V & J Cleaners Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1991

301 N.L.R.B. 1152 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

1152
301 NLRB No. 142
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The March 15 letter specifically mentioned the settlement agreement’s de-
fault clause (i.e., Appendix B) and stated that appropriate action would be
taken if the Respondent did not contact the field examiner to discuss the mat-
ter.
V & J Cleaners Co. and Local 25, Service Employ-
ees International Union, AFL–CIO. Case 13–
CA–27139
February 28, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND RAUDABAUGH
Upon a charge filed on August 19, 1987 by Local
25 of the Service Employees International Union,
AFL–CIO (the Union), the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director
for Region 13, issued a complaint against V & J
Cleaners Co. (the Respondent), alleging that it has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act. Copies of the charge and the complaint
and notice of hearing were duly served on the parties,
and the Respondent filed an answer on October 26,
1987.
On January 5, 1988, the parties entered into a settle-
ment agreement, approved by the Regional Director,
that, inter alia, provided for certain backpay payments
to be made by Respondent. This settlement agreement
included the following ‘‘Attachment B’’:
It is further agreed that in case of non-compliance
with any of the terms of this Settlement Agree-
ment by the Charged Party, including but not lim-
ited to, failure to make timely installment pay-
ment of monies as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, on motion for summary judment [sic]
by the General Counsel, the Answer of the
Charged Party shall be considered withdrawn and,
thereupon the Board may, without necessity of
trial or resumed trial find all allegations of the
Complaint [to] be true and make findings of fact
and conclusions of law consistent with those alle-
gations, adverse to the Charged Party on all issues
raised by the pleadings, and issue an Order pro-
viding full remedy for the violations so found as
is customary to remedy such violations, not lim-
ited to provisions of this Settlement Agreement.
The parties further agree that a Board Order and
a United States Court of Appeals judgment may
be entered hereon ex parte.
On December 4, 1990, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Order Transferring Proceedings to the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board and for Summary Judg-
ment for failure to make payments due under the set-
tlement agreement. On December 10, 1990, 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 re-
sponse. The allegations in the motion therefore are un-
disputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides 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. The complaint states that unless an answer
is filed within 14 days of service, ‘‘all of the allega-
tions in the complaint shall be deemed to be admitted
to be true and shall be so found by the Board.’’ Al-
though the Respondent filed an original answer to the
complaint, the undisputed allegations in the Motion for
Summary Judgment disclose that:
(1) the Respondent on January 5, 1988 entered into
a settlement agreement to make installment payments
of back wages by March 9, 1988;
(2) the settlement agreement provides that ‘‘in case
of non-compliance . . . on motion for summary judg-
ment by the General Counsel, the Answer of the
Charged Party shall be considered withdrawn’’ and the
case shall be treated as if no such answer were filed,
authorizing the Board to ‘‘find all allegations of the
Complaint [to] be true’’;
(3) the Respondent failed to make any such pay-
ments; and
(4) the field examiner for Region 13, by letters
dated March 14, 1989, and March 15, 1989, requested
that the Respondent take immediate steps to timely
comply with the terms of the settlement agreement and
pay the moneys due under the agreement.1
The Respondent has failed to make payments in ac-
cordance with the settlement agreement and, pursuant
to the agreement’s default clause, the Respondent’s an-
swer is considered to be withdrawn. In the absence of
an answer to the complaint, and the Respondent having
failed to show cause why the Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted, we grant the General
Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all times material, Respondent, a corporation en-
gaged in the retail business of providing drycleaning
services, has maintained a plant and offices at 1946
East 79th Street, Chicago, Illinois, and since March
1987 has operated retail outlets at the Lake Meadows
housing complex. During the year preceding issuance
of the complaint, or based on a projection of Respond-
1153V & J CLEANERS CO.
2 The Respondent’s $500,000 gross volume meets the Board’s discretionary
jurisdictional retail standard. See Carolina Supplies & Cement Co., 122 NLRB
88 (1958). The Respondent’s $5000 out-of-state business volume is not de
minimis, but well within the statutory standard set by the Supreme Court in
NLRB v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601, 607 (1939). See also Marty Levitt, 171
NLRB 739 (1968) (‘‘We are satisfied that $1,500 is more than the trifle or
matter of a few dollars which the courts have characterized as de minimis.’’).
3 We note that attachment B of the settlement agreement states that the
Board may grant a full and customary remedy in the event of a breach of the
agreement.
4 We leave to the compliance stage of this proceeding any questions con-
cerning the effect on backpay of the employee waivers.
5 See Missouri Portland Cement Co., 291 NLRB 1043 (1988).
ent’s operations from March through September 1987,
the Respondent has derived gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 annually in the course and conduct of its
business operations described above. During the year
preceding issuance of the complaint, Respondent, in
the course and conduct of its business operations de-
scribed above, purchased and received at its Chicago
facility products, goods, and materials valued in excess
of $5000 directly from points outside the State of Illi-
nois.2
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In late June 1987, the Respondent interrogated an
employee concerning her involvement in activities for
the Union, and on or about July 2, 1987, the Respond-
ent discharged Mary Williams and Veneta Allen. At all
times thereafter, the Respondent has failed and refused
to reinstate these employees. The Respondent dis-
charged and refused to reinstate Williams and Allen
because they joined, supported, or assisted the Union,
and engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
and in order to discourage employees from engaging in
such activities or other activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We find that by such acts and conduct, the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interrogating an employee concerning her in-
volvement in union activities, the Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging employees because they engaged
in activities on behalf of Local 25, Service Employees
International Union, AFL–CIO, the Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Sec-
tion 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.
The notice to employees that was to be posted pur-
suant to the settlement agreement indicates that
discriminatees Mary Williams and Veneta Allen
waived their rights to reinstatement and that the Re-
spondent agreed to pay them sums specified in the set-
tlement agreement in accordance with its terms. In
view of the Respondent’s failure to honor that agree-
ment, we shall disregard the waivers and issue an
order that provides the full remedy customarily di-
rected in cases involving discriminatory discharges.3
Accordingly, we shall order that the Respondent offer
Williams and Allen reinstatement and make them
whole, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), for any loss of earnings suffered as
a result of the discrimination against them, with inter-
est to be computed in the manner prescribed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).4
We shall also order the Respondent to remove from its
files any reference to the unlawful discharge and to no-
tify Williams and Allen that it has done so. The record
indicates that the Respondent initiated bankruptcy pro-
ceedings and therefore may no longer be in business.
To effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order
the Respondent, if it has ceased operating at its Chi-
cago location, to mail duly executed copies of the no-
tice to all employees employed on and after the dates
the unfair labor practices found here were committed.5
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, V & J Cleaners Co., Chicago, Illinois, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their in-
volvement in union activities.
(b) Discharging employees because they engage in
union activities on behalf of Local 25, Service Em-
ployees International Union, AFL–CIO, or any other
labor organization, or because of their protected con-
certed activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
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 Mary Williams and Veneta Allen imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
1154 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6 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 Rela-
tions Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them,
in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
decision.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the un-
lawful discharges of Williams and Allen and notify
them in writing that this has been done and that their
discharges will not be used against them 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 Chicago location copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix A.’’6 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent 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 Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material. If the Re-
spondent is no longer in business, mail to employees
copies of the notice as provided in the remedy section
of this decision.
(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.
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 interrogate you about your union ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any of you for engaging in activities on behalf
of Local 25, Service Employees International Union or
AFL–CIO or any other labor organization or because
of your protected or concerted 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 Mary Williams and Veneta Allen im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or,
if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed and we
will make them whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits resulting from their discharge, plus inter-
est.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the
unlawful discharges of Williams and Allen and WE
WILL notify them that this has been done and that their
discharges will not be used against them in any way.
V & J CLEANERS CO.