Ravid Artistic Designs

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1990

300 N.L.R.B. 1121 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

1121
300 NLRB No. 155
RAVID ARTISTIC DESIGNS
1 All dates are in 1990.
2 According to Ravid in his affidavit submitted with the Respondent’s re-
sponse to the Notice to Show Cause, he did not consult an attorney until short-
ly before the election because he did not feel that he could afford a lawyer.
3 Sec. 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that all allega-
tions in the complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true if no answer
is filed, unless good cause to the contrary is shown.
Ravid Artistic Designs, Inc. and Leather Goods,
Plastics, Handbags & Novelty Workers Union,
Local 1, AFL–CIO. Case 2–CA–24203
December 31, 1990
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND OVIATT
Upon a charge filed by the Union on March 7,
1990,1 and an amended charge filed on March 21, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board issued a complaint on May 31 against Ravid Ar-
tistic Designs, Inc., the Respondent, alleging that it
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act. Although properly served with copies of
the charge, the amended charge, and the complaint, the
Respondent failed to file a timely answer.
On October 5 the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment, with exhibits attached. On Oc-
tober 11 the Board issued an order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the motion should not be granted. On October 25 the
Respondent filed an answer to the Notice to Show
Cause and the Motion for Summary Judgment, with
supporting affidavits and a proposed answer to the
complaint, in which it opposed the General Counsel’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
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 Regulations
provides 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. The complaint states that unless an answer
is filed within 14 days of service, ‘‘all of the allega-
tions in the Complaint shall be deemed to be admitted
to be true and shall be so found by the Board.’’ Fur-
ther, the undisputed allegations in the General Coun-
sel’s Petition for Summary Judgment disclose that the
counsel for the General Counsel, by letter dated Sep-
tember 14, notified the Respondent that although an
answer to the complaint had been due on June 14, it
had not been filed; that the Respondent would be al-
lowed an additional opportunity to file an answer; and
that unless an answer was received by September 21,
a Motion for Summary Judgment would be filed. The
letter further advised the Respondent that in the event
a Motion for Summary Judgment were granted, the
Respondent would lose its right to challenge the alle-
gations set forth in the complaint, and a final order
would be issued against the Respondent. Finally, the
letter informed the Respondent that if it had any ques-
tions regarding this matter, it should contact the coun-
sel for the General Counsel at the Board’s Regional
Office, for which an address and telephone number
were provided.
The Respondent failed to file either a timely answer
to the complaint or a request for an extension of time
in which to file an answer. The Respondent has now
filed a proposed answer to the complaint, in conjunc-
tion with its October 25 response to the Motion for
Summary Judgment and the Notice to Show Cause.
In defense of its failure to file a timely answer, the
Respondent contends that its president, Avishy Ravid,
attempted to handle the instant matter pro se until Oc-
tober 12, when he retained counsel to advise the Re-
spondent in regard to a representation election being
held on October 15.2 The Respondent contends that
Ravid is an Israeli immigrant who is neither an attor-
ney nor familiar with the rules and procedures of the
National Labor Relations Board, and who therefore
simply did not realize that the Respondent was re-
quired to file an answer to the complaint. When the
Respondent’s subsequently retained counsel was pro-
vided with the papers concerning the representation
election, he found interspersed among them the papers
concerning the instant unfair labor practice proceeding.
According to the Respondent, Ravid had, until then,
thought that if he ‘‘won’’ the election, the unfair labor
practice charges would be dismissed. On being advised
by counsel that this understanding was incorrect, Ravid
requested counsel to contest or settle the unfair labor
practice charges.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the Re-
spondent’s failure to file a timely answer has not been
supported by a showing of good cause.3 The complaint
stated clearly that failure to file a timely answer would
result in the complaint allegations being deemed to be
admitted and being found to be true. The Respondent
was subsequently warned in the September 14 letter
from counsel for the General Counsel that summary
judgment would be sought if the Respondent did not
file an answer by September 21 and that if summary
judgment were granted the Respondent would lose its
right to challenge the complaint allegations and that a
final order would be issued against the Respondent.
Nevertheless, the Respondent still did not attempt to
answer the complaint or request an extension of time
in which to do so. This pattern of disregarding the
Board’s procedures and its warnings of the possible
consequences is incompatible with a showing of good
1122 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 We therefore do not reach the Respondent’s contention that it has meri-
torious defenses to the complaint allegations.
cause. Nor does the failure of the Respondent to retain
counsel until 4 months after the issuance of the com-
plaint establish good cause for its failure to file a time-
ly answer. See Wheeler Mfg. Corp., 296 NLRB 6
(1989); Printing Methods, Inc., 289 NLRB 1231
(1988); Urban Laboratories, 249 NLRB 867 (1980).
See also Odaly’s Management Corp., 292 NLRB 1283
(1989).
We are not persuaded by the Respondent’s belated
assertion that it thought the unfair labor practice
charges would simply be dismissed if it ‘‘won’’ the
upcoming representation election. The Respondent was
expressly advised twice that it was necessary for it to
file an answer and was encouraged to contact the Re-
gional Office if it had any questions. Under these cir-
cumstances, we find that the Respondent has not
shown good cause for its failure to file a timely an-
swer, and we, therefore, decline to accept the untimely
proposed answer that the Respondent submitted with
its October 25 response to the Notice to Show Cause.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 following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a domestic corporation with an of-
fice and place of business in New York, New York,
is engaged in the manufacturing of leather goods at its
New York facility where it annually sells and ships
goods, products, and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points outside the State of New
York. We find that Respondent is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that Leather Goods,
Plastics, Handbags & Novelty Workers Union, Local
1, AFL–CIO (the Union) is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
About February 12, the Respondent, acting through
its supervisor, Eric Otar Deodatt, threatened its em-
ployees that it would file for bankruptcy, close and re-
locate its operations, and discharge its employees if the
employees signed union authorization cards. About
February 13, the Respondent, acting through its presi-
dent, Avishy Ravid, created an impression among its
employees that their union activities were under sur-
veillance by the Respondent. About January 31 and
February 23, the Respondent, acting through Ravid, in-
terrogated employees regarding their union member-
ship, activities, and sympathies. We find that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by this
conduct.
About March 5, the Respondent discharged its em-
ployees Vilma Farmer and Kay Waldai Singh because
they joined, supported, or assisted the Union and en-
gaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and
in order to discourage employees from engaging in
these activities or in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by this
treatment of Farmer and Singh.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interrogating employees regarding their own
or other employees’ union activities, sympathies, or
desires; by threatening to file for bankruptcy, to close
or relocate, and to discharge employees because of
their union activities, sympathies, or desires; and by
creating the impression that the union activities of its
employees were under surveillance, the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging Vilma Farmer and Kay Waldai
Singh because they joined, supported, or assisted the
Union, and engaged in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, the Respondent has engaged 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.
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.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged employees Vilma Farmer and Kay Waldai
Singh, we shall order it to offer them immediate and
full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those
positions 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 they may have suffered as a result of the Re-
spondent’s unlawful conduct. Backpay shall be com-
puted in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest to be com-
puted in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
1123RAVID ARTISTIC DESIGNS
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 National Labor Rela-
tions Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Ravid Artistic Designs, Inc., New York,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees regarding their own or
other employees’ union activities, sympathies, or de-
sires.
(b) Threatening to file for bankruptcy, to close or re-
locate operations, or to discharge employees because
of their union activities, sympathies, or desires.
(c) Creating an impression among its employees that
their union activities are under surveillance.
(d) Discharging employees because they join, sup-
port, or assist labor organizations or engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to dis-
courage employees from engaging in any such con-
certed protected activities.
(e) 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) Offer Vilma Farmer and Kay Waldai Singh im-
mediate 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 make
them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them,
in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this
decision.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the un-
lawful discrimination against Vilma Farmer and Kay
Waldai Singh and notify them in writing that this has
been done and that this unlawful action will not be
used against them in any way.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, 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 New York, New York, cop-
ies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’5 Cop-
ies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 2, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and main-
tained 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 notices are not al-
tered, 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 Re-
spondent 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 interrogate you about your union ac-
tivities, sympathies, or desires.
WE WILL NOT threaten you that we will file for
bankruptcy, close or relocate operations, or discharge
you because of your union sympathies, activities, or
desires.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that your union
activities are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT discharge you because you join, sup-
port, or assist labor organizations or engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to dis-
courage you from engaging in any such concerted pro-
tected activities.
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 offer Vilma Farmer and Kay Waldai Singh
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiv-
alent positions, without 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 suffered as a result of the discrimi-
nation against them.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the
unlawful discrimination against Vilma Farmer and Kay
Waldai Singh and notify them in writing that this has
been done and that this unlawful action will not be
used against them in any way.
RAVID ARTISTIC DESIGNS, INC.