Southwest Building Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 2000

332 N.L.R.B. 45 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

332 NLRB No. 45
1
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.
Southwest Building Center, Inc. and Teamsters Local
Union No. 682, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO. Case 14–
CA–26010
September 29, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND HURTGEN
Upon a charge filed by the Teamsters Local Union No.
682, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO, the Union, on April 17, 2000, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint on July 28, 2000, against Southwest
Building Center, Inc., the Respondent, alleging that it has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act. Although properly served copies of the
charge and complaint, the Respondent failed to file an
answer.
On August 30, 2000, the General Counsel filed a Mo-
tion for Default Summary Judgment with the Board. On
September 1, 2000, the Board issued an order transfer-
ring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show
Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Re-
spondent filed no response. The allegations in the mo-
tion 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 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 Default Summary Judgment disclose that the
Region, by letter dated August 16, 2000, notified the
Respondent that unless an answer were received by Au-
gust 23, 2000, a Motion for Default 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 Default Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a Missouri cor-
poration, with an office and place of business in St.
Louis, Missouri, has been engaged in the nonretail sale
and distribution of building supplies and related prod-
ucts. During the 12-month period ending June 30, 2000,
the Respondent, in conducting its business operations,
purchased and received at its St. Louis, Missouri facility
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the State of Missouri. During the 12-month pe-
riod ending December 31, 1999, the Respondent, in con-
ducting its business operations, purchased and received
at its St. Louis, Missouri facility goods valued in excess
of $50,000 from other enterprises located within the
State of Missouri, each of which other enterprises had
received these goods directly from points outside the
State of Missouri. 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
The following employees of the Respondent, herein
called the Unit, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act:

All drivers, yardmen, and outside laborers employed by
Respondent at its St. Louis, Missouri facility,
EXCLUDING office clerical and professional employ-
ees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.

Since about August 1, 1990 and at all material times,
the Union has been the designated exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Unit and since then the
Union has been recognized as the representative by the
Respondent. This recognition has been embodied in suc-
cessive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent
of which was effective from August 1, 199,6 until July
31, 1999. At all times since about August 1, 1990, based
on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
About April 30, 1999, the Union, by letter, requested
that the Respondent bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the Unit.
At various times during August through December
1999, the Union, by telephone, left messages requesting
that the Respondent bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the Unit.
About January 21, 2000, the Union, in person, re-
quested that the Respondent bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the Unit.
At various times during February through April 2000,
the Union, by telephone and in person, left messages
requesting that Respondent bargain collectively with the
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the Unit.
About March 30, 2000, the Union, by letter, requested
that the Respondent bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the Unit.
Since about October 18, 1999, the Respondent has
failed and refused to bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Respon-
dent has failed and refused to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees, and has thereby engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) 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. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) by failing and refusing to bargain collectively
and in good faith with the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees since October
18, 1999, we shall order it to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the Union with respect to wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a
signed agreement.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Southwest Building Center, Inc., St. Louis,
Missouri its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the Teamsters Local Union No. 682, af-
filiated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
AFL–CIO as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the following appropriate
unit:

All drivers, yardmen, and outside laborers employed by
the Respondent at its St. Louis, Missouri facility,
EXCLUDING office clerical and professional employ-
ees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.

(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) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the above-mentioned
appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of em-
ployment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
the understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”1 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since October 18, 1999.
(c) 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 com-
ply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 29, 2000

John C. Truesdale, Chairman

Wilma B. Liebman, Member

Peter J. Hurtgen, Member

(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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively
and in good faith with the Teamsters Local Union No.

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.”
SOUTHWEST BUILDING CENTER, INC. 3
682, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive collective bar-
gaining representative of our employees in the following
appropriate unit:

All drivers, yardmen, and outside laborers employed by
us at our St. Louis, Missouri facility. EXCLUDING
office clerical and professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.

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, on request, bargain with the Union and put in
writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the
above-mentioned bargaining unit.
SOUTHWEST BUILDING CENTER, INC.