Marquis-Stevens, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 2001

334 N.L.R.B. 35 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

334 NLRB No. 35
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.
Marquis-Stevens, Inc. and Upstate New York Re-
gional Council of Carpenters, Carpenters Local
19. Case 34–CA–9410
June 7, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS TRUESDALE
AND WALSH
On a charge filed by Upstate New York Regional
Council of Carpenters, Carpenters Local 19, on August
31, 2000, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint on February 27,
2001, against Marquis -Stevens, Inc. (the Respondent),
alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Although prop-
erly served copies of the charge and complaint, the Re-
spondent failed to file an answer.1
On April 27, 2001, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment with the Board. On May 1,
2001, the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the
motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed no
response. 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 Summary Judgment
Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations provide that the allegations in the 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 notes
that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of service,
all the allegations in the complaint will be considered
admitted. Further, the undisputed allegations in the Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment disclose that the Region, by
letter dated April 6, 2001, sent by facsimile transmission
and regular mail, notified the Respondent that unless an
answer were received by April 13, 2001, a Motion for
Summary Judgment would be filed. In the absence of
good cause being shown for the failure to file a timely

1 Although the copy of the complaint which was sent to the Respon-
dent by certified mail was returned to sender “unclaimed,” the Respon-
dent’s failure or refusal to claim certified mail cannot serve to defeat
the purposes of the Act. See Michigan Expediting Service, 282 NLRB
210 fn.6 (1986). Another copy of the complaint was served on the
Respondent by regular mail.
answer, 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 Respondent, a Pennsylvania
corporation, with an office and place of business in
Larksville, Pennsylvania, and a jobsite in Fort Montgom-
ery, New York, has been engaged as a contractor in the
construction industry. During the 12-month period end-
ing January 31, 2001, the Respondent, in conducting its
business operations, performed services valued in excess
of $50,000 in States other than the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. We find that the Respondent is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 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.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, Joseph Slivinski has held the po-
sition of manager 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.
At all material times, Construction Contractors Asso-
ciation of the Hudson Valley, Incorporated (the Associa-
tion), has been an organization composed of various em-
ployers engaged in the construction industry, one pur-
pose of which is to represent employers in negotiating
and administering collective-bargaining agreements with
various labor organizations, including the Upstate New
York Regional Council of Carpenters (the Union). The
Association and the Union are parties to a collective-
bargaining agreement (the association agreement) effec-
tive by its terms from the period June 1, 1999, until May
31, 2002, providing for the recognition of the Union as
the sole and exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of all carpenters, mill wrights, and pile drivers em-
ployed by the employer-members of the Association and
other employers who sign the association agreement. On
about March 5, 2000, the Respondent signed the
association agreement, thereby agreeing to be bound to
all its terms and conditions.
The employees of the Respondent in the classifications
described above constitute a unit appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act.
At all material times, based on Section 9(a) of the Act,
the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
By letter dated June 7, 2000, the Union requested that
the Respondent furnish it with the following information:

(a) the names, hours worked (including overtime)
and rate of pay for all employees working at the
Holiday Inn, Fort Montgomery, New York, under
the employment of Marquis -Stevens, Inc;
(b) copies of all existing contracts with Mr. Patel
(owner) pertaining to the Holiday Inn, Fort
Montgomery, New York, and any other agreements
with said owner; and
(c) names, addresses, telephone numbers and
copies of contracts of all sub-contractors hired by
Marquis -Stevens, Inc., to perform work within The
Upstate New York Regional Council jurisdictional
area.

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 employees.
Since on or about June 7, 2000, the Respondent has
failed and refused to furnish the Union with the re-
quested information.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Respon-
dent has been failing and refusing to bargain collectively
and in good faith with the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees, and has
thereby engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (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. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has failed to provide the Un-
ion information that is relevant and necessary to its role
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit employees, we shall order the Respondent to
furnish the Union with the names, hours worked (includ-
ing overtime), and rate of pay for all employees working
at the Holiday Inn, Fort Montgomery, New York, under
the employment of Marquis -Stevens, Inc; copies of all
existing contracts with Mr. Patel (owner) pertaining to
the Holiday Inn, Fort Montgomery, New York, and any
other agreements with said owner; and the names, ad-
dresses, telephone numbers, and copies of contracts of all
subcontractors hired by Marquis -Stevens, Inc., to per-
form work within the Upstate New York Regional Coun-
cil jurisdictional area.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Marquis -Stevens, Inc., Larksville, Pennsyl-
vania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to provide necessary and rele-
vant information to the Union, on request.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exe rcise 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) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the names,
hours worked (including overtime), and rate of pay for
all employees working at the Holiday Inn, Fort Mont-
gomery, New York, under the employment of Marquis -
Stevens, Inc; copies of all existing contracts with Mr.
Patel (owner) pertaining to the Holiday Inn, Fort Mont-
gomery, New York, and any other agreements with said
owner; and the names, addresses, telephone numbers,
and copies of contracts of all subcontractors hired by
Marquis -Stevens, Inc., to perform work within the Up-
state New York Regional Council jurisdictional area.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Larksville, Pennsylvania, and at its jobsite
in Fort Montgomery, New York, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 34,
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 June 7, 2000.
(c) 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.

2 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.”

MARQUIS-STEVENS, INC. 3
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 7, 2001

Peter J. Hurtgen, Chairman

John C. Truesdale, Member

Dennis P. Walsh, 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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to provide necessary and
relevant information to the Union, on request.
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 furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
names, hours worked (including overtime), and rate of
pay for all employees working at the Holiday Inn, Fort
Montgomery, New York, under our employment; copies
of all existing contracts with Mr. Patel (owner) pertain-
ing to the Holiday Inn, Fort Montgomery, New York,
and any other agreements with said owner; and the
names, addresses, telephone numbers, and copies of con-
tracts of all subcontractors hired by us, to perform work
within the Upstate New York Regional Council jurisdic-
tional area.
MARQUIS-STEVENS, INC.