issuance of the complaint, the Respondent sold and shipped from its East Moline plant finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Illinois. 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 June 22, 1990, the Union was certified on September 16, 1991, as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and part-time industrial engineers, process engineers, advance planning process engineers, facility engineers, long-range planning engineers and metallurgist/quality control engineers employed by Respondent at its East Moline, Illinois facility; but excluding all design engineers, confidential employees, professional employees, managerial 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 By letter dated September 13, 1991, received by the Union on or about September 19, 1991, Respondent stated that it refused to recognize the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit, and refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit. We find that this refusal constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By refusing on and after September 13, 1991, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collectivebargaining representative of employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 306 NLRB No. 82 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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, Case Corporation, East Moline, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall (a) Refusing to bargain with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 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 part-time industrial engineers, process engineers, advance planning process engineers, facility engineers, long-range planning engineers and metallurgist/quality control engineers employed by Respondent at its East Moline, Illinois facility; but excluding all design engineers, confidential employees, professional employees, managerial employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Post at its facility in East Moline, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 1. Cease and desist from Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 33, 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. al 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." 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 International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 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 part-time industrial engineers, process engineers, advance planning process engineers, facility engineers, long-range planning engineers and metallurgist/quality control engineers employed by Respondent at its East Moline, Illinois facility; but excluding all design engineers, confidential employees, professional employees, managerial employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 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 Nation- CASE CORPORATION