Perkins Management Services Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 5, 2017

365 NLRB No. 90 (N.L.R.B. 2017)

365 NLRB No. 90
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.
Perkins Management Services Company and Unite
Here Local 1. Case 13–CA–173696
June 5, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS
PEARCE AND MCFERRAN
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case pursuant to the terms of an informal settlement
agreement. Following the filing of a charge and an
amended charge by Unite Here Local 1 (the Union) on
April 8 and July 27, 2016, respectively, alleging that
Perkins Management Services Company (the Respond-
ent) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, the par-
ties entered into a bilateral informal settlement agreement
which was approved by the Regional Director for Region
13 on August 2, 2016. Among other things, the settle-
ment agreement required the Respondent to: (1) on re-
quest, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees for a
reasonable period of time from the date of the approval
of the settlement agreement by the Regional Director as
required by UGL-UNICCO Service Co., 357 NLRB 801
(2011); (2) meet for bargaining sessions with the Union
once a month for no less than 6 hours a session for 6
months from the date the settlement was approved by the
Regional Director, or until the parties execute a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement covering the terms and condi-
tions of employment of the unit employees, whichever is
sooner; (3) provide monthly summaries to the Region’s
compliance officer regarding the parties’ progress and
satisfaction with the bargaining progress; if the Region
determines that continued monthly bargaining is neces-
sary, the Region can require additional mandatory ses-
sions of its choosing for one year; (4) provide the Union
with the information it requested on July 7 and Septem-
ber 29, 2015 if it exists and promptly advise the Union if
it does not exist; and (4) post appropriate notices in Eng-
lish and Spanish.
The settlement agreement also contained the following
provision:
The Charged Party agrees that in case of non-
compliance with any of the terms of this Settlement
Agreement by the Charged Party, and after 14 days no-
tice from the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board of such non-compliance without rem-
edy by the Charged Party, the Regional Director will
issue a Complaint that includes the allegations covered
by the Notice to Employees, as identified above in the
Scope of Agreement section, as well as filing and ser-
vice of the charge(s), commerce facts necessary to es-
tablish Board jurisdiction, labor organization status,
appropriate bargaining unit (if applicable), and any oth-
er allegations the General Counsel would ordinarily
plead to establish the unfair labor practices. Thereafter,
the General Counsel may file a Motion for Default
Judgment with the Board on the allegations of the
Complaint. The Charged Party understands and agrees
that all of the allegations of the Complaint will be
deemed admitted and that it will have waived its right
to file an Answer to such Complaint. The only issue
that the Charged Party may raise before the Board will
be whether it defaulted on the terms of this Settlement
Agreement. The General Counsel may seek, and the
Board may impose, a full remedy for each unfair labor
practice identified in the Notice to Employees. The
Board may then, without necessity of trial or any other
proceeding, 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
Charged Party on all issues raised by the pleadings.
The Board may then issue an Order providing a full
remedy for the violations found as is appropriate to
remedy such violations. The parties further agree that a
U.S. Court of Appeals Judgment may be entered en-
forcing the Board Order ex parte, after service or at-
tempted service upon Charged Party at the last address
provided to the General Counsel.
On August 5, 2016, the Region’s compliance officer
sent the Respondent a copy of the conformed settlement
agreement, with a cover letter advising the Respondent to
take the steps necessary to comply with it. Also enclosed
were copies of the Notices to Employees in English and
Spanish, to be posted by the Respondent, and a Certifica-
tion of Compliance form.
By email dated November 4, 2016, the compliance of-
ficer notified the Respondent that unless it fully complied
with the terms of the settlement agreement within 14
days, the Region would issue a complaint and file a mo-
tion for default judgment with the Board. The email
stated that “[a]lthough I have received information that
the Respondent and Union have engaged in bargaining,
based on information obtained from the Union regarding
deficiencies in the information provided to it by Re-
spondent; and in light of Respondent’s failure to provide
evidence that it had executed and posted the required
Spanish Notice to Employees, I am providing this notifi-
cation of default.” Based on the Respondent’s email
response of November 17, 2016, assuring the Region that
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
it intended to provide the requested information, the Re-
gion did not issue complaint or file a motion for default
judgment at that time.
By email dated November 28, 2016, the compliance
officer notified the Respondent that it had failed to pro-
vide the Region with its certification of compliance with
the information request portion of the settlement and that
absent the Respondent’s submission of evidence of full
compliance further proceedings could be initiated. By
email dated February 6, 2017, the compliance officer
reminded the Respondent of its obligations to provide the
Region with monthly summaries of the parties’ bargain-
ing progress and to provide the Union with outstanding
requested information by February 21, 2017.
By email dated February 28, 2017, the compliance of-
ficer informed the Respondent that unless it fully com-
plied with the settlement agreement by March 14, 2017,
he would recommend that the Regional Director issue a
complaint and file a motion for default judgment with the
Board. Specifically, the compliance officer advised the
Respondent that it had failed to furnish the Union with
the outstanding requested information and failed to pro-
vide the Region with monthly summaries of the progress
of bargaining. The Respondent failed to comply.
Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the noncompli-
ance provisions of the settlement agreement, on March
28, 2017, the Acting Regional Director issued a Com-
plaint Based on Breach of Affirmative Provisions of Set-
tlement Agreement (the complaint). On March 29, 2017,
the General Counsel filed a Motion for Default Judgment
with the Board. On March 30, 2017, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a No-
tice to Show Cause why the motion should not be grant-
ed. The Respondent filed no response. The allegations
in the motion are therefore undisputed.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
According to the uncontroverted allegations in the mo-
tion for default judgment, the Respondent has failed to
comply with the terms of the settlement agreement by
failing to provide the Union with all of the information it
requested on July 7 and September 29, 2015, and by fail-
ing to provide the Region with monthly summaries re-
garding the progress of bargaining.
Consequently, pursuant to the noncompliance provi-
sions of the settlement agreement set forth above, we
find that all of the allegations in the complaint are true.1
Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel’s Motion for
Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following

1 See U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLRB 667 (1994).
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation
with an office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois,
(the Chicago facility) has been engaged in the business
of providing food and beverage services to colleges and
universities, including Chicago State University.
During the calendar year preceding issuance of the
complaint, a representative period, the Respondent pur-
chased and received at its Chicago facility goods, prod-
ucts, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points outside the State of Illinois.
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 the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
About June 23, 2015, after being awarded the dining,
catering, and concession services contract at Chicago
State University, the Respondent assumed the operations
which had previously been performed by SDH Education
West, LLC d/b/a Sodexo Campus Services (Sodexo).
Since about June 23, 2015, the Respondent has contin-
ued to provide the services previously performed by So-
dexo, in basically unchanged form, at the location de-
scribed above and has employed, as a majority of its em-
ployees, individuals who were previously employees of
Sodexo.
Based on the operations described above, the Re-
spondent has continued to be the employing entity of
Sodexo’s employees and is a successor to Sodexo.
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 agents of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act:
Nicholas Perkins — President
Antwane Owens — Chief Financial Officer
Tonya Ford . — Human Resources Director
Freddie Lane, Jr. — Chief Administrative Officer
The following employees of the Respondent (the unit)
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All full-time and regular part-time food service em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its food services
operations located at Chicago State University, Chica-
go, Illinois; excluding confidential and office clerical
employees, professional employees, student workers,
PERKINS MANAGEMENT SERVICES 3
casual employees, managers, assistant managers,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Since about 2012, the Union had been the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit employed
by the predecessor employers, including most recently
Sodexo. During that time period, the Union had been
recognized as such representative by predecessor em-
ployers, including Sodexo. This recognition had been
embodied in successive collective-bargaining agree-
ments, the most recent of which was effective from No-
vember 16, 2013 to July 31, 2016.
From about November 16, 2013 to June 22, 2015,
based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union had been the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
employed by Sodexo.
Since about June 23, 2015, based on the facts de-
scribed above, the Union has been the designated exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
At all times since about June 23, 2015, based on Sec-
tion 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s
employees in the unit.
The following events occurred, giving rise to these
proceedings.
1. About July 7, 2015, the Union, by email from Dan
Abraham to Nicholas Perkins, requested that the Re-
spondent recognize it as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit and bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit.
2. Since about January 24, 2016, the Respondent has
failed and refused to bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
3. Since July 7, 2015, and continuing thereafter, the
Union, by Dan Abraham, has requested that the Re-
spondent furnish the Union with the following infor-
mation:
(i) A list of all employees including name, address,
phone number, wage rate, job classification and benefit
plan participation.
(ii) A complete description of all company benefit
plans including the cost to the company and the cost to
the employee.
(iii) A copy of all current personnel policies, practices
or procedures, and a full description of any unwritten
policies, practices or procedures.
(iv) A copy of all current work rules, and a full descrip-
tion of any unwritten work rules.
(v) A copy of each current job description for all posi-
tions within the bargaining unit.
(vi) A copy of any attendance policy or program.
(vii) A copy of the Summary Plan Description, as well
as the Plan, for the employer’s current health care plan.
(viii) A copy of any rules, regulations, procedures, ad-
ministrative manual or other policies or procedures
which affect or relate to the company’s health care
plan.
(ix) A cost breakdown of the employer’s current health
care plan.
(x) The name, address and principal contact of the of-
fice which administers the health care plan.
(xi) The name and address of the “administrator” of the
employer’s health care plan, as that term is defined in
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
(xii) A copy of any contract with any health care pro-
vider, insurer, or health care plan.
(xiii) A copy of any current profit-sharing plan, stock
investment plan, 401(k) plan or similar plan affecting
any employee, including a copy of the current Sum-
mary Plan Description and the plan itself.
(xiv) Copies of all disability plans or programs, includ-
ing copies of all disability policies maintained by the
company.
(xv) A copy of all company life insurance plans or pro-
grams covering any employee, including a cost break-
down or cost analysis of such plan.
(xvi) A copy of any company policy or procedure with
respect to drug or alcohol abuse.
(xvii) A statement of any policies or procedures with
respect to grooming, clothes, weight or height or any
other personal affects.
(xviii) A list of all company uniforms or special cloth-
ing which the employees are required to wear, includ-
ing a description of the uniforms or special clothing,
the classification of employees which are required to
wear these uniforms or special clothing, and a descrip-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
tion of the circumstances under which they are to be
worn.
(xix) A statement of all company policies regarding
smoking.
(xx) A copy of all company policies or procedures with
respect to discipline, including any company work rule,
house rule, or other rule or regulation which may have
disciplinary consequences for any employee for any
worker employed in the bargaining unit.
(xxi) A statement of all company policies or procedures
with respect to promotions.
(xxii) A statement of any and all company policies or
programs relating to training.
(xxiii) Copies of all manuals, directives, policies, ser-
vice manuals, maintenance manuals, and other materi-
als related to employee training.
(xxiv) A statement of all company policies with respect
to the handling of cash or non-cash transactions with
customers.
(xxv) A copy of all company policies and procedures
with respect to layoff and recall.
(xxvi) A copy of all tests which are given to applicants
and employees, including application forms. If there is
no written test given, provide a description of any other
test given.
4. The information requested by the Union as de-
scribed above in paragraph 3 (i)–(xxvi) is necessary for,
and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
unit.
5. To date, the Respondent has failed and refused to
furnish the Union with the information requested by the
Union as described above in paragraph 3 (ii)–(v), (vii)–
(xii) and (xxi)–(xxvi).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the conduct described above in paragraphs 2 and 5,
the Respondent has been failing and refusing to bargain
collectively and in good faith with the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of its unit employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The Re-
spondent’s unfair labor practices 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 take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act. Specifically, we shall order the Respondent
to comply with the unmet terms of the informal settle-
ment agreement approved by the Regional Director for
Region 13 on August 2, 2016, by providing monthly
summaries regarding the progress of bargaining to the
Compliance Officer of Region 13, and by furnishing the
Union with the information set forth above in paragraph
3 (ii)–(v), (vii)–(xii), and (xxi)–(xxvi).
In limiting our affirmative remedies to those enumer-
ated above, we are mindful that the General Counsel is
empowered under the default provision of the settlement
agreement to seek “a full remedy for the violations found
as is appropriate to remedy such violations.”2 However,
in his Motion for Default Judgment, the General Counsel
has not sought such additional remedies and we will not,
sua sponte, include them.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Perkins Management Services Company,
Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
1. Provide monthly summaries regarding the progress
of bargaining to the Compliance Officer of Region 13.
2. Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by the Union on July 7 and September
29, 2015 that it has not already provided, specifically the
information set forth above in paragraph 3 (ii)–(v), (vii)–
(xii), and (xxi)–(xxvi) of this Decision.
3. Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 13 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 5, 2017

2 As set forth above, the settlement agreement provided that, in case
of noncompliance, the General Counsel may seek, and the Board may
issue “a full remedy for the violations found as is appropriate to remedy
such violations.”
3 See, e.g., Benchmark Mechanical, Inc., 348 NLRB 576 (2006).
The General Counsel specifically requested in his motion for default
judgment that the Board issue “an Order requiring Respondent to fulfill
all of its undertakings in the August 2, 2016 Settlement Agreement.”
Therefore we construe the General Counsel’s motion as seeking en-
forcement of the unmet provisions of the settlement agreement.
PERKINS MANAGEMENT SERVICES 5
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Chairman
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD