Signage Systems

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1993

312 N.L.R.B. 1115 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

1115
312 NLRB No. 175
SIGNAGE SYSTEMS
1 These letters were sent only to Respondent’s president as Re-
spondent’s attorney had advised the Regional Office by letter dated
August 10, 1993, that he was withdrawing as counsel for Respond-
ent and that Respondent’s president would be proceeding pro se in
any further action before the Board.
2 NLRB Form 4775, the settlement form used here, expressly pro-
vides that approval of the settlement agreement ‘‘shall constitute
withdrawal of any Complaint(s) and Notice of Hearing heretofore
issued in this case, as well as any answer(s) filed in response.’’
(Emphasis added.)
3 See Orange Data, Inc., 274 NLRB 1018 (1985), and Ofalco
Properties, 281 NLRB 84 (1986).
Signage Systems, Inc. and Curtis Krone. Case 18–
CA–12606
October 29, 1993
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by Cur-
tis Krone, an individual, on March 24, 1993, and April
7, 1993, respectively, the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on
May 7, 1993, against Signage Systems, Inc., the Re-
spondent, alleging that it violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. On May 19,
1993, the Respondent filed an answer denying the
complaint’s unfair labor practice allegations.
Thereafter, on June 23, 1993, the Regional Director
for Region 18 approved an informal settlement agree-
ment, executed by Respondent’s president and the
Charging Party on June 15 and 21, 1993, respectively,
disposing of the allegations in the complaint. On Au-
gust 4, 1993, however, the Regional Director issued an
order revoking approval and vacating and setting aside
the settlement agreement on the ground that the Re-
spondent had subsequently taken the position that it
would not make any payments toward the backpay
amount due the alleged discriminatee under the terms
of the settlement. The same day, the Regional Director
also issued another complaint against the Respondent
likewise setting forth Respondent’s failure to comply
with the settlement agreement and realleging the same
allegations contained in the prior complaint.
Although properly served with copies of the August
4, 1993 complaint, Respondent failed to file an answer
thereto. Accordingly, on September 29, 1993, the Gen-
eral Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
with the Board. On October 4, 1993, 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 allega-
tions in the motion are therefore undisputed.
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, un-
less good cause is shown. In addition, the August 4,
1993 complaint affirmatively notes that unless an an-
swer is filed within 14 days of service, all the allega-
tions in the complaint will be considered admitted.
Further, the undisputed allegations in the Motion for
Summary Judgment disclose that the Region, by letters
dated August 19 and 23, 1993, notified the Respondent
that unless an answer was received by extended dead-
line of August 26, 1993, a Motion for Summary Judg-
ment would be filed.1 Nevertheless, as indicated above,
the Respondent failed to file an answer to the August
4, 1993 complaint.
Although the Respondent did file an answer to the
original May 7, 1993 complaint, that answer was with-
drawn by the explicit terms of the settlement agree-
ment,2 and was not thereafter revived by the Regional
Director’s order revoking approval and vacating and
setting aside the settlement. Thus, as the Respondent’s
answer to the original complaint does not remain ex-
tant, it does not preclude summary judgment.3
Accordingly, in the absence of good cause being
shown for the failure to file a timely answer to the Au-
gust 4, 1993 complaint, 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
The Respondent, a Minnesota corporation, with an
office and place of business in Maple Grove, Min-
nesota, has been engaged in the manufacture and in-
stallation of signs and related products. During the 12-
month period preceding issuance of the complaint, the
Respondent, in conducting its business operations, sold
products and performed services valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to customers outside the State of Min-
nesota. 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 or about January 28 and February 1, 1993, re-
spectively, the Respondent, acting through its presi-
dent, Rick Ballantyne, at its Maple Grove facility,
threatened an employee that the Respondent would
have no work for the employee unless the employee
signed a document abandoning the employee’s pending
grievances and waiving contract rights, and threatened
an employee that if the employee did not abandon the
employee’s grievances, the employee would be out of
a job.
1116 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 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 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.’’
From January 19 to 29, 1993, the Respondent re-
fused to recall employee Curtis Krone from layoff, and
on or about February 1, 1993, the Respondent dis-
charged Krone.
The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above because the named employee formed, joined,
supported, or assisted the Union and engaged in con-
certed activities, and to discourage employees from en-
gaging in these activities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Re-
spondent has been interfering with, restraining, and co-
ercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them in Section 7 of the Act and has been dis-
criminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or
conditions of employment of its employees, thereby
discouraging membership in a labor organization, and
has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) 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. Specifi-
cally, having found that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by refusing to recall
employee Krone from layoff between January 19 and
29, 1993, and by discharging him on February 1, 1993,
we shall order the Repsondent to offer employee
Krone immediate and full reinstatement to his former
position or, if that position no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges previously en-
joyed, and to make him whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimi-
nation against him with backpay to be computed in the
manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest to be computed in the manner
prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Signage Systems, Inc., Maple Grove,
Minnesota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees that the Respondent
would have no work for them unless they signed a
document abandoning their pending grievances and
waiving their contract rights and/or that they would be
out of a job if they did not abandon their grievances.
(b) Refusing to recall from layoff, discharging, or
otherwise discriminating against employees because
they formed, joined, supported, or assisted the Union
or engaged in concerted activities, or to discourage
employees from engaging in such activities.
(c) 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 Curtis Krone immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or any other rights or privileges pre-
viously 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 this decision.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the un-
lawful discharge of Curtis Krone and notify him in
writing that this has been done and that the discharge
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 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 Maple Grove, Minnesota,
copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’4
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 18, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
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
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 Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
1117SIGNAGE SYSTEMS
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.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these pro-
tected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that we will have
no work for them unless they signed a document aban-
doning their pending grievances and waiving their con-
tract rights and/or that they would be out of a job if
they did not abandon their pending grievances.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recall, discharge, or other-
wise discriminate against employees because they
formed, joined, supported, or assisted the Union or en-
gaged in concerted activities, or to discourage employ-
ees from engaging in such 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 employee Curtis Krone immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without 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, and WE WILL
remove from our files any reference to his unlawful
discharge and notify him in writing that this has been
done and that the discharge will not be used against
him in any way.
SIGNAGE SYSTEMS, INC.