Computer Sciences Raytheon

348 NLRB No. 65 Computer Sciences Raytheon and Local 2088, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO. Case 12–CA–25106 October 27, 2006 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND WALSH This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Respon- dent is contesting the Union’s certification as bargaining representative in the underlying representation proceed- ing. Pursuant to a charge filed on August 14, 2006, the General Counsel issued the complaint on August 25, 2006, alleging that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing the Union’s request to bargain following the Union’s certification in Case 12–RC–9191. (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 September 18, 2006, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On September 25, 2006, the Board issued an order transferring the proceed- ing 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 The Respondent admits its refusal to bargain, but con- tests the validity of the Union’s certification based on its contention, raised and rejected by the Board in the repre- sentation proceeding, that the Regional Director erred in directing a self-determination election to ascertain whether the Respondent’s facility specialists desired to be included in the previously existing unit of technical and plant clerical employees. Specifically, the Respon- dent reiterates its argument that the facility specialists do not share a community of interest with the technical and plant clerical employees in the unit. 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 General Counsel’s Motion for Sum- mary Judgment.1 On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all material times, the Respondent, a joint venture partnership with an office and place of business located in Port Canaveral, Florida (Port Canaveral facility), has been engaged in the business of providing technical launch support services to the 45th Space Wing of the United States Air Force on its Eastern Range and related down-range sites, pursuant to a contract with the United States Government. During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations described above, purchased and received at its Port Canaveral, Florida facility goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Florida. 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 Local 2088, International Broth- erhood of Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO (the Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Certification At all material times, the Respondent has recognized the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of a unit of technical and plant clerical employ- ees. This recognition has been embodied in successive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is effective from September 1, 2003, through Au- gust 31, 2007. In a self-determination election held on June 20, 2006, a majority of the Respondent’s facility specialists se- lected the Union as their collective-bargaining represen- tative and voted to be included in the existing unit of technical and plant clerical employees. The Union was certified on July 5, 2006, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the facility specialists. The following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All of the following full-time and regular part-time em- ployees employed by Respondent at Patrick Air Force 1 The Respondent’s request that the complaint be dismissed is there- fore denied. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 Base, Cape Canaveral Air Station, Kennedy Space Center and other Florida mainland locations pursuant to its Range Technical Service contract with the govern- ment: junior technical clerks, technical clerks, quality inspectors, drafters (A, B and C), procurement and scheduling clerks, senior technical clerks, classified documents clerks, data presentation specialists, draw- ing maintenance specialists, equipment control clerks, quality analysts, video specialists, chief equipment con- trol clerks, range scheduling analysts, cryptographic specialists, technical resource analysts, communica- tions requirement analysts, data processing requirement analysts, production control coordinators, procurement coordinators, senior range scheduling analysts, senior quality analysts, senior video analysts, network ana- lysts, site maintenance engineers, systems controllers, training and documentation specialists, designers, sen- ior systems controllers, senior data processing require- ment analysts, system maintenance engineers, test op- erations analysts, operations control engineers, and fa- cility specialists; excluding employees represented by other unions, employees permanently assigned Down Range, office clerical employees, professional employ- ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. At all times since July 5, 2006, based upon Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been and continues to be the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit set forth above. B. Refusal to Bargain On about August 3, 2006, the Union, by letter, re- quested that the Respondent recognize and bargain with it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the facility specialists as part of the technical and plant clerical unit. Since on about August 7, 2006, the Respondent has failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Un- ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the facility specialists as part of the technical and plant clerical unit. 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 since August 7, 2006, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of the facility specialists as part of the technical and plant clerical 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.2 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Computer Sciences Raytheon, Port Canav- eral, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with Local 2088, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the facility spe- cialists as part of the technical and plant clerical 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 facility specialists as part of the following appropriate unit on terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement: All of the following full-time and regular part-time em- ployees employed by Respondent at Patrick Air Force Base, Cape Canaveral Air Station, Kennedy Space Center and other Florida mainland locations pursuant to its Range Technical Service contract with the govern- ment: junior technical clerks, technical clerks, quality inspectors, drafters (A, B and C), procurement and scheduling clerks, senior technical clerks, classified documents clerks, data presentation specialists, draw- ing maintenance specialists, equipment control clerks, quality analysts, video specialists, chief equipment con- trol clerks, range scheduling analysts, cryptographic specialists, technical resource analysts, communica- tions requirement analysts, data processing requirement analysts, production control coordinators, procurement coordinators, senior range scheduling analysts, senior 2 The complaint requested that the Board require the Respondent to bargain in good faith with the Union, on request, as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of the facility specialists for the period set forth in Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962). The General Counsel correctly acknowledges in his Motion for Summary Judgment, how- ever, that such a remedy is inappropriate in this case, where the under- lying representation proceeding involved a self-determination election. See United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, Inc., 343 NLRB No. 1, slip op. at 3, fn. 4 (2004); Edward J. DeBartolo Corp., 315 NLRB 1170, 1171 fn. 3 (1994). COMPUTER SCIENCES RAYTHEON 3 quality analysts, senior video analysts, network ana- lysts, site maintenance engineers, systems controllers, training and documentation specialists, designers, sen- ior systems controllers, senior data processing require- ment analysts, system maintenance engineers, test op- erations analysts, operations control engineers, and fa- cility specialists; excluding employees represented by other unions, employees permanently assigned Down Range, office clerical employees, professional employ- ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Port Canaveral, Florida, copies of the at- tached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, 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 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 August 7, 2006. (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. 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 Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. 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.” FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf Act together with other employees for your bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Local 2088, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive representative of the facility specialists as part of the technical and plant clerical 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 facility specialists as part of the following bargaining unit: All of the following full-time and regular part-time em- ployees employed by us at Patrick Air Force Base, Cape Canaveral Air Station, Kennedy Space Center and other Florida mainland locations pursuant to our Range Technical Service contract with the government: junior technical clerks, technical clerks, quality inspec- tors, drafters (A, B and C), procurement and scheduling clerks, senior technical clerks, classified documents clerks, data presentation specialists, drawing mainte- nance specialists, equipment control clerks, quality ana- lysts, video specialists, chief equipment control clerks, range scheduling analysts, cryptographic specialists, technical resource analysts, communications require- ment analysts, data processing requirement analysts, production control coordinators, procurement coordina- tors, senior range scheduling analysts, senior quality analysts, senior video analysts, network analysts, site maintenance engineers, systems controllers, training and documentation specialists, designers, senior sys- tems controllers, senior data processing requirement analysts, system maintenance engineers, test operations analysts, operations control engineers, and facility spe- cialists; excluding employees represented by other un- ions, employees permanently assigned Down Range, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. COMPUTER SCIENCES RAYTHEON