Anheuser-Busch, LLC,

Docket Number03-CA-196263

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive 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.

Anheuser-Busch, LLC and Teamsters Local 1149.

Case 03–CA–196263

August 16, 2017



This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Respondent is contesting the Union’s certification as bargaining representative in the underlying representation proceeding. Pursuant to a charge and an amended charge filed on April 5 and May 16, 2017, respectively, by Teamsters Local 1149 (the Union), the General Counsel issued the complaint on May 16, 2017, alleging that Anheuser-Busch, LLC (the Respondent) has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing the Union’s request to recognize and bargain and to provide information following the Union’s certification in Case 03– RC–185455. (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(d). Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint, and asserting affirmative defenses.1

On June 2, 2017, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 6, 2017, 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

The Respondent denies its refusal to bargain, and contests the validity of the Union’s certification of representative on the basis of its contentions, raised and rejected in the underlying representation proceeding, that the Regional Director improperly found that Stacy Olson is not a confidential employee and thus is eligible to vote, and its contention that, consequently, the Union

1 In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent states that its correct name is Anheuser-Busch-InBev, and in its response to the Board’s Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent states that its correct name is Anheuser-Busch Commercial Strategy, LLC. However, in the underlying representation proceeding, the Respondent stipulated that its correct name is as reflected herein.

was not properly certified as the bargaining agent of the unit.2

All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special circumstances 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 unfair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).

We also find that there are no factual issues warranting a hearing with respect to the Union’s request for information. The complaint alleges, and the Respondent admits, that on November 16, 2016, by letter, the Union requested the following information:

(1) The name, address, classification, base rate of pay, date of birth, and date of hire of each bargaining unit employee on the payroll during the most recent social security quarter.

(2) The straight-time hourly rate for all bargaining unit employees in the last social security period, including cost of living and premium pay, but excluding shift and overtime premiums.

(3) The starting, minimum and maximum wage (salary) rates for all bargaining unit employees.

(4) Information on incentive plan(s), bonuses, cost-ofliving payments, and overtime worked during the four most recent social security quarters for all bargaining unit employees.

(5) The total and...

To continue reading