M.J. Woods

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 8, 1998

325 N.L.R.B. 1065 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

1065
325 NLRB No. 199
M. J. WOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1 On February 23, 1998, the Las Vegas Resident Office received
a post office return receipt showing that the reissued complaint was
received by the Respondent.
2 In that response the Respondent’s counsel asserts that the Re-
spondent’s principal, Lonnie C. Christensen, is currently in prison
and requests the Board to grant an indefinite continuance (not to ex-
ceed 120 days) to enable counsel to have the ‘‘opportunity to gather
the required documents and evidence needed to intelligently respond
to the Complaint.’’ Further, in its response, the Respondent acknowl-
edges that Dustin Christensen, 21 years of age, is Lonnie
Christensen’s son and is ‘‘actively assisting [Respondent’s counsel]
in attempting to gather all documents necessary’’ to answer the com-
plaint. The Respondent does not contest the Acting General Coun-
sel’s description of Dustin Christensen as a ‘‘principal of the Re-
spondents.’’
M. J. Wood & Associates, Inc. / World Air Condi-
tioning, Inc., a single employer and All Seasons
Mechanical, a single employer and/or alter ego
and Sheet Metal Workers International Asso-
ciation, Local 88, AFL–CIO. Case 28–CA–
14881
July 8, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
Upon a charge and amended charge filed by the
Union on December 11, 1997, and January 29, 1998,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board issued a complaint on January 30, 1998, against
M. J. Wood & Associates, Inc./World Air Condi-
tioning, Inc., a single employer and All Seasons Me-
chanical, a single employer and/or alter ego (collec-
tively, the Respondent), alleging that it has violated
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act. Although properly served copies of the
charges and complaint, the Respondent failed to file an
answer.
On April 21, 1998, the Acting General Counsel filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board. On
April 23, 1998, the Board issued an order transferring
the proceeding to the Board and a notice to show
cause why the motion should not be granted. On May
13, 1998, the Respondent filed an opposition to order
transferring proceeding to the Board and to order to
show cause and motion to postpone action indefinitely.
On May 15, 1998, the Acting General Counsel filed an
opposition to response of Respondents.
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, un-
less good cause is shown.
The undisputed allegations in the Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment disclose that on January 30, 1998, a
complaint was sent to the Respondent by certified
mail. That complaint was returned to the Regional Of-
fice as unclaimed. On February 19, 1998, the com-
plaint was reissued and was thereafter received by the
Respondent.1 The complaint affirmatively states that
unless an answer is filed within 14 days of service, all
the allegations in the complaint will be considered ad-
mitted. By letter dated March 19, 1998, a Board agent
informed a principal of the Respondent, Dustin
Christensen, of the need for the Respondent to file an
answer to the complaint and set the close of business
on March 26, 1998, as the deadline for receipt of the
answer. On March 26, 1998, Dustin Christensen tele-
phoned the Board agent and left a message stating that
he had been out of town and requesting that he be con-
tacted. On March 27, 1998, the resident officer of the
Board’s Las Vegas Resident Office left a message for
Dustin Christensen extending the deadline for receipt
of the answer until the close of business on March 31,
1998. The resident officer confirmed this extension by
letter dated March 27, 1998. On March 31, 1998,
Dustin Christensen appeared at the Las Vegas Resident
Office where the resident officer explained the need
for the answer to the complaint and the requirement
that any answer specifically admit, deny, or explain the
facts set forth in the complaint. The resident officer
extended the deadline for filing the answer until April
3, 1998, and confirmed this conversation by letter
dated April 1, 1998. On April 3, 1998, at about 3:30
p.m., Attorney Timothy S. Cory telephoned the resi-
dent officer, identifying himself as the attorney for
Dustin Christensen and requesting an extension of time
to file an answer. An extension until April 17, 1998,
was granted. Cory confirmed the deadline by letter
dated April 3, 1998, with a copy to the client. No an-
swer was filed by the close of business on April 17,
1998.
As noted above, on April 21, 1998, the Acting Gen-
eral Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
with the Board. On April 23, 1998, the Board issued
a notice to show cause why the motion should not be
granted. On May 13, 1998, the Respondent filed an
opposition to the Board’s order to show cause and a
motion to postpone the action indefinitely.2 We reject
the Respondent’s opposition as untimely filed. Section
102.111(b) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations pro-
vides that documents required to be filed
must be received by the Board . . . before the of-
ficial closing time of the receiving office on the
last day of the time limit . . . . In construing this
section of the rules, the Board will accept as time-
ly filed any document which is . . . postmarked
on the day before (or earlier than) the due date;
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01065 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.158 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1066 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 Member Hurtgen does not rely on the fact that Respondent’s op-
position to the notice to show cause was postmarked 1 day late.
However, he agrees with his colleagues that the opposition does not
set forth good cause for failure to file a timely answer to the com-
plaint.
4 Indeed, the attorney filing the opposition is the same attorney
who obtained a 2-week extension of the filing deadline in April
1998. Therefore, the request for a further extension of time cannot
be justified by the need of a new attorney to familiarize himself with
the case.
5 Filing an answer to a complaint is not a complex task for an at-
torney to perform. Under Sec. 102.20 of the Board’s Rules, a re-
spondent need only ‘‘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 state-
ment operating as a denial.’’ The Board has long held that a re-
spondent’s simple denial of the commission of the alleged unlawful
acts is sufficient to defeat a Motion for Summary Judgment and
raise issues requiring a hearing before an administrative law judge.
Florida Steel Corp., 222 NLRB 586 (1976).
6 See Father & Sons Lumber & Building Supplies v. NLRB, 931
F.2d 1093, 1096 (6th Cir. 1991) (court upheld the Board’s finding
of no ‘‘good cause’’ where the ‘‘employers were given opportunities
to file late answers [and] they simply refused, repeatedly, to take ad-
vantage of such opportunities’’).
documents which are postmarked on or after the
due date are untimely.
The Board’s notice to show cause required that
‘‘cause be shown, in writing, filed with the Board in
Washington, D.C., on or before May 7, 1998 . . . why
the Acting General Counsel’s Motion should not be
granted.’’ Thus, to be timely, the Respondent’s opposi-
tion had to have been postmarked on May 6, 1998, or
earlier, or received on or before May 7, 1998. The op-
position, however, states that it was not mailed until
May 7, 1998, the envelope bears a postage meter date
of ‘‘May 7, 1988 [sic],’’ and the opposition was not
received by the Board until May 13, 1998. Inasmuch
as the opposition was mailed on the due date and not
received until after the due date, we conclude that it
was untimely filed.3
However, even if we were to consider that docu-
ment, we find that it fails to constitute good cause for
the failure to file a timely answer to the complaint. As
detailed above, the Respondent was granted four sepa-
rate extensions of the deadline to file an answer. Each
time the Respondent requested an extension, it was
granted. The Respondent was represented by an attor-
ney at the time the last extension was requested and
received.4 Even now, in response to the notice to show
cause, the Respondent does not attach an answer, but
instead requests a continuance of up to 120 days to file
one. In light of the Respondent’s repeated failures to
take advantage of the numerous extensions of time al-
ready granted it, the Respondent has failed to ade-
quately explain why it should be given yet another op-
portunity ‘‘to gather the required documents and evi-
dence.’’5
For these reasons, we conclude that the Respondent
has not established good cause for the failure to file
a timely answer.6 Accordingly, we grant the Acting
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, M. J. Wood
Associates, Inc. (Respondent Wood), a corporation
duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the
laws of the State of Nevada, has maintained an office
and places of business at 5353 and 5525 South Valley
View Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada, where it is en-
gaged in the building and construction industry as a
contractor providing heating and air-conditioning in-
stallation at various construction sites. The Respondent
World Air Conditioning, Inc. (Respondent World) has
been at all material times a corporation duly organized
under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State
of Nevada, with an office and place of business at
5353 and 5525 South Valley View Boulevard, Las
Vegas, Nevada, where it is engaged in the building and
construction industry as a contractor providing heating
and air-conditioning installation at various construction
sites. Respondent All Seasons Mechanical (Respondent
All Seasons) is now, and has been at all material
times, a corporation duly organized under, and existing
by virtue of, the laws of the State of Nevada, with an
office and place of business at 5353 and 5525 South
Valley View Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada, where it
is engaged in the building and construction industry as
a contractor providing heating and air-conditioning in-
stallation at various construction sites. During the 12-
month period ending December 11, 1997, Respondent
Wood, Respondent World, and Respondent All Sea-
sons, in the course and conduct of their business oper-
ations, performed services valued in excess of $50,000
in States other than the State of Nevada, and purchased
and received at their Las Vegas, Nevada jobsites and
facilities products, goods, and materials valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 from other enterprises located within
the State of Nevada, each of which other enterprises
had received those products, goods, and materials di-
rectly from points located outside the State of Nevada.
Respondent Wood, Respondent World, and Respondent
All Seasons, individually and collectively, are now,
and have been at all material times, employers engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act. 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, Respondent Wood and Re-
spondent World have been affiliated business enter-
prises with common officers, ownership, directors,
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01066 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.158 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1067M. J. WOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
management, and supervision; have formulated and ad-
ministered a common labor policy; have shared com-
mon premises and facilities; have provided services to
and made sales to each other; have interchanged per-
sonnel with each other; and have held themselves out
to the public as single integrated business enterprises.
Respondent All Seasons is a subordinate instrument,
and a disguised continuance of Respondent Wood
and/or Respondent World. Based on these operations
and relationships, Respondent Wood and Respondent
World have been at all material times a single em-
ployer and Respondent All Seasons has been a single
employer and/or alter ego of Respondent Wood and
Respondent World.
The following employees of the Respondent con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All employees of the Respondent engaged in but
not limited to the (a) manufacture, fabrication, as-
sembling, handling, erection, installation, disman-
tling, conditioning, adjustment, alteration, repair-
ing and servicing of all ferrous or non-ferrous
metal work and all other materials used in lieu
thereof and of all air-veyor systems and air-han-
dling systems regardless of material used includ-
ing the setting of all equipment and all reinforce-
ments in connection therewith; (b) all lagging
over insulation and all duct lining; (c) testing and
balancing of all air-handling equipment and duct
work; (d) the preparation of all shop and field
sketches whether manually drawn or computer as-
sisted used in fabrication and erection, including
those taken from original architectural and engi-
neering drawings or sketches; and (e) all other
work included in the jurisdictional claims of Sheet
Metal Workers’ International Association.
Since around 1980, Respondent Wood, an employer
engaged in the building and construction industry, en-
tered into a collective-bargaining agreement whereby it
recognized the Union as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the unit and agreed to con-
tinue the agreement in effect from year to year there-
after unless timely notice was given in accordance with
the terms of the agreement. Since around 1980, pursu-
ant to this agreement, the Union has been recognized
as the limited exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the unit by Respondent Wood without
regard to whether the majority status of the Union had
ever been established under the provisions of Section
9(a) of the Act. Such recognition has been embodied
in successive collective-bargaining agreements, the
most recent of which is effective by its terms for the
period July 1, 1996, to June 30, 2001 (the 1996–2001
agreement). At all times since 1980, the Union, by vir-
tue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been, and is, the
limited exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the unit for the purposes of collective-bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and
other terms and conditions of employment.
About October 27, 1997, the Union requested that
the Respondent furnish it with a variety of information
relating to the relationship between Respondent Wood,
Respondent World, and Respondent All Seasons. This
information is necessary for, and relevant to, the
Union’s performance of its function as the limited ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
Since about October 27, 1997, the Respondent has
failed and refused to provide the Union with the re-
quested information.
About October 31, 1997, the Union, in writing, re-
quested that Respondent Wood meet and negotiate
concerning the effects of the closure of its business
and the transfer of that business to Respondent World
or Respondent All Seasons, and since that time the Re-
spondent has failed and refused to do so.
Beginning about November 5, 1997, and continuing
thereafter, Respondent Wood ceased its operations, laid
off unit employees N. Carillo, W. Gillespie, W.
Guerin, M. Leyva, M. Lipps, D. Martin, J. May, D.
Padilla, M. Pierce, B. Schuman, J. Sime, F. Sullivan,
J. Cano, J. Lopez, E. Mikell, W. Watkins, and B.
Wills, and transferred bargaining unit work to Re-
spondent World or Respondent All Seasons. Beginning
about November 5, 1997, and continuing thereafter, the
Respondent failed and refused to reinstate these unit
employees to work for Respondent World or Respond-
ent All Seasons, repudiated the 1996–2001 agreement,
and failed and refused to adhere to the terms and pro-
visions of that agreement by, without limitations, fail-
ing to pay contractual benefit contributions, failing to
pay contractual wage rates, and failing to abide by the
hiring hall provisions. These subjects relate to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
of the unit and are mandatory subjects for the purposes
of collective bargaining. The Respondent engaged in
these acts and conduct without prior notice to the
Union and without affording the Union an opportunity
to bargain with the Respondent with respect to such
acts and conduct or the effects of such acts and con-
duct. The Respondent engaged in these acts and con-
duct because the unit employees joined, supported, or
assisted the Union, or engaged in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purposes of collective-bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, and in order to evade
its obligations under the terms and provisions of the
1996–2001 agreement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Re-
spondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively,
and is continuing to fail and refuse to bargain collec-
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01067 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.158 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1068 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7 Inasmuch as the Respondent is ordered to restore the operations
of Respondent Wood, reinstate the laid-off employees, and make
them whole, we do not find it necessary to also order the Respond-
ent to bargain with the Union about the effects of the cessation of
Respondent Wood’s operations and the transfer of that business to
Respondent World or Respondent All Seasons.
8 To the extent that an employee has made personal contributions
to a fund that are accepted by the fund in lieu of the Respondent’s
delinquent contributions during the period of the delinquency, the
Respondent will reimburse the employee, but the amount of such re-
imbursement will constitute a setoff to the amount that the Respond-
ent otherwise owes the fund.
9 Member Hurtgen would make whole, but would not reinstate,
employees who should have been referred to the Respondent. He
agrees with the views expressed by former Members Stephens and
Cohen in their concurring opinion in J. E. Brown, supra at 624.
They explained that, where the identity of those individuals who
should have been referred has not been determined with any particu-
larity, as here, compliance with the Board’s Order may be substan-
tively, with the Union as the limited exclusive rep-
resentative of the unit, and has thereby engaged in un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
By the acts and conduct described above, the Re-
spondent has also discriminated, and is continuing to
discriminate, in regard to the hire, tenure, or terms and
conditions of employment of its employees, thereby
discouraging membership in a labor organization, and
has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
By the acts and conduct described above, the Re-
spondent has also interfered with, restrained, or co-
erced, and is continuing to interfere with, restrain, and
coerce, its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby en-
gaged in unfair labor practices 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
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifi-
cally, having found that the Respondent has failed to
provide the Union information that is relevant and nec-
essary to its role as the limited exclusive bargaining
representative of the unit employees, we shall order the
Respondent to furnish the Union, in a timely manner,
the information requested about October 27, 1997.
In addition, having found that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(3), (5), and (1) by ceasing the op-
erations of Respondent Wood, transferring bargaining
unit work to Respondent World or Respondent All
Seasons, and laying off and refusing to reinstate unit
employees N. Carillo, W. Gillespie, W. Guerin, M.
Leyva, M. Lipps, D. Martin, J. May, D. Padilla, M.
Pierce, B. Schuman, J. Sime, F. Sullivan, J. Cano, J.
Lopez, E. Mikell, W. Watkins, and B. Wills, we shall
order the Respondent to reestablish the operations of
Respondent Wood, restore the unit work, and on re-
quest, bargain with the Union as the exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees in the appropriate unit on
terms and conditions of employment, including the de-
cision to cease the operations of Respondent Wood and
transfer bargaining unit work to Respondent World or
Respondent All Seasons. We shall also order the Re-
spondent to offer the laid-off unit employees imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and to
make them whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful cessation
of operations, transfer of unit work and layoffs. Back-
pay shall be computed in accordance with F. W. Wool-
worth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as pre-
scribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987).7
Furthermore, having found that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by repudiating the
1996–2001 agreement and failing to adhere to the
terms of that agreement by, without limitations, failing
to pay contractual benefit contributions, failing to pay
contractual wage rates, and failing to abide by the hir-
ing hall provisions, we shall order the Respondent to
honor the terms of the 1996–2001 agreement, make
whole its unit employees or would-be unit employees
for any loss of earnings attributable to its unlawful
conduct, including its failure to adhere to the hiring
hall provisions of the 1996–2001 agreement, and make
all such delinquent contributions, including any addi-
tional amounts due the funds in accordance with
Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213, 1216 fn.
7 (1979). Backpay shall be computed in accordance
with Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970),
enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as
prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, supra. In
addition, the Respondent shall reimburse unit employ-
ees and would-be employees for any expenses ensuing
from its failure to make the required contributions, as
set forth in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891
fn. 2 (1980), enfd. 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981), such
amounts to be computed in the manner set forth in
Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd.
444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as pre-
scribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, supra.8 Fi-
nally, pursuant to J. E. Brown Electric, 315 NLRB
620 (1994), we shall order the Respondent to offer im-
mediate and full employment to those applicants who
would have been referred to the Respondent for em-
ployment through the Union’s hiring hall were it not
for the Respondent’s unlawful conduct,9 and to make
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01068 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.158 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1069M. J. WOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
tially delayed. Thus, it will be necessary to sort out who should have
been referred in the past before resuming hiring hall referrals. Con-
versely, ordering the Respondent to abide by the hiring-hall provi-
sion simply requires a determination of who is next in line at the
time that compliance with the order is achieved.
them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent’s
failure to hire them. Backpay shall be computed in ac-
cordance with F. W. Woolworth, supra, and New Hori-
zons for the Retarded, supra. Reinstatement and back-
pay issues will be resolved by a factual inquiry at the
compliance stage. J. E. Brown, supra, 315 NLRB at
623.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, M. J. Wood & Associates, Inc./World Air
Conditioning, Inc., a single employer and All Seasons
Mechanical, a single employer and/or alter ego, Las
Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish in a timely man-
ner requested information that is necessary for, and rel-
evant to, the Union’s performance of its function as
the limited exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the unit.
(b) Failing and refusing to meet and negotiate with
the Union as the limited, exclusive collective-bargain-
ing agent of its unit employees.
(c) Ceasing operations, laying off employees or fail-
ing to reinstate them, transferring bargaining unit
work, or repudiating the 1996–2001 agreement or re-
fusing to adhere to its provisions, without prior notice
to the Union or without affording the Union an oppor-
tunity to bargain or because the employees join, sup-
port, or assist the Union or engage in other concerted
activities for the purposes of collective-bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or in order to evade its
obligations under the terms and provisions of the
1996–2001 agreement.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, 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) Furnish the Union, in a timely manner, the infor-
mation requested about October 27, 1997.
(b) Reestablish the operations of M. J. Wood & As-
sociates, Inc., restore the unit work, and, on request,
bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit on terms and
conditions of employment, including the decision to
cease the operations of Respondent Wood and transfer
bargaining unit work to Respondent World or Re-
spondent All Seasons.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
N. Carillo, W. Gillespie, W. Guerin, M. Leyva, M.
Lipps, D. Martin, J. May, D. Padilla, M. Pierce, B.
Schuman, J. Sime, F. Sullivan, J. Cano, J. Lopez, E.
Mikell, W. Watkins, and B. Wills full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges pre-
viously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
unlawful cessation of operations, transfer of unit work,
and layoffs, in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of this decision.
(d) Offer immediate and full employment to those
applicants who would have been referred to the Re-
spondent by the Union were it not for the Respond-
ent’s unlawful conduct, and make them whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered by reason
of the Respondent’s failure to hire them in the manner
set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(e) Honor the terms of the 1996–2001 agreement,
make all contractually required benefit contributions
that it failed to make since about November 5, 1997,
and make whole its unit employees or would-be unit
employees for any loss of earnings attributable to its
unlawful conduct, including its failure to adhere to the
hiring hall provisions of the 1996–2001 agreement in
the manner set forth in the remedy section of this deci-
sion. The unit includes the following employees:
All employees of the Respondent engaged in but
not limited to the (a) manufacture, fabrication, as-
sembling, handling, erection, installation, disman-
tling, conditioning, adjustment, alteration, repair-
ing and servicing of all ferrous or non-ferrous
metal work and all other materials used in lieu
thereof and of all air-veyor systems and air-han-
dling systems regardless of material used includ-
ing the setting of all equipment and all reinforce-
ments in connection therewith; (b) all lagging
over insulation and all duct lining; (c) testing and
balancing of all air-handling equipment and duct
work; (d) the preparation of all shop and field
sketches whether manually drawn or computer as-
sisted used in fabrication and erection, including
those taken from original architectural and engi-
neering drawings or sketches; and (e) all other
work included in the jurisdictional claims of Sheet
Metal Workers’ International Association.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make
available to the Board or its agents for examination
and copying, all payroll records, social security pay-
ment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts
due under the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post
at its facility in Las Vegas, Nevada, copies of the at-
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01069 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.158 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1070 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10 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
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.’’
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’10 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 28, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent 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 no-
tices are not altered, 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 facility involved in these pro-
ceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current
employees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since October 27, 1997.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a
responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting 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
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to furnish in a timely
manner requested information that is necessary for, and
relevant to, the Union’s performance of its function as
the limited exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the unit.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to meet or negotiate
with the Union as the limited, exclusive collective-bar-
gaining agent of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT cease operations, lay off employees or
fail to reinstate them, transfer bargaining unit work, or
repudiate the 1996–2001 collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Sheet Metal Workers International Associa-
tion, Local 88, AFL–CIO or refuse to adhere to its
provisions, without prior notice to the Union or with-
out affording the Union an opportunity to bargain or
because the employees join, support, or assist the
Union or engage in other concerted activities for the
purposes of collective-bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or in order to evade our obligations
under the terms and provisions of the 1996–2001
agreement.
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 the Union, in a timely manner, the
information requested about October 27, 1997.
WE WILL reestablish the operations of M. J. Wood
& Associates, Inc., restore the unit work, and, on re-
quest, bargain with the Union as the exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees in the appropriate unit on
terms and conditions of employment, including the de-
cision to cease the operations of Wood and transfer
bargaining unit work to World or All Seasons.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this
Order, offer N. Carillo, W. Gillespie, W. Guerin, M.
Leyva, M. Lipps, D. Martin, J. May, D. Padilla, M.
Pierce, B. Schuman, J. Sime, F. Sullivan, J. Cano, J.
Lopez, E. Mikell, W. Watkins, and B. Wills full rein-
statement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed, and WE WILL make them
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suf-
fered as a result of the unlawful cessation of oper-
ations, transfer of unit work, and layoffs.
WE WILL offer immediate and full employment to
those applicants who would have been referred to us
by the Union were it not for our unlawful conduct, and
WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered by reason of our failure to
hire them.
WE WILL honor the terms of the 1996–2001 agree-
ment, make all contractually required benefit contribu-
tions that we failed to make since about November 5,
1997, and make whole our unit employees or would-
be unit employees for any loss of earnings attributable
to our unlawful conduct, including our failure to ad-
here to the hiring hall provisions of the 1996–2001
agreement. The unit includes the following employees:
All our employees engaged in but not limited to
the (a) manufacture, fabrication, assembling, han-
dling, erection, installation, dismantling, condi-
tioning, adjustment, alteration, repairing and serv-
icing of all ferrous or non-ferrous metal work and
all other materials used in lieu thereof and of all
air-veyor systems and air-handling systems re-
gardless of material used including the setting of
all equipment and all reinforcements in connec-
tion therewith; (b) all lagging over insulation and
all duct lining; (c) testing and balancing of all air-
handling equipment and duct work; (d) the prepa-
ration of all shop and field sketches whether
manually drawn or computer assisted used in fab-
rication and erection, including those taken from
original architectural and engineering drawings or
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01070 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.158 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1071M. J. WOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
sketches; and (e) all other work included in the jurisdictional claims of Sheet Metal Workers’
International Association.
M. J. WOOD & ASSOCIATES,
INC./WORLD AIR CONDITIONING, INC., A
SINGLE EMPLOYER AND ALL SEASONS
MECHANICAL, A SINGLE EMPLOYER
AND/OR ALTER EGO
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01071 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.158 APPS10 PsN: APPS10