Team Clean, Inc., 1231 (2006)

Team Clean, Incorporated and Unite Here! Local 5. Case 37–CA–6905–1

December 7, 2005

DECISION AND ORDER

By Chairman Battista and Members Liebman, Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh

On January 13, 2006, Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respondent filed a reply.

The National Labor Relations Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.

ORDER

The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Team Clean, Incorporated, Honolulu, Hawaii, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall take the action set forth in the Order.

Dale K. Yashiki, Esq., for the General Counsel.

Bryan P. Andaya, Esq. (Imanaka, Kudo & Fujimoto), of Honolulu, Hawaii, for the Respondent.

Jennifer Cynn, Esq., of Honolulu, Hawaii, for the Union.

BENCH DECISION

Statement of the Case

William G. Kocol, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried by telephone conference call on December 13, 2005. The parties were represented by counsel located in Honolulu, Hawaii, and I was located in Los Angeles, California. At the conclusion of the hearing and following closing arguments I issued a bench decision pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law. In accordance with Section 102.45 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, I certify the accuracy of the portion of the transcript containing the bench decision as corrected below; it is attached as Appendix A. [Corrections to transcript omitted from publication.]

On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended1

ORDER

The Respondent, Team Clean, Incorporated, Honolulu, Hawaii, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall

1. Cease and desist from

   (a) Refusing to bargain collectively by failing to furnish UNITE HERE! Local 5 and failing to furnish UNITE HERE! Local 5 in a timely fashion, with requested information that is relevant to fulfilling its role as the collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees.

   (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) Provide UNITE HERE! Local 5 with the information concerning the bargaining unit members’ current addresses and telephone numbers, rates of pay, and weekly work schedules.

   (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Honolulu, Hawaii, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 37, 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 altered, 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 facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate 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 May 2, 2005.

   (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.

   It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.

   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 Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.

   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 benefit and protection

   Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.

   We will not refuse to bargain collectively by failing to furnish UNITE HERE! Local 5, and failing to furnish UNITE HERE! Local 5 in a timely fashion, with requested information that is relevant to fulfilling its role as the collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees.

   We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

   We will provide UNITE HERE! Local 5 with the information concerning the bargaining unit members’ current addresses and telephone numbers, rates of pay, and weekly work schedules.

   Team Clean, Incorporated

   APPENDIX A

   38

   speak for itself—but it did contain some basic—I think, originally contained the name of the employee, social security number, hire date, total wages and some other information regarding the union dues.

   I would like to note that an improvement was made pursuant to the request beginning the 2005 monthly union dues report where the Employer added the following category to the information provided—in addition to what was already being provided, the property at which each employee works as requested by the Union and also in Exhibit 16 with the October 2005 monthly reports. Again, another effort to attempt to comply with the Union’s request.

   But other than that, Judge, I have no further comments and I would submit on the record.

   Judge Kocol: All right. Thank you, Mr. Andaya.

   Pursuant to the Board’s rules and regulations the following shall constitute my decision in this case. The facts are fully set forth in the stipulation of facts. On through some the material facts now, the charge in this case was filed by the Union on July 21, 2005. And, incidentally, all

   39

   dates are in 2005 unless I otherwise indicate.

   And it was served on Respondent, the charge was, on July 22. The first amended charge in this case was filed by the Union on September 16th and a copy was served on Respondent on September 19th.

   At all times material, Respondent, a corporation with an office and a place of business in Honolulu, Hawaii, has been engaged in the business of providing cleaning services.

   During the 12-month period ending August 31, Respondent in conducting its business operations that I have described provided services valued in excess of $50,000 to other enterprises within the State of Hawaii, including Sheraton Hotels in Waikiki, Hilton Hawaiian Village Beach Resort and Spa, and Kahala Mandarin Oriental Hotel.

   At all times material Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of 2(2), (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, and the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of 2(5) of the Act.

   At all times material Brian K. Benz, has held the position of vice president of operations for Respondent and has been a supervisor within the meaning of section 2(11) and an agent of Respondent

   40

   within the meaning of section 2(13).

   At all times material Florence Ramiscal—I’m sorry; I’ll spell that—R-a-m-i-s-c-a-l has held the position of human resources director and has been a supervisor within the meaning of section 2(11) and an agent of Respondent within the meaning of section 2(13) of the Act.

   The following employees constitute an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the act. “All employees performing at work covered by the September 1, 1992 collective bargaining agreement between Respondent and the Union.”

   At all times since at least September 1, 1992, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the designated exclusive collective bargaining representative of the unit and since then the Union has been recognized as...