Book Cadillac Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 5, 1984

269 N.L.R.B. 879 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

BOOK CADILLAC HOTEL
Cadillac Properties, Inc., d/b/a Book Cadillac Hotel
and International Union, United Plant Guard
Workers of America (UPGWA) and its Amalga-
mated Local Union 114. Case 7-CA-21966
5 April 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND DENNIS
Upon a charge filed by the Unions 8 April
1983,1 the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint 11 May against
the Company, the Respondent, alleging that it has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. Al-
though properly served copies of the charge and
complaint, the Company has failed to file an
answer.
On 14 September the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Default Judgment. On 22 September
the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the motion should not be granted. The Company
filed no response. The allegations in the motion are
therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions provides that the allegations in the complaint
shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed
within 10 days from service of the complaint,
unless good cause is shown. The complaint states
that unless an answer is filed within 10 days of
service, the "allegations in the [c]omplaint shall be
deemed to be admitted true and shall be so found
by the Board." Further, the undisputed allegations
in the Motion for Default Judgment disclose that
the Regional attorney for Region 7, by letter dated
28 June, notified the Company that unless an
answer was received immediately, a Motion for
Default Judgment would be filed.
In the absence of good cause being shown for
the failure to file a timely answer, we grant the
General Counsel's Motion for Default Judgment.2
On the entire record, the Board makes the fol-
lowing
I All subsequent dates refer to 1983 unless otherwise indicated.
2 In granting the General Counsel's Motion for Default Judgment,
Chairman Dotson specifically relies on the total failure of the Respondent
to contest either the factual allegations or the legal conclusions of the
General Counsel's complaint. Because this proceeding is a default judg-
ment, the Chairman regards it as being without precedential value.
269 NLRB No. 154
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Company, a Michigan corporation, is en-
gaged in providing hotel, banquet, and restaurant
services at its facility in Detroit, Michigan, where
it annually has gross revenue in excess of $500,000
and purchases and causes goods valued in excess of
$50,000 to be shipped from points located outside
the State of Michigan directly to its Detroit place
of business. We find that the Company is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that the Unions
are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
1I. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Since 22 August 1980 the Unions have been the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the appropriate unit.3 The Respondent and
the Unions are parties to a contract which is effec-
tive from 17 August 1981 through 17 August 1984.
About 24 March the Unions learned that the Re-
spondent had dealt directly with an employee
grievant to adjust a grievance that was pending ar-
bitration, and the Unions requested that the Re-
spondent divulge the terms of the grievance settle-
ment. About the same date the Respondent refused,
and continues to refuse, to provide the requested
information.
We find that, by dealing directly with an em-
ployee grievant to adjust a grievance that was
pending arbitration without affording the Unions
the opportunity to be present, the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. We also
find that, by refusing to divulge to the Unions the
terms of the grievance settlement, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By dealing directly with an employee grievant
to adjust a grievance that was pending arbitration
without affording the Unions the opportunity to be
present, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. By refusing to divulge to the Unions the terms
of the grievance settlement, the Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
I All full-time and regular part-time guards employed by the Company
at its facility located at 1114 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan;
but excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act and all other employ-
ees.
879
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondept has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it
to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Cadillac Properties, Inc., d/b/a
Book Cadillac Hotel, Detroit, Michigan, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Dealing directly with employees to adjust
grievances that are pending arbitration without af-
fording the Unions the opportunity to be present.
(b) Refusing to divulge to the Uniops the terms
of such grievance settlements.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, divulge to the Unions the terms
of the grievance settlement that the Respondent ad-
justed by dealing directly with an employee griev-
ant without affording the Unions the opportunity
to be present.
(b) Post at its facility in Detroit, Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 7, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
4 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
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 the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT deal directly with employees to
adjust grievances that are pending arbitration with-
out affording the Unions the opportunity to be
present.
WE WILL NOT refuse to divulge to the Unions
the terms of such grievance settlements.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL, on request, divulge to the Unions the
terms of the grievance settlement that we adjusted
by dealing directly with an employee grievant
without affording the Unions the opportunity to be
present.
CADILLAC PROPERTIES, INC., D/B/A
BOOK CADILLAC HOTEL
880