Printing Methods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1988

289 N.L.R.B. 1231 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

PRINTING METHODS, INC. 1231
Printing Methods, Inc. and Graphic Communications
International Union 503M . Case 3-CA-13801
July 27, 1988
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
Upon a charge filed by the Union May 15, 1987,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a complaint June 25, 1987,
against the Company, the Respondent, alleging that
it has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act. Although properly
served copies of the charge and complaint, the Re-
spondent has failed to file a timely answer.
On October 21, 1987, the General Counsel filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment, with exhibits at-
tached. On October 26, 1987, 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 October 28, 1987, the Board re-
ceived a copy of an answer to the complaint,
which the Respondent indicates was filed with the
Region on October 26, 1987. On November 23,
1987, the Respondent filed a Reply in Opposition
to the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions provides that the allegations in the complaint
shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed
within 14 days from the service of the complaint,
unless good cause is shown. The complaint states
that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of
service, "all of the allegations in the complaint
shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and shall
be so found by the Board." Further, the undisputed
allegations in the Motion for Summary Judgment
disclose that on July 17, 1987,' the Respondent, by
its owner, represented to the Region that it had not
been served with a copy of the complaint that had
issued on June 25. Based on this assertion, the Re-
gional Office served an additional copy of the com-
plaint by certified mail on July 20 on the Respond-
ent. Subsequently, on September 11, counsel for
the General Counsel served a third copy of the
complaint in person on the Respondent's owner. At
that time, the Respondent's owner was told that he
had to file an answer and that the 14-day period
' All dates are in 1987 unless otherwise noted.
for such filing had already expired. On September
24, counsel for the General Counsel sent the Re-
spondent's owner a letter, by certified mail, advis-
ing him of the necessity for filing an answer and
the consequences of failing to do so. On September
29, the Respondent's owner spoke to counsel for
the General Counsel by telephone and requested
samples of answers to Board complaints. Counsel
for the General Counsel then sent, by regular mail,
copies of two answers, one of which had been filed
by an individual who was not a labor practitioner.
As noted, the Respondent did not file an answer
until about October 26.
In its reply to the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment, the Respondent contends that
its failure to file a timely answer was due to igno-
rance and excusable neglect, and that it has a meri-
torious defense to the complaint. Regarding its fail-
ure to file a timely answer, the Respondent asserts
that its owner, who was not born in this country
and who has lived here for many years but speaks
with an accent, is unfamiliar with Board proceed-
ings and has never been involved in an unfair labor
practice case before; that on several occasions after
the complaint issued , the Respondent presented the
Board with both a meritorious defense to the com-
plaint and oral statements of its position and, in
light of ongoing discussions to resolve this case,
thought the oral statements were sufficient; that the
Respondent was not represented by an attorney in
this matter and, as soon as it retained an attorney,
it filed an answer; and, finally, that it believed the
Board had no jurisdiction to intercede in a dispute
over who would be selected and appointed as a su-
pervisor.2 As indicated above, however, it is undis-
puted that the General Counsel repeatedly served
copies of the complaint on the Respondent, includ-
ing one that counsel for the General Counsel per-
sonally served on its owner. The complaint indicat-
ed the need to file an answer and that all allega-
tions in the complaint were to be deemed to be ad-
mitted to be true unless an answer was filed. Fur-
ther, the General Counsel, in its September 24
letter to the Respondent, expressly noted that
"[n]ot withstanding the fact that we have entered
into settlement discussions, you are still required to
file" an answer and the General Counsel set Sep-
tember 30 as the last date to file an answer. The
Respondent has not offered a sufficient explanation
for its failure to act until about 4 weeks after the
extended deadline for filing a timely answer.3
2 The Respondent claims that the alleged discnmmatee is a statutory
supervisor
8 See Lee & Sons Tree Service, 282 NLRB 905 (1987); and Urban Lab-
oratories, 249 NLRB 867 (1980)
289 NLRB No. 151
1232 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Under these circumstances, we find that the Re-
spondent has not shown good cause for its failure
to file a timely answer, and we, therefore, decline
to accept the answer that the Respondent untimely
filed with the Region on October 26.4
In the absence of good cause being shown for
the failure to file a timely answer, we grant the
General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a New York corporation, main-
tains its principal office and place of business in
Rochester, New York, where it is engaged in the
processing, sale, and distribution of commercial
printing and related products. During the year pre-
ceding the issuance of the complaint, the Respond-
ent, in the course and conduct of its business oper-
ations, sold and shipped from its Rochester facility
products, goods, and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to other enterprises located within
the State of New York, including Kodak and
Xerox, which enterprises are directly engaged in
interstate commerce. We fmd that the Respondent
is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that
the Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
About May 11 the Respondent, by its owner, in-
terrogated employees regarding their own or other
employees' union activities, sympathies, or desires.
About May 18 the Respondent, by its plant manag-
er, threatened to discharge an employee because of
his union activities, sympathies, or desires. We find
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by this conduct.
About May 11 the Respondent terminated John
Van Niel. About May 18 the Respondent reem-
ployed Van Niel in a different position at lower
pay. Since about May 18, the Respondent has im-
posed more difficult and onerous working condi-
tions on Van Niel. The Respondent engaged in
such discrimination against Van Niel because he
joined, supported, or assisted the Union and en-
gaged in concerted activity for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, and in order to discourage employees from
engaging in such activities or other concerted ac-
tivities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
4 We therefore do not reach the Respondent 's contention that it has a
meritorious defense
other mutual aid or protection. We find that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by this treatment of Van Niel.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interrogating employees regarding their
own or other employees' union activities, sympa-
thies, or desires, and by threatening to discharge
employees because of their union activities, sympa-
thies, or desires , the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. By terminating John Van Niel, by reemploy-
ing him in a different position at lower pay, and by
imposing more difficult and onerous working con-
ditions on him because he joined, supported, or as-
sisted the Union and engaged in concerted activity
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, the Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully
discharged employee John Van Niel and then re-
employed him in a different position at lower pay,
we shall order it to offer him immediate and full
reinstatement to his former position or, if this posi-
tion no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and
to make him whole for any loss of earnings he may
have suffered as a result of the Respondent's un-
lawful conduct. Backpay shall be computed in the
manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon to be com-
puted in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).5
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Printing Methods, Inc., Rochester,
New York, its officers , agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
s The General Counsel requests that , as part of the remedy, the Order
include a provision for a visitatonal clause Under the circumstances of
this case , we find it unnecessary to include such a clause See Cherokee
Marine Terminal, 287 NLRB 1080 (1988)
PRINTING METHODS, INC.
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees regarding their own
or other employees' union activities, sympathies, or
desires.
(b) Threatening to discharge employees because
of their union activities, sympathies, or desires.
(c) Imposing more difficult and onerous working
conditions on employees because they join, sup-
port, or assist Graphic Communications Interna-
tional Union 503M , or any other labor organiza-
tion, and engage in concerted activity for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection.
(d) Discharging employees and then reemploying
them in a different position at lower pay because
they engage in union or concerted activities.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining , or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer John Van Niel immediate and full rein-
statement 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 or
privileges previously enjoyed , and make him whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him, in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of the deci-
sion.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful discrimination against John Van Niel and
notify him in writing that this has been done and
that this unlawful action will not be used against
him in any way.
(c) Preserve and, on request , make available to
the Board or its agents for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards , personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(d) Post at its facility in Rochester , New York,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."e
Copies of the notice , on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 3, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative , shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
s 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 Nation-
al 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."
1233
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted . Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees regarding
their own or other employees' union activities,
sympathies, or desires.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees
because of their union activities , sympathies, or de-
sires.
WE WILL NOT impose more difficult and onerous
working conditions on employees because they
join , support, or assist Graphic Communications
International Union 503M, or any other labor orga-
nization, and engage in concerted activity for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees and then re-
employ them in a different position at lower pay
because they engage in union or concerted activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL offer John Van Niel immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job or , if that job
no longer exists , to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion , without prejudice to his seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE
WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings he
may have suffered as a result of our discrimination
against him , with interest.
WE WILL remove from our files any references
to the unlawful discrimination against John Van
Niel and notify him in writing that this has been
done and that our unlawful action will not be used
against him in any way.
PRINTING METHODS, INC.