Jacmar Food Service Distribution, (2017)

Docket Number:21-CA-193952

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.

Jacmar Food Service Distribution and Food, Industrial & Beverage Warehouse Drivers and Clerical Employees, Teamsters Local 630, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Case 21–CA– 193952

June 6, 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 filed on February 28, 2017, by Food, Industrial & Beverage Warehouse Drivers and Clerical Employees, Teamsters Local 630, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Union), the General Counsel issued the complaint on March 13, 2017, alleging that Jacmar Food Service Distribution (the Respondent) has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing the Union’s request to recognize and bargain with it following the Union’s certification in Case 21– RC–175833. (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.

On April 5, 2017, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On April 7, 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.

Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment

The Respondent admits its refusal to bargain, but 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 election process was not fair and valid because it involved Union coercion of employees, lacked the proper laboratory conditions for employees to exercise their free choice, and was conducted in a manner that was not neutral and did not safeguard the integrity of the ballots and the election process.

All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior representation 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 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).

Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.1

On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT


    At all material times, the Respondent, a California corporation, with its principal offices and food warehouse facility located at 300 Baldwin Park Boulevard,...

To continue reading