Townhouse Restaurant

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 1266 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Theoni & Constantine Lecakis d/b/a Townhouse Res-
taurant and Local 6-578 , Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO. Case 18-
CA-4786
May 5, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
Upon a charge filed on November 7, 1975, by Lo-
cal 6-578 , Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Inter-
national Union , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union,
and duly served on Theoni & Constantine Lecakis
d/b/a Townhouse Restaurant , herein called Respon-
dent , the General Counsel of the National Labor Re-
lations Board , by the Regional Director for Region
18, issued a complaint on December 31, 1975, against
Respondent , alleging that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, as amended . Copies of the charge,
complaint , and notice of hearing before an Adminis-
trative Law Judge were duly served on the parties to
this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the com-
plaint alleges in substance that the Union is currently
the contractual representative of employees em-
ployed by members of the Restaurant Operators, a
multiemployer association of which Respondent is
now, and has been at all times material herein, a
member and that, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the
Act, the Union has been and is now the exclusive
representative of all unit employees, including
Respondent 's employees ; and that , commencing on
or about September 26, 1975, and at all times there-
after , Respondent has refused , and continues to date
to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as
such exclusive bargaining representative by failing
and refusing to furnish information relevant and nec-
essary for processing grievances and administering
the collective-bargaining agreement , although the
Union has requested and is requesting it to do so.
Respondent failed to file an answer.
On January 29, 1976 , counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment and brief in support. Subse-
quently , on February 11, 1976, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a
Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment should not be grant-
ed. Respondent did not file a response to the Notice
To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions provides:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer thereto.
The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or
explain each of the facts alleged in the com-
plaint, unless the respondent is without knowl-
edge, in which case the respondent shall so state,
such statement operating as a denial. All allega-
tions in the complaint, if no answer is filed, or
any allegation in the complaint not specifically
denied or explained in an answer filed, unless
the respondent shall state in the answer that he
is without knowledge, shall be deemed to be ad-
mitted to be true and shall be so found by the
Board, unless good cause to the contrary is
shown.
The complaint and notice of hearing served on Re-
spondent specifically stated that unless an answer to
the complaint was filed within 10 days of service
thereof "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, according to the alle-
gations of the Motion for Summary Judgment, no
answer or request for an extension having been re-
ceived, counsel for the General Counsel on January
13, 1976, contacted Respondent both by telephone
and in writing and requested that Respondent file an
answer by January 20, 1976, and warned of the possi-
ble consequences for its failure to file such an an-
swer.
In view of Respondent's failure to answer, under
the rule set forth above, no good cause having been
shown for such failure, the uncontroverted allega-
tions of the complaint are deemed admitted and are
found to be true. Accordingly, we shall grant the Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is now, and has been at all times
223 NLRB No. 187
TOWNHOUSE RESTAURANT
material herein , an employer-member of Restaurant
Operators , herein called the Association , an associa-
tion of employers engaged in the retail operation of
restaurants in the Austin , Minnesota , area . The Asso-
ciation exists , inter alia, for the purpose of repre-
senting its employer-members in collective bargain-
ing with the Union as to wages , hours , and terms and
conditions of employment for their employees. Dur-
ing the year ending December 31, 1975, a representa-
tive period , the employer -members of the Associa-
tion , collectively , in the course and conduct of their
business operations , derived gross revenues in excess
of $500 ,000 from the operation of their respective
restaurants and collectively purchased and caused to
be transported and delivered, at their respective
places of business , goods and materials in excess of
$50,000 , of which goods and materials in excess of
$50,000 were transported and delivered to their re-
spective places of business in the Austin , Minnesota,
area directly from points located outside the State of
Minnesota.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that the
Association and Respondent as a member thereof
are, and have been at all times material herein, em-
ployers engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 6-578, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers
International Union , AFL-CIO , is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The 8(a)(5) and (1) Violations
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent con-
stitute a unit appropriate for collective -bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act:
All employees of Respondent , together with
the employees of other members of Restaurant
Operators , a multiemployer bargaining associa-
tion of which Respondent is a member , exclud-
ing managers , guards , and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
2. The representative status of the Union
The Union is currently the contractual representa-
tive of employees employed by the members of the
1267
Association , including the Respondent , and, by vir-
tue of Section 9(a) of the Act , the Union has been
and is now the exclusive representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining of employees of Asso-
ciation members , including the Respondent's em-
ployees.
3. The request and refusal to bargain
On or about September 26, 1975, and continuing
to date , the Union, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of Respondent 's employees,
has requested and is requesting Respondent to bar-
gain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment , and other terms and condi-
tions of employment . Since on or about September
26, 1975 , and continuing to date, the Respondent has
failed and refused and continues to fail and refuse to
bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union
by failing and refusing to furnish the Union informa-
tion requested by it which is relevant and necessary
for processing grievances and administering the col-
lective-bargaining agreement.
Accordingly, we find that , by its refusal to supply
information requested by the Union, since Septem-
ber 26 , 1975, and at all times thereafter , Respondent
has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit , and that , by such refusal , Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
Ill, above , occurring in connection with its opera-
tions described in section I, above , have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade , traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act , we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom , and, upon
request , bargain collectively with the Union as the
1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exclusive representative of all employees in the ap-
propriate unit by supplying information necessary
and relevant for processing grievances and adminis-
tering the collective-bargaining agreement between
the Union and members of the Association, includ-
ing Respondent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Restaurant Operators, a multiemployer bar-
gaining association, and Theoni & Constantine Le-
cakis d/b/a Townhouse Restaurant are employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 6-578, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Work-
ers International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. All employees of Respondent, together with the
employees of Restaurant Operators, a multiemployer
bargaining association of which Respondent is a
member, excluding managers, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein the above-named
labor organization has been and now is the exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid ap-
propriate unit for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about September 26, 1975,
and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of all the employees
of Respondent in the appropriate unit by failing and
refusing to supply information necessary and rele-
vant for processing grievances and administering the
collective-bargaining agreement between the Union
and the members of the Association, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is
interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Theoni
& Constantine Lecakis d/b/a Townhouse Restau-
rant, Austin, Minnesota, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively by failing and
refusing to supply information necessary and rele-
vant for processing grievances and administering the
collective-bargaining agreement between Local 6-
578, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Internation-
al Union, AFL-CIO, and the employer-members of
Restaurant Operators, including Respondent, to said
labor organization as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees in the following appropri-
ate unit:
All employees of Respondent, together with
the employees of other members of Restaurant
Operators, a multiemployer bargaining associa-
tion of which Respondent is a member, exclud-
ing managers, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit by
supplying information necessary and relevant for
processing grievances and administering the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement between the above-named
labor organization and members of Restaurant Oper-
ators, including Respondent.
(b) Post at its Austin, Minnesota, restaurant cop-
ies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." I Cop-
ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 18, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18 in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
ORDER
1 In the event that 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 Anneals Enforcing an Order of the
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor National Labor Relations Board."
TOWNHOUSE RESTAURANT 1269
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain by refusing to
supply information necessary and relevant for
processing grievances and administering the col-
lective-bargaining contract between the employ-
er-members of Restaurant Operators, including
ourselves , and Local 6-578, Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO, as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below, by supplying information neces-
sary and relevant for processing grievances and
administering the above-mentioned collective-
bargaining agreement.
All employees of Respondent, together with
the employees of other members of Restau-
rant Operators, a multiemployer bargaining
association of which Respondent is a member,
excluding managers, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
THEONI & CONSTANTINE LECAKIS d/b/a
TOWNHOUSE RESTAURANT