Casablanca Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 2005

344 N.L.R.B. 107 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

344 NLRB No. 107
MRA Food, Inc. d/b/a Casablanca Foods, Inc. and
United Food and Commercial Workers Union,
Local 400. Case 5–CA–32267
June 24, 2005
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file
an answer to the complaint. Upon a charge filed by the
Union on December 16, 2004, the General Counsel is-
sued the complaint on February 28, 2005, against MRA
Food, Inc. d/b/a Casablanca Foods, Inc., the Respondent,
alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act.
On April 25, 2005, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Default Judgment with the Board. On May 12, 2005,
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 no re-
sponse. The allegations in the motion are therefore un-
disputed.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the allegations in a complaint shall be
deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days
from service of the complaint, unless good cause is
shown. In addition, the complaint affirmatively stated
that unless an answer was filed by March 15, 2005, all
the allegations in the complaint would be considered
admitted. Further, the undisputed allegations in the Gen-
eral Counsel’s motion disclose that the Region, by letters
dated March 17 and April 7, 2005, notified the Respon-
dent that unless an answer was received by March 24 and
April 14, 2005, respectively, a motion for default judg-
ment would be filed.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail-
ure to file a timely answer, we grant the General Coun-
sel’s motion for default judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a Maryland cor-
poration with an office and place of business in Dum-
fries, Virginia, has been engaged in the business of oper-
ating a retail food store.
During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the
complaint, the Respondent, in conducting its business
operations described above, derived gross revenue in
excess of $500,000 and received goods and supplies val-
ued in excess of $5000 directly from points located out-
side the Commonwealth of Virginia.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act, and that United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, Local 400 (the Union) is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, Buyng Kang has held the posi-
tion of president and has been a supervisor of the Re-
spondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act
and an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of
Section 2(13) of the Act.
The employees of the Respondent, as described in arti-
cle II of the collective-bargaining agreement described
below (the unit), constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act.
Since in or around 2002, the Respondent, as a succes-
sor employer, has recognized the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the unit,
and executed an extension to the predecessor employer’s
collective-bargaining agreement whose term was Sep-
tember 2, 1999 to September 7, 2002. The term of the
collective-bargaining agreement was extended by the
mutual agreement of the parties until November 15,
2002, and further extended to April 15, 2003.
At all times since in or around 1984, based on Section
9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the unit.
At various times during 2002 through August 13,
2004, the Respondent and the Union met for the purpose
of collective bargaining with respect to wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment of the unit.
Since on or about August 13, 2004, the Respondent
has refused to meet for the purpose of negotiating a col-
lective-bargaining agreement.
By letter dated October 8, 2004, the Union requested
that the Respondent furnish it with the following infor-
mation:
1. Name, address, telephone number, social security
number, date of hire, classification, rate of pay, date of
birth, sex (M/F), marital status and number of dependents
for each employee in the bargaining unit.
2. Job descriptions and responsibilities for each job
classification.
3. Average weekly number of employees and hours
worked at each rate.
4. Total straight time hours.
5. Overtime hours and total premium expense by pre-
mium rate.
6. Paid sick time hours and total expense.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
7. Weekend/Sunday premium hours and total premium
expense by premium rate.
8. Holiday hours worked and total expense.
9. Shift/Night premium hours by premium rate.
10. Vacation hours.
11. Total annual labor cost.
12. Copy of all company policies.
13. Copy of employee handbook.
14. Copy of all disciplinary policies.
15. Copy of all employee benefit plans, including but
not limited to, ESOP and 401-K’s.
16. Cost of each benefit referenced in #15 above to the
Employer, along with the cost to employees, if any.
17. 401-K Plan
(a) the Plan Document;
(b) any Trust Agreement;
(c) the latest Summary Plan Description with amend-
ments, if any;
(d) any collective bargaining agreements under which
the Plan is maintained;
(e) any other rules and regulations governing the opera-
tion of the Plan not described above;
(f) the last three Form 5500s filed with the federal gov-
ernment;
(g) the last three audited financial statements for the
Plan;
(h) the last three consultant reports for the Plan, if any;
(i) the last three Summary Annual Reports distributed
to participants;
(j) the last three Summary of Material Modifications
distributed to participants;
(k) any contracts between the Plan and any third party
including, but not limited to, insurance contracts and
contracts with custodians of assets, administrators of
the investment program, and investment managers;
(l) any policies adopted by the fiduciaries of the Plan,
including, but not limited to, any investment policy,
trustee expense reimbursement policy, policy for shar-
ing costs with any other entity (including the Plan
sponsor), policy for collecting delinquent payments due
to the Plan, QDRO policy, and fund policy;
(m) any insurance policy and/or bonding policy cover-
ing the Plan and its fiduciaries;
(n) minutes of any meetings regarding the Plan during
the last three years containing a description of Plan
rules, policies or procedures under which the Plan was
established or is maintained, a discussion of the consid-
eration and retention of any provider of service to the
Plan, or a discussion of the investment options for par-
ticipants, if any were discussed;
(o) the last Internal Revenue Service determination of
tax qualification for the Plan;
(p) the results of discrimination tests under the Internal
Revenue Code;
(q) if the Plan participants have the authority to direct
the investment of their accounts, the Plan’s procedures
establishing the permissible investment options, how
often changes between investments may be made, and
any other procedures governing a participant’s right to
direct his or her investments;
(r) if the Plan participants have the authority to direct
the investment of their accounts, the materials provided
to participants to direct their own investments, includ-
ing forms used to select investments, prospectuses for
the Plan’s investments and any other materials pro-
vided to participants regarding the investments offered
under the Plan; and
(s) enrollment forms and Notices of Enrollment
With the exception of employee social security num-
bers, the information requested by the Union is necessary
for and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit.1
Since on or about October 8, 2004, the Respondent has
failed and refused to furnish the Union with the re-
quested information.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the conduct described above, the Respondent has
failed and refused to bargain collectively and in good
faith with the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the unit employees, and has thereby engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain 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. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) by failing and refusing since August 13, 2004, to

1 The Board has held that social security numbers are not presump-
tively relevant to a union’s duties as an exclusive collective-bargaining
representative. Accordingly, in the absence of a showing here of their
potential or probable relevance, we deny the General Counsel’s motion
with respect to the Respondent’s failure to provide social security num-
bers, and remand that issue to the Region for further appropriate action.
Metro Health Foundation, Inc., 338 NLRB 802, 803 fn. 2 (2003).
CASABLANCA FOODS, INC. 3
bargain with the Union, we shall order the Respondent,
on request, to meet and bargain with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
and, if an understanding is reached, to embody that un-
derstanding in a signed agreement.2
In addition, having found that the Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) by failing and refusing to
furnish the Union with information that is relevant and
necessary to its role as the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of the unit employees, we shall order the Respon-
dent to furnish the Union with the information it re-
quested in its October 8, 2004 letter, with the exception
of employees’ social security numbers.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, MRA Food, Inc., d/b/a Casablanca Foods,
Inc., Dumfries, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with United Food and Com-
mercial Workers Union, Local 400 as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit described in article II of the September 2,
1999—September 7, 2002 collective-bargaining agree-
ment, which was extended to April 15, 2003.
(b) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union with in-
formation necessary for and relevant to the performance
of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit employees.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, meet and bargain with United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, Local 400 as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit employ-
ees concerning terms and conditions of employment and,
if an understanding is reached, embody that understand-
ing in a signed agreement.

In the complaint, the General Counsel requests that the Board or-
der the Respondent to bargain in good faith with the Union, on request,
“for the period required by Mar-Jac Poultry, as the recognized bargain-
ing representative in the appropriate unit.” We decline to grant this
remedy. Pursuant to Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 765 (1962), the
Board construes a newly-certified union’s initial period of certification
as beginning on the date that the respondent employer begins to bargain
in good faith. Thus, by its terms, the Mar-Jac remedy only applies in
situations involving a certified union. Here, there is no allegation or
evidence that the Union was ever certified by the Board. Accordingly,
the Mar-Jac extension of a union’s “certification” year is not an appro-
priate remedy for the Respondent’s failure to bargain in the instant
case.
(b) Furnish the Union with the information it requested
by letter dated October 8, 2004, with the exception of
employee social security numbers.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Dumfries, Virginia, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since August 13, 2004.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that 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 Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your
benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, Local 400 as the exclusive

3 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the bargaining unit described in article II of the Septem-
ber 2, 1999—September 7, 2002 collective-bargaining
agreement, which was extended to April 15, 2003.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish the Union with
information necessary and relevant to the performance of
its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining represen-
tative of the unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, meet and bargain with United
Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 400 as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
employees concerning terms and conditions of employ-
ment and, if an understanding is reached, embody that
understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL furnish the Union with the information it re-
quested by letter dated October 8, 2004, with the excep-
tion of employee social security numbers.
MRA FOOD, INC. D/B/A CASABLANCA FOODS,
INC.