Tri-County Insulation Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 25, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 224 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tri-County Insulation Company and William J.
Isaacs. Case 9 CA- 12929
January 25, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CIIAIRMAN FANNING AN[) MEiMBERS Jt NKINS
ANt) Mt RPIIY
Upon a charge filed on September 5, 1978. by Wil-
liam J. Isaacs, an individual, herein called the Charg-
ing Party, and duly served on Tri-County Insulation
Company, herein called Respondent, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for Region 9, issued a com-
plaint and notice of hearing on October 6, 1978,
against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (I) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies
of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing be-
fore an Administrative Law Judge were duly served
on the parties to this proceeding.
On November 22, 1978, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on December 5,
1978, the Board issued an order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted. Respondent failed
to 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, Series 8, as amended, provides as follows:
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 the
allegations in the complaint, if no answer is
filed, or any allegation in the complaint not spe-
cifically denied or explained in an answer filed,
unless the respondent shall state in the answer
240 NLRB No. 36
that he is without knowledge, shall be deemed to
be admitted to be true and shall be so found by
the Board, unless good cause to tile contrary is
shown.
The complaint and notice of hearing served on Re-
spondent' herein specifically states that unless an
answer to the complaint is filed within 10 days of
service thereof "all of the allegations contained in the
Complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true
and may be so found by the Board." According to
the uncontroverted allegations of the Motion for
Summary Judgment, a letter dated November 3.
1978, was sent to Respondent by registered mail stat-
ing that an answer had not been received and that if
no answer were filed counsel for the General Counsel
would move for summary judgment. Respondent
failed to file a response to the letter. As noted, Re-
spondent did not file an answer to the complaint or a
response to the Notice To Show Cause.
Accordingly, no good cause having been shown
for the failure to file a timely answer, the allegations
of the complaint are deemed admitted and are found
to be true and we hereby grant the Motion for Sum-
niary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Tri-County Insulation Company, at all times mate-
rial herein, has been a Kentucky corporation with its
principal place of business located in Louisville,
Kentucky, where it is engaged in the manufacture of
cellulose insulation. Since commencing operation in
November 1977, Respondent has purchased and re-
ceived goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 which were shipped to its Louisville, Ken-
tucky, facility from points outside the Common-
wealth of Kentucky. We therefore find that Respon-
dent is, and has beeen at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
II I lI UNFIAIR I. BOR PRA('II(ES
On or about August 14, 1978, Respondent dis-
According ti the unconiroerted allegations of the Moltion for Summnar
Jud gment. Respondenl was s erled cops of the cminplalint h regiltered
rmill II1 ccordance with Sec 112 I 11 of the Board' Rules and Regulltion.
Seric ,. .a imelmeded :and Sec 1(4) of the Act.
TRI-COUNTY INSUL,
charged William J. Isaacs and, at all times thereafter.
failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse.
to reinstate him to his former position of emplo?-
ment. because of said employee's membership in,
sympathy for, and'or activities on behalf of a labor
organization.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, and has discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure or terms and conditions of em-
ployment of its employees, thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization, and Respondent
has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and ( I ) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
At all times material herein, each of the following
individuals occupied the position set opposite his
name and is, and has been, an agent of Respondent,
acting on its behalf, and a supervisor within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act:
Donnie W. O'Steen-President
Ronald J. Haysley -Vice President
On or about August 14, 1978, Donnie W. O'Steen
coercively interrogated employees concerning their
union activities and threatened them with discharge
if they engaged in union activities and on or about
August 14, 1978. Ronald J. Haysley informed an em-
ployee that said employee was discharged for engag-
ing in union activities.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, and Respondent has thereby en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
III Il tl[ I- F[.Ci (OF Ill N AIR LABO)R PRA( i S t P ()N
(()OMMIt R( I.
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II.
above, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I. above have a close, intimate.
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing corm-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
IV IL RI IM )'
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act, we shall
ATION COMPANY 225
order that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the pol-
icies of the Act.
We have found that Respondent committed unfair
labor practices b interfering with the rights guaran-
teed employees by Section 7 of the Act, and we shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom in anN other
manner. In addition, Respondent will be ordered to
offer William J. Isaacs immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former position of employ ment or. if that
position no longer exists, to a substantiall 5 equiva-
lent position without prejudice to his seniorit or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, dis-
missing. if necessary, anyone who may have been as-
signed or hired to perform the work which Isaacs had
been performing prior to his termination on August
14. 1978. In addition, Respondent will be required to
make Isaacs whole for any loss of earnings he maN
have suffered bv reason of his unlawful termination
with backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis.
making deductions for interim earnings, and with in-
terest to be paid on the amount owing. Backpay and
interest are to be computed in the manner prescribed
in F 4 '. oolworth Conpan-y. 90 NLRB 289 (1950).
and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 N RB 651 (1977).'
Co'(..it si50o5 o- LA
I. Tri-County Insulation Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent's president, Donnie \W. O'Steen
and its vice president. Ronald J. Haysley, are, and
have been, agents of Respondent. acting on its be-
half, and are supervisors within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(11 ) of the Act.
3. Respondent. b discharging employee William
J. Isaacs and by failing and refusing to reinstate said
employee because of his union activities, has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
4. Respondent, b the conduct of its president.
Donnie W. O'Steen, coercively interrogated employ-
ees concerning their union activities and threatened
them with discharge if they engaged in such activi-
ties. and thereby has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( 1 ) of the Act.
5. Respondent b the conduct of its vice presi-
dent. Ronald J. Ha)sley. informed an employee that
he was discharged for engaging in union activities.
and therebh has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I ) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
: See ?lcr.lilx /. P wit a. , et Icltn (., 11 N RH 7I h (19ht, )
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Tri-County Insulation Company, Louisville, Ken-
tucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns.
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating
against its employees with regard to their hire or ten-
ure of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment for engaging in activities on behalf of a
labor organization or for engaging in activity protect-
ed by Section 7 of the Act.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees concern-
ing their union activities and threatening them with
discharge if they engage in such activities.
(c) Informing employees that they were dis-
charged for engaging in union activities.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer William J. Isaacs immediate and full re-
instatement to his former position of employment,
dismissing, if necessary, anyone who may have been
hired or assigned to perform the work which Isaacs
had been performing prior to his termination on Au-
gust 14, 1978, or, if his former position does not exist,
to a substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges pre-
viously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered as a result of discrimina-
tion in the manner set forth above in the section enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its Louisville, Kentucky, place of busi-
ness copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be post-
ed by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable 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 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
In the esent that this Order is enforced kh a judgment of a United States
Courl of Appeals. the words n the notice reading "Posled hb Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the nited States (Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National I.ahor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
NoricE To EMPI.OYFIES
PosIE-D BY ORDER OF THE
NAIIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD)
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against you with regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment for engaging in activities on behalf of
any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you con-
cerning your union activities nor will we threat-
en you with discharge if you engage in such ac-
tivities.
WF WIL.L NOT inform any employee that he or
she was discharged for engaging in union activi-
ties.
WtE wli,. N01l in any' other manner interefere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any labor
organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of your own choosing, to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities.
WE wil. offer William J. Isaacs immediate
and full reinstatement to his former position,
dismissing, if necessary, anyone who may have
been hired or assigned to perform the work
which he had been performing prior to the time
he was terminated or, if his former position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and wE
WILL make him whole for any loss he may have
suffered as a result of our discrimination, with
interest.
TRI-COUNTY INSUI.ANION COMPANY