Lane Punch Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 969 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

LANE PUNCH CORPORATION
Lane Punch Corporation and Patrick F. Daly and Leo
E. Alston. Cases 4-CA-8550 and 4-CA-8550-2
October 7, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY
Upon charges filed on March 9 and 11, 1977, by
Patrick F. Daly and Leo E. Alston, respectively,
herein called the Charging Parties, and duly served
on Lane Punch Corporation, herein called Respon-
dent, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 4, issued a complaint and notice of hearing
on June 13, 1977, against Respondent, alleging that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Copies of the charges, complaint, and
notice of hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge were duly served on the parties to this
proceeding. Respondent failed to file an answer to
the complaint.
On August 3, 1977, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on August 10,
1977, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment should not be granted. Respon-
dent did not file a response to Notice To Show Cause
and therefore the allegations in the Motion for
Summary Judgment stand uncontroverted.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions provides:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer thereto.
The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or
explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint,
unless the respondent is without knowledge, in
which case the respondent shall so state, such
statement operating as a denial. All allegations in
the complaint, if no answer is filed, or any
allegation in the complaint not specifically denied
or explained in an answer filed, unless the
232 NLRB No. 151
respondent shall state in the answer that he is
without knowledge, shall be deemed to be
admitted to be true and shall be so found by the
Board, unless good cause to the contrary is
shown.
The complaint and notice of hearing served on
Respondent herein specifically states that unless an
answer to the complaint is filed within 10 days of
service thereof "all allegations in the complaint shall
be deemed to be admitted to be true and may be so
found by the Board." As noted above, Respondent
has failed to file an answer to the complaint and has
failed to file a response to the Notice To Show
Cause.
Accordingly, under the rule set forth above, no
good cause having been shown for the failure to file a
timely answer, the allegations of the complaint are
deemed admitted and are found to be true, and we
shall grant the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is now, and has been at all times
material herein, a New Jersey corporation with its
principal office and place of business located in
Pennsauken, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of tools. Annually, in the course and
conduct of its business operation, Respondent
receives gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and
makes sales directly to customers outside the State of
New Jersey valued in excess of $50,000.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC,
herein called the Union, is, and has been at all times
material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Independent 8(a)(1) Violations
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of their rights
969
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by engaging in
the following acts and conduct:
I. On or about March 8, 1977. Respondent,
through its agent and supervisor, William Porter, did
inform an employee that Respondent knew said
employee favored the Union and that favoring
Respondent would ensure a betterment of things.
2. On or about March 8, 1977, Respondent did
unlawfully lay off its employee, Patrick F. Daly,
because of the union activities, sympathies, member-
ship, and/or other protected concerted activities of
Patrick F. Daly.
3. On or about March 9, 1977, Respondent did
unlawfully lay off its employee, Leo E. Alston,
because of the union activities, sympathies, member-
ship, and/or other protected concerted activities of
Leo E. Alston.
4. On or about March 14, 1977, Respondent did
recall its employees Patrick F. Daly and Leo E.
Alston, but unlawfully assigned them to the evening
shift instead of the day shift because of the union
activities, sympathies, membership, and/or other
protected concerted activities of Patrick F. Daly and
Leo E. Alston.
5. On or about April 11, 1977, Respondent did
unlawfully reassign its employees Patrick F. Daly
and Leo E. Alston to Respondent's day shift because
of the union activities, sympathies. membership,
and/or other protected concerted activities of Patrick
F. Daly and Leo E. Alston.
Accordingly, we find that by the aforesaid conduct
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act, and by
such conduct Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act.
B. The 8(a)(3) and (1) Violations
By laying off, recalling, and reassigning its employ-
ees Patrick F. Daly and Leo E. Alston in connection
with their union activities. sympathies, membership,
and/or other protected concerted activities, Respon-
dent did discriminate, and is discriminating, in
regard to hire or tenure or terms or conditions of
employment of employees, thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization, and Respondent
thereby did engage in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its opera-
tions described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the unfair labor practices
committed by Respondent were of a character which
goes to the heart of the Act, we shall also order
Respondent to cease and desist from infringing in
any other manner upon the rights of employees
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
We have found that Respondent discriminatorily
laid off employees Patrick F. Daly and Leo E.
Alston, and we shall order that they be offered
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges. We
shall also order that Respondent make employees
Patrick F. Daly and Leo E. Alston whole for any loss
of pay suffered because of the discrimination against
them. Backpay shall be based upon the loss of
earnings suffered from the date of the discriminatory
discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of
reinstatement. The backpay shall be computed in
accordance with the formula set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with
interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum, as
provided in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977).1
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Lane Punch Corporation is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
I See, generally. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co. 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
970
LANE PUNCH CORPORATION
3. By the acts described in section III, A, above,
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By the acts described in section III, B, above,
Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of employees, thereby
discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of
a labor organization, and thereby has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Lane Punch Corporation, Pennsauken, New Jersey,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Promising employees that they will realize a
betterment of working conditions if they agree to
vote against the Union in a Board representation
election.
(b) Laying off and/or reassigning employees
because of their union activities, sympathies, mem-
bership, and/or other protected concerted activities.
(c) Discouraging membership in United Steelwork-
ers of America, AFL CIO, CLC, or any other labor
organization, by laying off employees or reassigning
employees because they have, or Respondent be-
lieves they have, joined, assisted, favored, or become
members of the above-named Union, or any other
labor organization, and/or because they engage in
other protected concerted activity for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to reinstate Patrick F. Daly and Leo E.
Alston to their former positions or, if such positions
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges.
(b) Make whole employees Patrick F. Daly and
Leo E. Alston for losses they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them as set forth
in the section of this Decision entitled "The Reme-
dy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Pennsauken, New Jersey, facility,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
2 In the event that 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT promise employees a betterment
of working conditions if they agree to vote against
the Union in a Board representation election.
WE WILL NOT lay off and/or reassign employ-
ees because of their union activities, sympathies,
membership, and/or other protected concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
CLC, or any other labor organization, by laying
off employees or reassigning employees because
they have, or we believe they have, joined,
assisted, favored, or become members of the
above-named Union, or any other labor organiza-
tion, and/or because they engage in other
protected concerted activity for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
971
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL offer to reinstate Patrick F. Daly and
Leo E. Alston to their former positions or, if such
positions no longer exist, to substantially equiva-
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights or privileges.
WE WILL make whole employees Patrick F.
Daly and Leo E. Alston for losses they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them with interest.
LANE PUNCH
CORPORATION
972