Matson Terminals, Inc., (2017)
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.
Matson Terminals, Inc. and Hawaii Teamsters & Allied Workers Union, Local 996. Case 20–CA– 187970
April 7, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE AND MCFERRAN
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 November 9 and December 16, 2016, respectively, by Hawaii Teamsters & Allied Workers Union, Local 996 (the Union), the General Counsel issued the complaint on December 29, 2016, alleging that Matson Terminals, Inc. (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 20–RC–173297. (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 February 1, 2017, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 3, 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 thereafter filed an opposition to the summary judgment motion.
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 contention that the petitioned-for employees are statutory supervisors as defined by the Act and/or are managerial employees excluded from the Act’s coverage.
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.1 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.2
On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT
At all material times, the Respondent, a Hawaii corporation with offices...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP