King Courier

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 4, 2005

344 N.L.R.B. 485 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

KING COURIER
344 NLRB No. 59
485
Careful Courier Services, Inc. d/b/a King Courier and
International Longshore and Warehouse Union,
AFL–CIO. Case 20–CA–31166–1
April 4, 2005
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
The General Counsel seeks default judgment in this
case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file
a timely answer to the complaint. Upon a charge filed by
the Union on April 7, 2003, an amended charge filed on
April 15, 2003, a second amended charge filed on May
23, 2003, and a third amended charge filed on June 25,
2003, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a complaint on October 28, 2004,1
against King Courier, the Respondent, alleging that it has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act. Although properly served with copies of
the charge, as amended, and the complaint, the Respon-
dent failed to file a timely answer.
On December 6, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Default Judgment with the Board. On December 9,
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, on December
30, filed a response to the Board’s Notice to Show Cause
and included an answer to the complaint.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the allegations in the complaint shall be
deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within the 14
days from service of the complaint, unless good cause is
shown. In addition, the complaint, served by certified
mail on the Respondent on October 28, affirmatively
states that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of
service, all the allegations in the complaint may be found
true. Further, the undisputed allegations in the Motion for
Default Judgment disclose that the Region, by letter
dated November 17, notified the Respondent that unless
an answer was received by November 24, a motion for
default judgment would be filed. Thereafter, the Re-
spondent neither filed an answer to the complaint nor
requested an extension of time to do so.
In its response to the Board’s Notice to Show Cause,
the Respondent argues that the General Counsel’s Mo-
tion for Default Judgment should not be granted. The
Respondent states in its response that its failure to file a
timely answer to the complaint was “the result of inad-
vertent inattention of counsel and in light of the substan-

1 Unless otherwise stated, all dates are in 2004.
tive and factual issues which need to be addressed in this
case.” We find that the Respondent’s explanations for its
failure to file a timely answer do not constitute good
cause, within the meaning of Section 102.20 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations. “Inadvertent inattention
of counsel” is not sufficient to establish good cause. See
Electra-Cal Contractors, 339 NLRB 370, 370 (2003),
and Associated Interior Contractors, 339 NLRB 18, 18
(2003). Further, the Respondent’s claim that there are
“substantive and factual issues which need to be ad-
dressed in this case” is also not sufficient to establish
good cause. The Board has stated that it “will not ad-
dress a respondent’s assertion that it has a meritorious
defense if good cause has not otherwise been demon-
strated.” Dong-A Daily North America, 332 NLRB 15,
16 (2000), citing Printing Methods, Inc., 289 NLRB
1231, 1232 fn. 4 (1988). Accordingly, we grant the Gen-
eral Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment.2
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation
with an office and place of business in San Francisco,
California, has been engaged in the business of providing
courier services and court records research for law firms
and other customers. During the calendar year ending
December 31, 2003, the Respondent, in conducting its
business operations in San Francisco, California, pro-
vided services valued in excess of $50,000 to 1st Repub-
lic Bank, Chicago Title and Trust, and First American
Title Company, enterprises located within the State of
California, each of which meets a Board standard for the
assertion of jurisdiction on a direct basis. 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 International Longshore and Warehouse
Union, AFL–CIO, 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
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and/or agents of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act.
Christopher Snell President

2 While Member Schaumber endorses the view that it is preferable to
decide cases on the merits, he finds that default judgment is appropriate
here. This case does not implicate the position he expressed in Patri-
cian Assisted Living Facility, 339 NLRB 1153, 1156–1161 (2003).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD486
Andrew Brady Vice-President
William Wheeler Dispatcher
Pablo (last name unknown) Office Clerical
On an unknown date in about mid-February 2003, the
Respondent, by its vice president, Andrew Brady, inter-
rogated employees about their union membership and
activities and created an impression among its employees
that their union activities were under surveillance by the
Respondent.
On about March 31, 2003, the Respondent, by its
president, Christopher Snell, informed its employees that
it would be futile for them to select the Union as their
bargaining representative by telling employees that it did
not matter what the Union told them about their rights as
employees because they were independent contractors,
not employees.
On about April 15, 2003, the Respondent, by its office
clerical, Pablo, engaged in surveillance of employees’
union activities by videotaping a union demonstration.
On about November 22, 2002, employees Stacey
Means and Aaron La Londe filed a wage claim against
the Respondent with the California Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement. On about March 31, 2003, em-
ployees Means, La Londe, John Harlow, and Sean
Mosley, concertedly complained to the Respondent about
the wages, hours, and working conditions of the Respon-
dent’s employees by presenting the Respondent with a
petition complaining about employees’ compensation
and staffing levels. The Respondent discharged employ-
ees Means, Harlow, and Mosley on April 7, 2003, and
employee La Londe on April 14, 2003. The Respondent
engaged in this conduct because the employees formed,
joined, and assisted the Union and engaged in the pro-
tected concerted activities described above, and to dis-
courage employees from engaging in such activities or
other protected concerted activities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interrogating employees regarding their union
membership and activities, by creating an impression
among employees that their union activities were under
surveillance, by informing employees that it would be
futile for them to select the Union as their bargaining
representative, and by engaging in surveillance of em-
ployees’ union activities, the Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By discharging employees Stacey Means, John Har-
low, Sean Mosley, and Aaron La Londe because they
formed, joined, and assisted the Union and engaged in
protected concerted activities, the Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent de-
scribed above affect commerce within the meaning of
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)(3)
and (1) by discharging Stacy Means, John Harlow, Sean
Mosley, and Aaron La Londe, we shall order the Re-
spondent to offer them full reinstatement to the positions
they had or, if those positions no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their sen-
iority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed. Further, we shall order the Respondent to make
them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as
prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987). The Respondent shall also be required to
remove from its files any and all references to the unlaw-
ful discharge of these individuals, and to notify them in
writing that this has been done and that the discharges
will not be used against them in any way.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Careful Courier Services, Inc. d/b/a King
Courier, San Francisco, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees about their union member-
ship and activities.
(b) Creating an impression among employees that their
union activities were under surveillance.
(c) Informing employees that it would be futile for
them to select the Union as their bargaining representa-
tive.
(d) Engaging in surveillance of employees’ union ac-
tivities.
(e) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees because they engaged in union or other pro-
tected concerted activities.
(f) 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 necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
KING COURIER 487
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Stacy Means, John Harlow, Sean Mosley, and Aaron La
Londe immediate and full reinstatement to the same posi-
tions they had or, if those positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
(b) Make Stacy Means, John Harlow, Sean Mosley,
and Aaron La Londe whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them, with interest, in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of this decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful discharges of
Stacy Means, John Harlow, Sean Mosley, and Aaron La
Londe and, within 3 days thereafter, notify these em-
ployees in writing that this has been done, and that the
discharges will not be used against them in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place to be
designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in San Francisco, California, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 20, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facil-
ity involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since February 2003.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-

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.”
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 vio-
lated 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
membership and activities.
WE WILL NOT create the impression among employees
that their union activities are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT inform employees that it would be futile
for them to select the union as their bargaining represen-
tative.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of employees’ un-
ion activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees because they en-
gage in union or other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Stacy Means, John Harlow, Sean
Mosley, and Aaron La Londe immediate reinstatement to
the same positions they had or, if those positions no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions.
WE WILL make Stacy Means, John Harlow, Sean
Mosley, and Aaron La Londe whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against them, with interest.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD488
WE WILL remove from our files any and all references
to the unlawful discharges of Stacy Means, John Harlow,
Sean Mosley, and Aaron La Londe, and WE WILL, within
3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that this has
been done, and that the unlawful conduct will not be
used against them in anyway.
CAREFUL COURIER SERVICES, INC. D/B/A KING
COURIER