The Monroe Furniture Company, Inc.

MONROE FURNITURE CO. The Monroe Furniture Company, Inc. and Ware- house, Mail Order, Office, Technical and Profes- sional Employees Union, Local 743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America. Case 13-CA- 16046 August 4, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELI O Upon a charge filed on December 7, 1976, by Warehouse, Mail Order, Office, Technical and Professional Employees Union, Local 743, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, and duly served on The Monroe Furniture Company, Inc., herein called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 13, issued a complaint and notice of hearing on February 28, 1977, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before an Administrative Law Judge were duly served on the parties to this proceeding. On April 4, 1977, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment based upon Respondent's failure to file an answer as required by Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Subsequently, on April 15. 1977, 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 granted. On May 1, 1977, Respondent filed a response to the Notice To Show Cause. On June 2 and 16, 1977, respectively, the Charging Party and the General Counsel filed motions to strike the Respondent's response. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority 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: 231 NLRB No. 33 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 complaint, unless the respondent is without knowledge, in which case the respondent shall so state, such statement operating as a denial. All allegations 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 admitted 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 the Respondent specifically states that unless an answer to the complaint is filed by the Respondent within 10 days of service thereof "all of the allegations in the Complaint shall be deemed to be admitted by it to be true and may be so found by the Board." Further, according to the Motion for Summary Judgment, on March 18, 1977, counsel for the General Counsel wrote a letter and had it personally delivered to Respondent notifying it of its failure to file an answer and requesting that Respondent file an answer to the complaint by March 23, 1977, and advising that unless an answer were filed by that date summary judgment would be sought. No reply had been received by April 4, 1977, the date of the motion and none of the parties had made a request for an extension of time to file an answer. In its response to the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent submitted a letter dated April 26, 1977, in which it generally denied the commission of unfair labor practices and declared that it was in a serious financial crisis and could not afford counsel; that its work force had been reduced to five employees; and that without an immediate injection of new capital it would be forced out of business. Attached to Respondent's letter was a notification from the Small Business Administration confirming Respondent's description of its precarious financial condition. Without considering their contention that the Re- spondent's response be stricken because of late service, the General Counsel and Charging Party contend that, in any event, the Respondent's letter of April 26, 1977, denying the commission of unfair labor practices was untimely filed as an answer. As indicated above, the Respondent was personally notified that a Motion for Summary Judgment would be filed if no answer to the complaint, which was served on March 2, 1977, were filed by March 23, 1977, the date of the Motion for Summary Judgment. Further, no request for an extension of time to file an 143 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD answer was made. The Respondent's response denying the commission of unfair labor practices and alleging financial inability and economic necessity does not explain why it failed to contact the Regional Office concerning an answer or an extension of time for filing an answer. We find that the Respondent's response does not constitute good cause for its failure to file a timely answer within the meaning of Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Therefore, in accord with the rule set forth above, the allegations of the complaint are deemed to be admitted and are so found by the Board and the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. ' On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is an Illinois corporation with an office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of office furniture. During the past year it received directly from States other than Illinois goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. During the same period, it sold and shipped from its Chicago, Illinois, plant, directly to customers outside the State of Illinois, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respondent is 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. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Warehouse, Mail Order, Office, Technical and Professional Employees Union, Local 743, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On or about September 30, 1976, Respondent, through its supervisor, interrogated and/or polled employees concerning their union activities, mem- bership, and desires, and on or about October 18, 1976, Respondent, through its supervisor, promised and granted wage increases to employees and threatened employees with layoff in order to induce them to refrain from giving support or assistance to I See Sullivan Magee & Sullivan Inc., 229 NLRB 543 (1977); Pat Malano dihb.a PM Cartage Co., 216 NLRB 688 (1975), and cases cited in fn. I therein. the Union. We find that Respondent, by the acts and conduct described above, has engaged in, and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its opera- tions 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 commerce and the free flow of com- merce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record, makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Monroe Furniture Company, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Warehouse, Mail Order, Office, Technical and Professional Employees Union, Local 743, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By the acts described in section III, above, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair 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 Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Monroe Furniture Company, Inc., Chicago, 144 MONROE FURNITURE CO. Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively, or otherwise unlawfully, interrogat- ing and/or polling its employees as to their union activities, membership, and desires. (b) Threatening its employees with layoffs in order to induce them to refrain from giving any support or assistance to Warehouse, Mail Order, Office, Techni- cal and Professional Employees Union, Local 743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. (c) Promising, or granting, wage increases to its employees in order to induce them to refrain from giving any support or assistance to the above-named Union. (d) 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) Post at its Chicago, Illinois, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by Respon- dent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous 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. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply here- with. 2 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 Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT coercively, or otherwise unlaw- fully, interrogate and/or poll our employees concerning their union activities, membership, and desires. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with layoffs, promise them wage increases, or grant them wage increases in order to induce them to refrain from giving support or assistance to Warehouse, Mail Order, Office, Technical and Professional Employees Union, Local 743, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. 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 National Labor Relations Act. THE MONROE FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. 145