Alois Box Co.

1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound 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. Alois Box Co., Inc. and Graphic Communications Union Local 415-S, AFL–CIO. Case 13–CA– 37712 July 12, 1999 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, HURTGEN, AND BRAME Pursuant to a charge filed on April 6, 1999, the Gen- eral Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board is- sued a complaint and notice of hearing on April 29, 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 13–RC–19729.1 (Official notice is taken of the “record” in the representation pro- ceeding 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, with af- firmative defenses, admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint. On June 7, 1999, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 9, 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 disposition of certain challenged ballots in the representation 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.2 On the entire record, the Board makes the following 1 326 NLRB No. 110 (1998). 2 We reject the Respondent’s contention that the complaint is ad- ministratively insufficient. Rather, we find that the complaint meets the requirements set out in Sec. 102.15 of the Board’s Rules and Regula- tions. FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation, with an office and place of business in Melrose Park, Illinois, has been engaged in the manufacture of corru- gated boxes. During calendar year 1998, a representative period, the Respondent, in conducting its business operations de- scribed above, purchased and received at its Melrose Park, Illinois facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Illinois. 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 election held November 12, 1997, the Union was certified on September 30, 1998, as the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ- ees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time production, mainte- nance and shipping employees employed by the Em- ployer at its facility currently located at 2000 North Mannheim Road, Melrose Park, Illinois 60160; but ex- cluding all other employees, office clericals, 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 On or about November 2, 1998, the Union requested that the Respondent recognize and bargain, and, since November 18, 1998, the Respondent has failed and re- fused. We find that this failure and refusal constitutes an unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSION OF LAW By failing and refusing on and after November 18, 1999, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of em- ployees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has en- gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Sec- tion 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. 2 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 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, Alois Box Co., Inc., Melrose Park, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with Graphic Communications Union Local 415-S, AFL–CIO as the exclusive bargain- ing 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 production, mainte- nance and shipping employees employed by the Em- ployer at its facility currently located at 2000 North Mannheim Road, Melrose Park, Illinois 60160; but ex- cluding all other employees, office clericals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Melrose Park, Illinois, copies of the at- tached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13 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 al- tered, 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 facil- ity involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall 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 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.” duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no- tice to all current employees and former employees em- ployed by the Respondent at any time since November 18, 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- testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C. July 12, 1999 Wilma B. Liebman, 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 Graphic Commu- nications Union Local 415-S, 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 production, mainte- nance and shipping employees employed by us at our facility currently located at 2000 North Mannheim Road, Melrose Park, Illinois 60160; but excluding all other employees, office clericals, guards and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. ALOIS BOX CO., INC.