Bristol Clothing Manufacturing Co., Inc. And E & M Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 1060 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Herbert Rogers , Esquire , Trustee in Bankruptcy to
Bristol Clothing Manufacturing - Co., Inc. and
Bristol Clothing Manufacturing Co., Inc. and E
& M Manufacturing Co., Single Employers 1
and New England Regional Joint Board, Amal
gamated Clothing , and Textile Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, CLC. Cases 1-CA-22007, 1-CA-
22034, 1-CA-22154, and 1-CA-22404
30 September 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
Upon charges and amended charges filed by the
Union during the period 20 April to 25 October
1984, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint, an amended
complaint, and a second amended complaint
against the Respondents on 4 and 15 June and 3
December 1984, respectively.
The complaints allege that the Union is the, ex-
clusive representative of the Respondents' employ-
ees in the appropriate unit and that the most recent
collective-bargaining agreement between the Union
and the Respondents was effective by its terms for
the period 1 April 1982 to 31 May 1985. The com-
plaints further allege that Respondents Bristol and
E & M constitute a single integrated business enter-
prise and a single employer within the meaning of
the Act, and that they violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1), Section 8(d), and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act by the following
conduct:
During the period 1 May to in or about Decem-
ber 1983, the Respondents, without prior notice to
the Union and without affording the Union the op-
portunity to negotiate and bargain, failed to make
payments into the Union's benefit plan, to remit to
the Union dues money collected from its employ-
ees in accordance with its longstanding practice,
and to pay its employees holiday and vacation pay
due for the Christmas and New Year period. Since
on or about 15 March 1984, the Respondents have
failed to recognize and bargain with the Union
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment. On var-
ious occasions since 15 March 1984, the Respond-
ents failed to furnish the Union with certain infor-
mation concerning the employees of Bristol and the
relationship between the latter and E & M. On 4
June and 1 September 1984, respectively, E & M
refused to pay a contractually scheduled wage in-
crease and implemented a new health insurance
plan for the benefit of its employees.
1 Herein called Bristol and E & M
The second amended complaint -also alleges that
on 8 March 1984 Bristol became a debtor- in-posses-
sion, and Herbert Rogers, Esquire, became a suc-
cessor in bankruptcy to Bristol on 13 November
1984. In addition, it alleges that since 21 June 1984
the Respondents have failed to furnish the Union
with information -concerning each employee's date
of hire, social security number, job classification,
and rate of pay, and since 26 September 1984 have
failed to provide information concerning their in-
surance coverage and premiums.
On 22 June 1984-Bristol filed an answer to the
first amended complaint2 in which it stated that on
or about 15 March 1984 it informed the Union that
it was filing a petition under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Act for reorganization and on or after
that date bargained in good faith with the Union
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment. Bristol also
denied that it and E & M constituted a single em-
ployer within the meaning of the Act.
On 15 January 1985 Rogers filed an answer to
the second amended complaint wherein he, too,
denied committing any unfair labor practices and
also made the following statements:
(1) Bristol filed a petition for bankruptcy under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act on or about 16
March 1984, and on or about 20 November of the
same year it "was converted to a Chapter 7." On
the latter date, Rogers was appointed as interim
trustee, and on 10 January 1985 he assumed the
duties of trustee under Chapter 7 to wind up the
affairs of Bristol, which has no employees and is
not operating a manufacturing business. As trustee
for Bristol, Rogers is not connected with E & M.
(2) Rogers has no knowledge of collective bar-
gaining regarding former employees of Bristol. '
(3) As Bristol is not "presently" engaged in busi-
ness and Rogers has no knowledge and information
concerning the allegations in the second amended
complaint, the complaint should be dismissed be-
cause the Bankruptcy Court would afford the same
remedy that a prolonged hearing before the Board
would afford.
On 28 February 1985 the General Counsel filed
motions to strike the trustee's answer and for sum-
mary judgment because (1) no answer to the
second amended complaint had been received from
Respondent Bristol or Respondent E & M and (2)
the trustee's answer to that complaint does not
meet the requirements of Section 102.20 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations because it fails spe-
2 As this complaint was issued prior to the period specified by Secs
102 20 and 102 21 of the Board's Rules and Regulations for filing an
answer to the original complaint, Bristol, which did not file an answer
thereto, was under no obligation to do so
276 NLRB Na 111
BRISTOL CLOTHING MFG. CO.
cifically to address each of the allegations therein.
On 4 March 1985 the Board issued an order trans-
ferring this proceeding to the Board and a Notice
to Show Cause why the motions should not be
granted . Respondents Bristol and E & M and the
trustee filed no response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
Ruling on the Motions to Strike Trustee's
Answer and for Summary Judgment
As indicated above, the complaints alleged, and
Bristol and the trustee denied, that they committed
unfair labor practices prior or subsequent to Bris-
tol's filing a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bank-
ruptcy Act.
Although the trustee, rather than Bristol, filed an
answer to the second amended complaint, Bristol's
1061
answer to the first amended complaint in fact an-
swered the allegations in the second amended com-
plaint which contained substantially the same alle-
gations as those in the first amended complaint.
Thus, by its answer , Bristol has raised litigable
issues. In view of the foregoing and the special role
of the trustee, we shall, contrary to the General
Counsel's request, deny the motion to strike the
trustee 's answer . See Marko Contractors, 269
NLRB 990 (1984).
ORDER
It is ordered that the General Counsel's motion
to strike the answer of the trustee in bankruptcy
and for summary judgment in the above-captioned
proceeding be denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-cap-
tioned proceeding be remanded to the Regional Di-
rector for Region 1 for appropriate actions.