Case Farms Processing, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 9, 2010

355 NLRB No. 178 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

355 NLRB No. 178
1
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive 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.
Case Farms Processing, Inc. and United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 880.
Cases 8–CA–37850, 8–CA–38244, 8–CA–38285,
8–CA–38412, and 8–CA–38439
September 9, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND HAYES
The Acting General Counsel seeks a default judgment
in this case on the ground that the Respondent has failed
to file an answer to the fourth amended consolidated
complaint and has withdrawn its answers to prior com-
plaints. Upon charges and amended charges filed by the
Union, the General Counsel issued the fourth amended
consolidated complaint on June 16, 2010 against Case
Farms Processing, Inc., the Respondent, alleging that it
has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.1 By letter dated
June 24, 2010, the Respondent informed the Region that
it had decided not to file an answer to the fourth
amended consolidated complaint, with the understanding
that the General Counsel intended to file a motion for
default judgment, and that it was withdrawing its an-
swers to previous complaints. Accordingly, the Respon-
dent failed to file an answer.
On June 29, 2010, the Acting General Counsel filed a
Motion for Default Judgment with the Board. Thereaf-
ter, on July 2, 2010, the Board issued an order transfer-
ring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show
Cause why the motion should not be granted. By letter
dated July 9, 2010, the Respondent notified the Board
that it would not file any opposition to the Acting Gen-
eral Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment and respect-
fully requested the Board to proceed as expeditiously as
possible in considering the motion and issuing an appro-

1 The General Counsel issued the original complaint on December 31,
2008, which was the subject of an informal settlement agreement that was
approved on February 20, 2009. Thereafter, based on additional charges
filed by the Union, the General Counsel issued a consolidated complaint,
amended consolidated complaint, and second amended consolidated com-
plaint on July 31, August 18, and September 30, 2009, respectively. Subse-
quently, having concluded that the informal settlement agreement should be
vacated and set aside, the General Counsel issued an order consolidating
cases, order revoking informal settlement agreement, third amended con-
solidated complaint and notice of hearing on November 30, 2009. The
parties reached a non-Board settlement of certain matters set forth in the
third amended consolidated complaint. Thereafter, on June 11, 2010, the
General Counsel issued an order approving withdrawal or partial withdrawal
of certain allegations and severing Cases 8–CA–38340, 8–CA–38380, 8–
CA–38381, and 8–CA–38400 from the instant proceeding.
priate order. The allegations in the motion are therefore
undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated 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 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 fourth amended consolidated
complaint affirmatively stated that unless an answer was
received by June 30, 2010, the Board may find, pursuant
to a motion for default judgment, that the allegations in
the complaint are true. As stated above, the Respondent
failed to file an answer to the fourth amended consoli-
dated complaint and withdrew its answers to prior com-
plaints. The withdrawal of an answer has the same effect
as a failure to file an answer, i.e., the allegations in the
complaint must be considered to be admitted as true.2
Accordingly, based on the withdrawal of the Respon-
dent’s answers to prior complaints, and in the absence of
good cause being shown for the failure to file an answer
to the fourth amended consolidated complaint, we deem
the allegations in the fourth amended consolidated com-
plaint to be admitted as true, and we grant the Acting
General Counsel’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, an Ohio corpo-
ration with a place of business located at 1818 County
Road 160, Winesburg, Ohio (the Respondent’s facility),
has been engaged in the business of processing chickens.
Annually, in the course and conduct of its business, the
Respondent sells and ships goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points located outside the State of
Ohio.
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 No. 880 (the Union) is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals held the
positions set forth opposite their respective names and
have been supervisors of the Respondent within the mean-
ing of Section 2(11) of the Act and/or agents of the Re-
spondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

2 See Maislin Transport, 274 NLRB 529 (1985).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Paul Nelson Plant Manager
Guillermo Ibarra Human Resource Manager
Armando Campos Human Resource Manager
Bill McAfee Supervisor
Paul Storsin Supervisor
Sharon Jellel Second Processing
Manager
Pedro Valdez Supervisor
Angel Melendez Garcia Supervisor
Jonathan Martinez Castro Supervisor
Barbara Gomez Supervisor
1. On about June 28, 2008, the Respondent, by its su-
pervisor and/or agent Armando Campos, unlawfully inter-
rogated employees about their union activities outside of
the Super 8 motel located near the Respondent’s facility.
2. At a new employee training meeting on about June
12, 2008, the Respondent, by its supervisor and/or agent
Armando Campos:
(a) unlawfully threatened employees that no wage in-
creases would be granted as long as the Union was at
the facility;
(b) made unlawful statements of futility by telling
employees that the Union could not help employees;
and
(c) coercively informed employees that the Re-
spondent had eliminated the union at its North Caro-
lina plant by hiring Puerto Rican employees to re-
move the union and coercively informed employees
that the Respondent brought the new employees to
the Respondent’s facility to remove the Union.
3. On about August 5, 2008; March 24, 2009; and
April 14, 2009; the Respondent, by its supervisors and/or
agents, including Sharon Jellel and Armando Campos,
unlawfully created the impression that employees’ pro-
tected activities were under surveillance.
4. On about March 19, 2009, the Respondent, by its
supervisors and/or agents, at the Respondent’s facility:
(a) unlawfully coerced employees by telling them that
there would be no jobs for them if they did not sign a
decertification petition; and
(b) unlawfully threatened an employee that he
would not have a job if he did not sign a decertifica-
tion petition.
5. On about March 24, 2009, the Respondent, by its
supervisor and/or agent Pedro Valdez, unlawfully inter-
rogated an employee about the employee’s union and/or
protected concerted activities.
6. On about April 14, 2009, the Respondent, by its su-
pervisor and/or agent Armando Campos, at the Respon-
dent’s facility:
(a) unlawfully threatened an employee with discipline
in retaliation for the employee’s union and/or protected
concerted activity; and
(b) coercively informed an employee that she was
talking to other employees too much, in order to dis-
courage the employee’s union and/or protected con-
certed activity.
7. On about April 20, 2009, the Respondent, by its su-
pervisors and/or agents, including Paul Nelson, Pedro
Valdez, Sharon Jellel, and Armando Campos, at the Re-
spondent’s facility, held a coercive meeting with an em-
ployee in retaliation for the employee’s union and/or
protected concerted activity.
8. On about April 20, 2009, the Respondent, by its su-
pervisor and/or agent Armando Campos, at the Respon-
dent’s facility, unlawfully threatened to discipline an
employee because of his union and/or protected con-
certed activities.
9. On about May 27, 2009, the Respondent, by its su-
pervisor and/or agent Armando Campos, at the Respon-
dent’s facility:
(a) threatened an employee with termination in retalia-
tion for his union and/or protected concerted activities;
and
(b) coercively informed an employee that the Respon-
dent had problems with the Respondent’s employees
because the Union wanted to represent the employees
at the Respondent’s facility.
10. In or around May 2009, the Respondent, by its su-
pervisor and/or agent Paul Storsin, at the Respondent’s
facility, unlawfully interrogated an employee about his
protected activities and the protected activities of other
employees.
11. During June and July 2009, the Respondent, by its
supervisors and/or agents, including Armando Campos,
at the Respondent’s facility:
(a) coercively held a meeting to urge an employee to
sign a decertification petition and placed his name on a
decertification petition over his objections;
(b) unlawfully promised an employee that the em-
ployees would get a raise if they signed a decertifi-
cation petition or got rid of the Union;
(c) coercively informed an employee that since he
removed his name from a decertification petition, the
CASE FARMS PROCESSING, INC. 3
Respondent would no longer assist the employee if he
had problems with his coworkers; and
(d) unlawfully threatened an employee with termina-
tion because the employee had removed his name from
a decertification petition.
12. In disposition of Case 8–CA–37850, the Respon-
dent and the Union entered into an informal settlement
agreement that addressed the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 (to the extent it alleges conduct by
Sharon Jellel), which was approved on February 20,
2009. By the conduct described in paragraphs 3 through
11, the Respondent violated the terms of the settlement
agreement. Accordingly, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 8 issued an order, pursuant to Section 101.9(e)(2) of
the Board’s Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, vacating and setting aside the settlement
agreement.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the conduct described above, the Respondent has
been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) 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.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Case Farms Processing, Inc., Winesburg,
Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees about their union and/or
protected concerted activities and the protected activities
of other employees.
(b) Threatening employees that no wage increases
would be granted as long as United Food and Commer-
cial Workers Union, Local No. 880 (the Union) is at the
facility.
(c) Telling employees that the Union could not help
employees.
(d) Coercively informing employees that the Respon-
dent had eliminated the union at its North Carolina plant
by hiring Puerto Rican employees to remove the union
and coercively informing employees that the Respondent
brought the new employees to the Respondent’s facility
to remove the Union.
(e) Creating the impression that employees’ protected
activities are under surveillance.
(f) Coercing employees by telling them that there
would be no jobs for them if they did not sign a decertifi-
cation petition.
(g) Threatening employees that they would not have
jobs if they did not sign a decertification petition.
(h) Threatening employees with discipline in retalia-
tion for their union and/or protected concerted activities.
(i) Coercively informing employees that they were
talking to other employees too much, in order to discour-
age the employees’ union and/or protected concerted
activities.
(j) Holding coercive meetings with employees in retalia-
tion for their union and/or protected concerted activities.
(k) Threatening employees with termination in retalia-
tion for their union and/or protected concerted activities.
(l) Coercively informing employees that the Respon-
dent has problems with its employees because the Union
wanted to represent the employees at the Respondent’s
facility.
(m) Coercively holding meetings to urge employees to
sign a decertification petition and placing their names on
a decertification petition over their objections.
(n) Promising employees that they would get a raise if
they signed a decertification petition or got rid of the
Union.
(o) Coercively informing employees that since they
removed their names from a decertification petition, the
Respondent would no longer assist the employees if they
had problems with their coworkers.
(p) Threatening employees with termination because
the employees removed their names from a decertifica-
tion petition.
(q) 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) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Winesburg, Ohio, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8,
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-

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
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 June 12, 2008.
(b) 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.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 9, 2010
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
Brian E. Hayes, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their union
and/or protected concerted activities and the protected
activities of other employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that no wage in-
creases would be granted as long as United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 880 (the Union)
is at the facility.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that the Union could not
help employees.
WE WILL NOT coercively inform employees that we
had eliminated the union at our North Carolina plant by
hiring Puerto Rican employees to remove the union and
WE WILL NOT coercively inform employees that we
brought the new employees to our facility to remove the
Union.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that employees’
protected activities are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT coerce employees by telling them that
there would be no jobs for them if they did not sign a
decertification petition.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that they would not
have jobs if they did not sign a decertification petition.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discipline in re-
taliation for their union and/or protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively inform employees that they
were talking to other employees too much, in order to
discourage the employees’ union and/or protected con-
certed activities.
WE WILL NOT hold coercive meetings with employees
in retaliation for their union and/or protected concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with termination in
retaliation for their union and/or protected concerted ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT coercively inform employees that we
have problems with our employees because the Union
wanted to represent the employees at our facility.
WE WILL NOT coercively hold meetings to urge em-
ployees to sign a decertification petition, and WE WILL
NOT place employees’ names on a decertification petition
over their objections.
WE WILL NOT promise employees that they would get a
raise if they signed a decertification petition or got rid of
the Union.
WE WILL NOT coercively inform employees that since
they removed their names from a decertification petition,
we would no longer assist the employees if they had
problems with their coworkers.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with termination be-
cause they removed their names from a decertification
petition.
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.
CASE FARMS PROCESSING, INC.