Centralia Container, Inc.

CENTRALIA CONTAINER, INC. Centralia Container, Inc. and United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 14- CA-18251 15 April 1986 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS DENNIS AND JOHANSEN Upon a charge filed by the Union 2 January 1986, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint 16 January 1986 against the Company, the Respondent , alleg- ing that it has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The complaint alleges that on 24 October 1985, following a Board election in Case 14-RC-9890, the Union was certified as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the Company's em- ployees in the unit found appropriate. (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), amended Sept. 9, 1981, 46 Fed.Reg. 45922 (1981); Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The complaint fur- ther alleges that since 10 December 1985 the Com- pany has refused to bargain with the Union. On 30 January 1986 the Company filed its answer admit- ting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint. On 10 February 1986 the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On 14 February 1986 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 Company filed a response. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment In its answer to the complaint, the Company admits its refusal to bargain and to furnish informa- tion that is necessary and relevant to the Union's role as bargaining representative, but attacks the validity of the certification on the basis of its objec- tions to the election in the representation proceed- ing. The General Counsel argues that all material issues have been decided previously. We agree with the General Counsel. The record, including the record in Case 14- RC-9890, reveals that an election was held 10 Oc- tober 1984 pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agree- ment. The tally of ballots shows that of approxi- mately 45 eligible voters, 25 cast valid ballots for and 20 against the Union; there were 2 nondeter- 305 minative challenged ballots. After conducting an investigation of the Company's election objections, the Regional Director for Region 14 issued his report on 2 November 1984 recommending that the objections be overruled. The Company filed excep- tions and, on 15 April 1985, the Board directed a hearing on alleged union threats not to represent employees who did not support it, but adopted the Regional Director's recommendation that the other objections be overruled. After conducting a hear- ing, the hearing officer, on 14 June 1985, issued his report recommending that the Board overrule the remaining objections. The Company filed excep- tions. On 24 October 1985 the Board in an unpub- lished decision adopted the hearing officer's recom- mendations and certified the Union.' Since about 27 November 1985, the Union has requested the Company to bargain and to furnish it certain information about the terms and conditions of employment. Since about 10 December 1985, the Company has refused to bargain or provide the re- quested information. It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- covered and previously unavailable evidence or special circumstances, a respondent in a proceeding alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to relitigate issues that were or could have been litigated in a prior representation proceeding. See Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations. All issues raised by the Company were or could have been litigated in the prior representation pro- ceeding. The Company does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously un- available evidence, nor does it allege any special circumstances that would require the Board to re- examine the decision made in the representation proceeding.2 We therefore find that the Company has not raised any issue that is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment. On the entire record, the Board makes the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Company, an Illinois corporation, is en- gaged in the manufacture and distribution of corru- i On 10 December 1985 the Board issued an unpublished Order cor- recting its 24 October 1985 decision 2 The Company contends the case should be remanded for inclusion of evidence concerning the Company 's current employee complement, but gives no indication of what the evidence will show or its relevance We find no merit in the contention 279 NLRB No. 44 306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gated paper boxes and related items at its facility in Centralia, Illinois, where it annually purchases and receives products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Illinois. We find that the Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean- ing 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 10 October 1984 the Union was certified 24 October 1985 as the collec- tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: All production and maintenance employees and truckdrivers, including leadmen, employed by Centralia Container, Inc. at its Centralia, Il- linois facility; but excluding office clerical and professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Union continues to be the exclusive represent- ative under Section 9(a) of the Act. B. Refusal to Bargain Since 27 November 1985 the Union has request- ed the Company to bargain, and since 10 Decem- ber 1985 the Company has refused. We find that this refusal constitutes an unlawful refusal to bar- gain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By refusing on and after 10 December 1985 to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of employees in the ap- propriate unit, the Company 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, and to provide the Union, on request, information necessary for collective bargaining, including that specifically requested 27 November 1985. To ensure that the employees are accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided'by law, we shall construe the ini- tial 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).3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Centralia Container, Inc., Centra- lia, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with United Paperwork- ers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employ- ees in the bargaining unit. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) On request, bargain with the Union as the ex- clusive representative of the employees in the fol- lowing appropriate unit on terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement, and provide the Union, on request, information necessary for collective bargaining, including that specifically requested 27 November 1985: All production and maintenance employees and truckdrivers, including leadmen, employed by Centralia Container, Inc. at its Centralia, Il- linois facility; but excluding office clerical and professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Post at its facility in Centralia, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 14, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately a The General Counsel has requested that the Order include a "visitor- sal clause" authorizing the Board, for compliance purposes, to obtain dis- covery from the Respondent under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the supervision of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing this Order Under the circumstances of this case, we find it unnecessary to include such a clause Accordingly, we deny the General Counsel's request 4 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- 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 " CENTRALIA CONTAINER, INC. 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. 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 United Pa- perworkers International Union , AFL-CIO, CLC 307 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 exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, 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, and WE WILL provide the Union, on request, infor- mation necessary for collective bargaining, includ- ing that specifically requested 27 November 1985: All production and maintenance employees and truckdrivers, including leadmen, employed by us at our Centralia, Illinois facility; but ex- cluding office clerical and professional em- ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. CENTRALIA CONTAINER, INC.