Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. d/b/a PLS Logistics Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 2018

366 NLRB No. 36 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

366 NLRB No. 36
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.
Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. d/b/a PLS Logistics
Services and John Cervantes. Case 12–CA–
189005
March 16, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PEARCE, MCFERRAN, AND EMANUEL
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case pursuant to the terms of an infor-
mal settlement agreement. John Cervantes filed a charge
on November 30, 2016, against Pittsburgh Logistics Sys-
tems, Inc. d/b/a PLS Logistics Services (the Respondent),
alleging that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
Subsequently, prior to the issuance of a complaint, the
Respondent entered into an infor-
mal settlement agreement which was approved by the
then-Acting Regional Director on April 21,
2017.1 The settlement agreement required, among other
things, that the Respondent post at its facilities through-
out the United States a Board Notice to Employees, and
that it rescind its work rule that prohibited employees
from disparaging or impugning the Respondent.
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’
notice from the Regional Director of the National La-
bor Relations Board of such non-compliance without
remedy 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 fil-
ing and service of the charge(s), commerce facts neces-
sary to establish Board jurisdiction, labor organization
status, appropriate bargaining unit (if applicable), and
any other allegations the General Counsel would ordi-
narily 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 is-

1 The Charging Party did not enter into the settlement agreement, but
did not appeal the Acting Regional Director’s approval of it.
sue that the Charged Party may raise before the Board
will be whether it defaulted on the terms of this Settle-
ment 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 enforcing
the Board Order ex parte, after service or attempted
service upon Charged Party at the last address provided
to the General Counsel.
On May 17, 2017, the Region sent a compliance pack-
age to the Respondent’s counsel containing copies of the
conformed settlement agreement, the Notice to Employ-
ees, Certification of Compliance forms, and a letter de-
scribing the Respondent’s obligations under
the settlement agreement. In June, July, and August
2017, the Region solicited the Respondent, through mul-
tiple emails to its counsel, to comply with its obligations
under the settlement agreement and provided instructions
and deadlines for the Respondent in this regard. In Au-
gust, the Region was informed that the Respondent had
selected new counsel. On October 16, 2017, after receiv-
ing a Notice of Appearance, the Region sent a compli-
ance package to the Respondent’s new counsel contain-
ing copies of the conformed settlement agreement, the
Notice to Employees, Certification of Compliance forms,
and a letter describing the Respondent’s obligations un-
der the settlement agreement. The Region received no
response from the Respondent. On November 13, 2017,
the Regional Director sent the Respondent’s counsel a
default warning letter, advising the Respondent that if its
noncompliance was not cured by November 27, 2017,
the Region would invoke the default provision in
the settlement agreement, issue a complaint, and file a
motion for default judgment with the Board. The Re-
spondent failed to comply.
Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the noncompli-
ance provision of the settlement agreement, on December
11, 2017, the Regional Director issued the complaint. On
December 12, 2017, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Default Judgment with the Board. On December 14,
2017, 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
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
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 Default Judgment
According to the uncontroverted allegations in the mo-
tion for default judgment, the Respondent has failed to
comply with any of the terms of the settlement agree-
ment. Consequently, pursuant to the noncompliance pro-
vision of the settlement agreement set forth above, we
find that all of the allegations in the complaint are
true.2 Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel’s Mo-
tion for Default 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 offices and places of business located
in the State of Florida and certain other states, including
an office and place of business in Jacksonville, Florida,
has been engaged in providing logistics management
services, including brokering the interstate and intrastate
transportation of freight.
In conducting its operations, during the 12-month pe-
riod preceding issuance of the complaint, the Respondent
performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in states
other than the State of Florida.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
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:
Gary Bailey - Branch Manager
Amanda Gordish - Branch Manager
Since on or before January 2014, and all times thereaf-
ter, the Respondent has maintained the following “Non-
Disparagement clause” provision in its Employment
Terms and Conditions agreement and has required all of
its employees at all of its locations to execute that
agreement:
10. Non-Disparagement. I agree that I will never dis-
parage the Company or its services, products or other

2 See U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLRB 667 (1994).
applications of the Company, or otherwise impugn the
Company or the business of the Company.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the conduct described above, the Respondent has
been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.3
The Respondent’s unfair labor practices affect com-
merce 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 settlement agreement
approved by the then-Acting Regional Director for Re-
gion 12 on April 21, 2017, by: ceasing and desisting
from maintaining a work rule that prohibits employees
from disparaging or impugning the company; rescinding
the Non-Disparagement provision found in paragraph 10
of the Employment Terms and Conditions; notifying
employees in writing that the provision has been rescind-
ed; and posting at its facilities the notices provided by the
Board in the manner prescribed in the settlement agree-
ment.
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.” However, in
his Motion for Default Judgment, the General Counsel
has not sought such additional remedies, and we will not,
sua sponte, include them.4

3 The Board finds the violation here based on the Respondent’s
breach of the prior settlement agreement. Pursuant to the noncompli-
ance provision of the settlement agreement, the Respondent has waived
its right to file an answer to the complaint, which means the allegations
in the complaint are therefore admitted as true. Accordingly, Member
Emanuel expresses no view as to whether he would have found the
non-disparagement rule unlawful if the Respondent had put its lawful-
ness at issue.
4 In his motion for default judgment, the General Counsel stated that
the Respondent has failed to demonstrate compliance with any terms of
the settlement agreement and specifically requested that the Board
order the Respondent to “cease and desist from its unfair labor practices
as set forth in the Notice to Employees attached to the Settlement
Agreement.” In the particular circumstances of this case, we construe
the General Counsel’s motion as a request to enforce the unmet terms
of the settlement agreement. See, e.g., Perkins Management Services,
365 NLRB No. 90, slip op. at 4 fn. 3 (2017).
PITTSBURGH LOGISTICS SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A PLS LOGISTICS SERVICES 3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. d/b/a
PLS Logistics Services, Jacksonville, Florida, its offic-
ers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining a work rule that prohibits employees
from disparaging or impugning the Respondent.
(b) 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) Rescind the portion of the Non-Disparagement
provision found at Paragraph 10 of the Employment
Terms and Conditions that prohibits employees from
disparaging or impugning the Respondent and notify
employees in writing that it has been done.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities listed in the settlement agreement, copies of
the attached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 12, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 12 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. March 16, 2018
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
______________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member

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.”
(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
violated 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 do anything to prevent you from exercis-
ing the above rights.
WE WILL NOT maintain a work rule that prohibits you
from disparaging or impugning our Company.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with your rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the portion of our Non-
Disparagement provision found at Paragraph 10 of our
Employment Terms and Conditions that prohibits you
from disparaging or impugning the Company and WE
WILL notify you in writing that this has been done.
PITTSBURGH LOGISTICS SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A
PLS LOGISTICS SERVICES
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/12-CA-189005 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273–1940.