B. B. & L., Inc.

B. B. & L., Inc. and Drivers and Employees of the Petroleum Industry Local Union No. 273 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL- CIO. Case 6-CA-25391 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH On May 3, 1993, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing 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 6-RC- 10743. (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 its answer admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint. On June 14, 1993, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 17, 1993, 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 a response. 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 the Board's disposition of a determinative challenged ballot 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, an Illinois corporation with an office and facility in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, has been engaged in the operation of an interstate tanker trucking company. During the 12-month period ending February 28, 1993, the Respondent, in conducting its business operations, derived gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for the transportation of freight from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania directly to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 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 A. The Certification Following the mail ballot election beginning May 29, 1992, and concluding June 9, 1992, the Union was certified on March 1, 1993, as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time truck drivers employed by the Employer at its Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, terminal; excluding all other employees and guards, professional employees 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 Since March 8, 1993, the Union has requested the Respondent to bargain and, since March 17, 1993, 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 March 17, 1993, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining 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. 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 311 NLRB No. 141 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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, B. B. & L., Inc., Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with Drivers and Employees of the Petroleum Industry Local Union No. 273 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO 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 truck drivers employed by the Employer at its Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, terminal; excluding all other employees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Post at its facility in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, 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. July 19, 1993 James M. Stephens, Chairman Dennis M. Devaney, Member John Neil Raudabaugh, 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 refuse to bargain with Drivers and Employees of the Petroleum Industry Local Union No. 273 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL- CIO 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 truck drivers employed by the Employer at its Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, terminal; excluding all other employees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. B. B. & L., INC. 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."