R.J.J. Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1999

327 N.L.R.B. 80 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

327 NLRB No. 80
1
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Board 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.
R.J.J., Inc. and United Union of Roofers, Water-
proofers and Allied Workers’ Union, Local 81.
Case 20–CA–28622
January 15, 1999
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND BRAME
Upon a charge filed by the Union on August 12, 1998,
the Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a complaint on September 23, 1998,
against R.J.J., Inc., the Respondent, alleging that it has
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act. Although properly served copies of the charge and
complaint, the Respondent failed to file an answer.
On December 4, 1998, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board. On De-
cember 8, 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. The Respondent
filed no 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 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, unless good cause
is shown. In addition, the complaint affirmatively notes
that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of service,
all the allegations in the complaint will be considered
admitted. Further, the undisputed allegations in the Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment disclose that the Region, by
letter dated October 15, 1998, notified the Respondent
that unless an answer were received by October 22,
1998, a Motion for Summary Judgment would be filed.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail-
ure to file a timely answer, we grant the General Coun-
sel’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, a California
corporation with an office and place of business in Sac-
ramento, California, has been engaged in the building
and construction industry as a general building, roofing,
sheet metal, and metal roofing contractor. During the
12-month period ending December 31, 1997, the Re-
spondent, in conducting its business operations described
above, purchased and received at its Sacramento, Cali-
fornia facility, goods valued at more than $50,000 from
suppliers located in the State of California, who in turn
had purchased and received those goods and materials
directly from points outside the State of California. 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.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On an unknown date about 1 month before the repre-
sentation election held on July 31, 1998, the Respondent,
by its owner and agent Robert J. Jacino, at the Respon-
dent’s facility, interrogated employees regarding their
sympathies for the Union. In addition, on an unknown
date during the week of June 20, 1998, Jacino told em-
ployees that the Respondent would never sign a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the Union. Further,
sometime during the week of June 20, 1998, on about
July 27, 1998, and on about July 29, 1998, Jacino told
employees that if the Union won the election, the Re-
spondent was going to finish its existing jobs and then
close its doors, and the employees would be left without
jobs. Finally, on about July 29, 1998, Jacino threatened
employees with a wage reduction if the Union won the
election, and threatened employees he believed to be
supporters of the Union with job loss by telling them that
he would be willing to give them a good job reference to
work at a unionized roofing company if the Union lost
the election.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Respon-
dent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged 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 cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, R.J.J., Inc., Sacramento, California, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees regarding their sympathies
for the Union.
(b) Telling employees that the Respondent would
never sign a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union.
(c) Telling employees that if the Union won the elec-
tion, the Respondent would finish its existing jobs and
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
then close its doors and leave the employees without
jobs.
(d) Threatening employees with a wage reduction if
the Union won the election.
(e) Threatening employees it believes to be supporters
of the Union with job loss by telling them that it would
be willing to give them a good job reference to work at a
unionized roofing company if the Union lost the election.
(f) 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) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Sacramento, California, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”1 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
20, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent 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 notices are not al-
tered, 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 facil-
ity involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no-
tice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time since June 20,
1998.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. January 15, 1999
Sarah M. Fox, Member
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
J. Robert Brame III, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

1 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.”
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 regarding your sympa-
thies for the Union.
WE WILL NOT tell you that we would never sign a col-
lective-bargaining agreement with United Union of
Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers’ Union, Lo-
cal 81.
WE WILL NOT tell you that if the Union won the elec-
tion, we would finish our existing jobs and then close our
doors, and leave you without jobs.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with a wage reduction if the
Union wins the election.
WE WILL NOT threaten you whom we believe to be
supporters of the Union with job loss by telling you that
we would be willing to give you a good job reference to
work at a unionized roofing company if the Union lost
the election.
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.
R.J.J., INC.