Steven Label Corp., 305 (1978)

STEVEN LABEL CORP.

Steven Label Corporation and Graphic Arts International Union, Local 262, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 21-CA-16054

January 19, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS

JENKINS AND PENELLO

Upon a charge filed on September 23, 1977, by Graphic Arts International Union, Local 262, AFLCIO-CLC, herein called the Union, and duly served on Steven Label Corporation, herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 21, issued a complaint and notice of hearing on September 29, 1977, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before an Administrative Law Judge were duly served on the parties to this proceeding.

With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that on August 10, 1977, following a Board election in Case 21-RC15059, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the unit found appropriate; ' and that, commencing on or about September 21, 1977, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative, although the Union has requested and is requesting it to do so. On October 11, 1977, Respondent filed its answer to the complaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in the complaint.

On October 20, 1977, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on November 3, 1977, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show I Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,

Case 21-RC-15059, as the term 'record' is defined in Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Series 8. as amended. See LTV Elecrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (C.A. 4, 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (C.A. 5, 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello. 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va., 1967);

Follerr Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (C.A. 7, 1968); Sec.

9(d) ofthe NLRA. as amended.

2 By letter dated October 13, 1977, to John C. Truesdale, the Board's former Executive Secretary. Respondent, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552 and Sec. 102.117 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, requested certain information pertaining to the Board's processing of its request for review of the Acting Regional Director's 234 NLRB No. 46

Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent thereafter filed a response to Notice To Show Cause.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following:

Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment In its answer to the complaint and in its memorandum in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment, which was filed in response to the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent contends, in substance, that the Board's certification is invalid (1) because 'supervisory employees openly expressed their support of the Union thereby intimidating and depriving the employees of free choice in the election' and (2) because of its good-faith belief that the Board did not properly consider its request for review of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative. The Respondent's 'belief' that it was denied due process is based, in part, on the Board's 'use of boilerplate language in the telegram and the failure to identify the Board Members who acted upon the request.' 2

The General Counsel contends that Respondent is raising issues which were or could have been raised in the representation proceeding and is precluded from relitigating them herein. We agree with the General Counsel.

Our review of the record herein, including that in the underlying representation proceeding, Case 21RC-15059, shows that the election in this matter, which was held on June 10, 1977, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Regional Director on May 12, 1977, resulted in a vote of 26 for, and 5 against, the Union, with 3 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the results of the election. On June 16, 1977,

Respondent filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. On August 10, 1977, the Acting Regional Director issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative, in Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative in Case 21-RC15059. On October 14, 1977, Respondent filed with Chairman Fanning an 'Application to Take Deposition' (ofJohn C. Truesdale) in subject case. In a letter to Respondent's counsel dated October 21, 1977, Mr. Truesdale provided Respondent with the information requested as to how the Board processes a request for review. On October 20, 1977, the General Counsel filed a 'Motion to Reject Respondent's Application for Consent to Take Deposition.' Subsequently, in a letter to Mr. Truesdale dated October 28, 1977, Respondent requested 'clarification in lieu of deposition' of the information previously provided by the Executive Secretary and thereby effectively withdrew its application to take deposition. Accordingly, the General Counsel's motion to reject Respondent's application for consent to take deposition is moot.

305

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which he recommended that the Respondent's objections be overruled in their entirety and that the Union be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees in the appropriate unit described in the complaint. On August 25, 1977,

Respondent filed a timely request for review of the Acting Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative. Thereafter, on September 16, 1977, the Board denied Respondent's request for review on the ground that it raised no substantial issues warranting review. On September 28, 1977, Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board's denial of its request for review.

In this motion,...