L.J. Logistics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 15, 2003

339 N.L.R.B. 729 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

L.J. LOGISTICS, INC. 729
L.J. Logistics, Inc., a successor in interest to and/or
alter ego of Preferred Unlimited, Inc. and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 710,
AFL–CIO. Case 13–CA–38854
July 15, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
The General Counsel seeks summary judgment in this
case pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement.
Upon a charge filed by International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Local 710, AFL–CIO (the Union) on Sep-
tember 25, 2000, the General Counsel issued a complaint
on August 15, 2001, against Preferred Unlimited
Ltd./L.J. Logistics Inc.1 The complaint alleged that the
Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by threatening employees with unspecified reprisals
because they engaged in union and/or protected con-
certed activities, and by discharging employee Chris
Charnot because he assisted the Union and engaged in
concerted activities. Preferred Unlimited Ltd./L.J. Logis-
tics, Inc. did not file an answer to the complaint.
On September 17, 2001, Respondent L.J. Logistics,
Inc. entered into a settlement agreement (agreement) that
was approved by the Regional Director for Region 13 on
September 18, 2001. Under the terms of the agreement,
the Regional Director’s approval constituted withdrawal
of the complaint and any answers that were filed to it.
The agreement required the Respondent to post a notice
to employees regarding the complaint allegations and to
make Charnot whole by paying him a total of $6500 in
12 weekly installments to be remitted to Region 13. The
agreement also contains the following provisions:

For the purpose of this matter before the National La-
bor Relations Board only, L.J. Logistics, Inc. admits
that it is a successor to Preferred Unlimited, Inc.

The Successor further agrees that in case of non-
compliance with any of the terms of this Settlement
Agreement by the Successor, including but not limited
to, failure to make timely installment payment of mon-
ies as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the Re-
gional Director for Region 13 of the National Labor
Relations Board for and on behalf of the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board may re-
issue complaint in this matter which encompasses only

1 The initial complaint in this proceeding issued on November 9,
2000, against Preferred Unlimited, Ltd. On November 21, 2000, the
Regional Office received an undated answer to the initial complaint
from Preferred Unlimited, Ltd.
the allegations set forth in the instant charge. Thereaf-
ter, on motion for summary judgment by the General
Counsel, which the Successor agrees not to oppose, any
Answer filed by the Successor shall be deemed with-
drawn and, thereupon, the Board may, without neces-
sity of trial, find all allegations of the Complaint to be
true and make findings of fact and conclusions of law
consistent with those allegations, adverse to the Suc-
cessor on all issues raised by the pleadings, and issue
an order providing a full remedy for the violations so
found as is customary to remedy such violations, not
limited to provisions of this Settlement Agreement.
The parties hereto further agree that a Board Order and
U.S. Court of Appeals Judgment may be entered
hereon ex parte.

By letter sent on October 31, 2001, the compliance of-
ficer for Region 13 asked the Respondent to comply with
the terms of the settlement agreement by remitting over-
due payments. The letter further reminded the Respon-
dent that the final payment would be due on November
16, 2001.
By letter dated November 2, 2001, the compliance of-
ficer again asked the Respondent to comply with the
terms of the settlement agreement by remitting overdue
payments. The letter stated that the outstanding amount
due under the settlement agreement was $2700, and con-
cluded with a warning that “final payment must be re-
ceived by November 16, 2001.” Since its payment made
on October 12, 2001, the Respondent has not made any
additional payments to the Region.
Thereafter, on January 14, 2002, the Union filed an
amended charge. On February 4, 2002, the General
Counsel issued a reissued and amended complaint
against L.J. Logistics, Inc., a successor in interest to
and/or alter ego of Preferred Unlimited, Inc. (the Re-
spondents), alleging the same violations of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as those alleged in the August
15, 2001 complaint. The Respondent did not file an an-
swer to the reissued and amended complaint.
On February 25, 2002, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board. The
General Counsel submits that the Respondents defaulted
on the settlement agreement by failing to make required
payments, and that the allegations of the reissued com-
plaint should, therefore, be deemed admitted as true. On
February 27, 2002, 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 Respondents
filed no response. The allegations in the motion are
therefore undisputed.
339 NLRB No. 84
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 730
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
According to the uncontroverted allegations in the Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment, the Respondents have failed
to comply with the settlement agreement by failing to
remit the agreed-upon backpay amount due Christopher
Charnot. Consequently, pursuant to the provisions of the
settlement agreement set forth above, we find that the
allegations of the complaint are true.2
Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel’s Motion
for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondents, corporations
with an office and place of business in Cicero, Illinois,
have been engaged in the business of intermodal trucking
and incidental storage of commodities. During the cal-
endar year preceding issuance of the reissued and
amended complaint, a representative period, the Respon-
dents derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 for
conducting their business operations, and performed ser-
vices valued in excess of $50,000 outside the State of
Illinois.
We find that the Respondents are employers engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
On an unknown date, Respondent L.J. Logistics, Inc.
was established by Respondent Preferred Unlimited, Inc.
as a disguised continuation of Preferred Unlimited, Inc.
We find that Respondent L.J. Logistics, Inc. and Re-
spondent Preferred Unlimited, Inc. are alter egos and a
single employer within the meaning of the Act.
On an unknown date, Respondent L.J. Logistics, Inc.
purchased the business of Preferred Unlimited, Inc., and
since then has continued to operate the business of Pre-
ferred Unlimited, Inc. in basically unchanged form, and
has employed, as a majority of its employees, individuals
who were previously employees of Preferred Unlimited,
Inc. We find that L.J. Logistics, Inc. has continued the
employing entity and is a successor to Preferred Unlim-
ited, Inc.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, Anthony Spano held the position
of the Respondents’ supervisor, and has been a supervi-

2 JAE Consulting & Development, 326 NLRB No. 40 (1998) (not
published in Board volumes); U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLRB 667 (1994).
sor of the Respondents within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act and an agent of the Respondents within
the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
On about September 15, 2000, the Respondents, by
Anthony Spano, at its Cicero, Illinois facility: (1) threat-
ened employees with unspecified reprisals because they
engaged in union and/or protected concerted activities;
and (2) discharged employee Christopher Charnot, and
since that date has refused to reinstate him.
The Respondents discharged Charnot because he as-
sisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities, and
to discourage employees from engaging in these activi-
ties.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Respon-
dents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced em-
ployees, and have discriminated in regard to the hire,
tenure, terms, and conditions of employment of its em-
ployees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization, and have thereby engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order them to
cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifi-
cally, having found that the Respondents have violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by discharging Christopher Char-
not, we shall order the Respondents to make Charnot
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him. In this re-
gard, Respondent L.J. Logistics, Inc. agreed in the set-
tlement agreement that it would pay Charnot a total of
$6500 to cover the period from his discharge until the
effective date of the settlement agreement. The General
Counsel’s motion states that there is an outstanding bal-
ance in the amount of $2700. Accordingly, the Respon-
dents shall remit this amount to the Region for payment
to Charnot.
We find, however, that the backpay due Charnot
should not be limited to this amount. As set forth above,
the settlement agreement provided that, in the event of
noncompliance, the Board could issue an Order “provid-
ing a full remedy for the violations so found as is cus-
tomary to remedy such violations, not limited to provi-
sions of this Settlement Agreement.” Thus, under this
language, it is appropriate to provide the “customary”
L.J. LOGISTICS, INC. 731
remedies of reinstatement, full backpay, expungement of
the Respondents’ personnel records, and notice posting.3
The additional backpay due Charnot shall be computed
as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest thereon to be computed in the man-
ner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987).4 However, because we shall order
the Respondents to pay the liquidated remedy specified
in the settlement agreement, the applicable backpay pe-
riod will commence on September 18, 2001, the day the
Regional Director approved the settlement agreement.
We find it necessary to impose this limitation to prevent
an unintended double recovery for the period running
from the date that Charnot was discharged to the effec-
tive date of the settlement agreement.
We also shall order the Respondents to offer Charnot
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to his seniority or any other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed.
In addition, the Respondents shall be required to ex-
punge from their files any and all references to the
unlawful discharge, and to notify Charnot in writing that
this has been done and that the discharge will not be used
against him in any way.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondents, L.J. Logistics, Inc., a successor in interest
to and/or Alter Ego of Preferred Unlimited, Inc., and
Preferred Unlimited, Inc., Cicero, Illinois, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening their employees with unspecified re-
prisals because they engaged in union and/or protected
concerted activities.
(b) Discharging employee Christopher Charnot, and
refusing to reinstate him because he assisted the Union

3 The General Counsel has requested, in his Motion for Summary
Judgment, that the Board order “the payment of $2,700 in liquidated
damages, and such other relief deemed appropriate and necessary by
the Board.”
4 In the complaint, the General Counsel seeks an order requiring the
Respondents “to reimburse any discriminatee entitled to a monetary
award in this case for any extra [F]ederal and/or [S]tate income taxes
that would, or may result from the lump sum payment of the award.”
This aspect of the General Counsel’s proposed order would involve a
change in Board law. See, e.g., Hendrickson Bros., Inc., 272 NLRB
438, 440 (1985), enfd. 762 F.2d 990 (2d Cir. 1985). In light of this, we
believe that the appropriateness of this proposed remedy should be
resolved after a full briefing by affected parties. See Kloepfers Floor
Covering, Inc., 330 NLRB 811 fn. 1 (2000). Because there has been no
such briefing in this no-answer case, we decline to include this addi-
tional relief in the Order here.
and engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage
employees from engaging in these activities.
(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) Remit to Region 13, the payment of $2700 to be
disbursed to Charnot in accordance with the September
18, 2001 settlement agreement, and make him whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered since
September 18, 2001, as a result of the Respondents’ dis-
crimination against him, with interest, in the manner set
forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Charnot full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from their records any reference to the unlawful dis-
charge of Charnot and, within 3 days thereafter, notify
him in writing that this has been done and that the dis-
charge will not be used against him 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 desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records including an elec-
tronic 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
their facility in Cicero, Illinois, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13,
after being signed by the Respondents’ authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondents 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
Respondents 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-
spondents have gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondents shall
5 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 BOARD 732
duplicate and mail, at their own expense, a copy of the
notice to all current employees and former employees
employed by the Respondents at any time since Septem-
ber 15, 2000.
(f) 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 Respondents have 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 the 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 threaten our employees with unspecified
reprisals because they engaged in Union and/or protected
concerted activities with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Local 710, AFL–CIO.
WE WILL NOT discharge employee Christopher Charnot
and refuse to reinstate him because he assisted the Union
and engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage
employees from engaging in these activities.
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 remit to Region 13 $2700 to be disbursed to
employee Charnot in accordance with the September 18,
2001 settlement agreement, and make him whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered since Sep-
tember 18, 2001, as a result of his unlawful discharge,
with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Charnot full reinstatement to his former job
or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any
other rights or privilege previously enjoyed.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order,
remove from our records any reference to the unlawful
discharge of Charnot, and within 3 days thereafter, notify
him in writing that this has been done and that the dis-
charge will not be used against him in any way.

L.J. LOGISTICS, INC., A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST
TO AND/OR ALTER EGO OF PREFERRED
UNLIMITED, INC.