Detroit International Bridge Co.

328 NLRB No. 12 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Board volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive 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. Detroit International Bridge Company and Truck Drivers Local Union No. 299, International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, AFL–CIO. Case 7– CA–41640 April 19, 1999 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FOX, HURTGEN, AND BRAME Pursuant to a charge filed on December 21, 1998, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on February 5, 1999, 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 7–RC–21316. (Official notice is taken of the “rec- ord” 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 deny- ing in part the allegations in the complaint and asserting affirmative defenses. On March 5, 1999, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On March 10, 1999, 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. 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 bar- gain, but attacks the validity of the certification on the basis of the Board’s unit determination in the representa- tion proceeding. All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior representa- tion proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to ad- duce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir- cumstances 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 un- fair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941). Accord- ingly, we grant the 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 Michigan cor- poration, with offices and a place of business in Michi- gan, has been engaged in the operation of an interna- tional toll bridge spanning the Detroit River between Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario. The Respon- dent’s Detroit-Windsor bridge facility is the only facility involved in this proceeding. During the calendar year ending December 31, 1998, the Respondent, in conduct- ing its operations described above, purchased and re- ceived directly at its Michigan facility from points lo- cated outside the State of Michigan goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. 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 July 16, 1998, the Union was certified on July 24, 1998, as the exclusive collec- tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time cashier/tellers em- ployed by the Employer at its facility located in Detroit, Michigan, but excluding 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 Since August 21, 1998, by letter, the Union has re- quested the Respondent to bargain, and, since August 21, 1998, the Respondent has refused. We find that this re- fusal constitutes an unlawful refusal to bargain in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSION OF LAW By refusing on and after August 21, 1998, 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 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 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 the law, we shall construe the initial period of the cer- tification 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 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 226, 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, Detroit International Bridge Company, De- troit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with Truck Drivers Local Un- ion No. 299, 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, re- straining, 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 appro- priate 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 cashier/tellers em- ployed by the Employer at its facility located in Detroit, Michigan, but excluding professional employees, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”1 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7 after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main- tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily 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 Re- spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du- plicate 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 21, 1998. (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re- sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at- 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C. April 19, 1999 Sarah M. Fox, Member Peter J. Hurtgen, Member J. Robert Brame III, 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 vio- lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Truck Drivers Lo- cal Union No. 299, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, 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 bar- gaining unit: All full-time and regular part-time cashier/tellers em- ployed by us at our facility located in Detroit, Michi- gan, but excluding professional employees, office cleri- cal employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. DETROIT INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE COMPANY