Holmberg Roofing, Inc.

344 NLRB No. 50 Holmberg Roofing, Inc. and United Union of Roofers and Waterproofers, Local 81, AFL–CIO. Case 20–CA–32142–1 March 31, 2005 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND SCHAUMBER The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file an answer to the complaint. Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by the Union on October 19 and December 17, 2004, respectively, the General Counsel issued the complaint on December 22, 2004 against Holmberg Roofing, Inc., the Respondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The Re- spondent failed to file an answer. On January 21, 2005, the General Counsel filed a Mo- tion for Default Judgment with the Board. On January 26, 2005, the Board issued an order transferring the pro- ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. On February 7, 2005, the Union filed a Joinder in Motion for Default Judg- ment. The Respondent filed no response. The allega- tions in the motion are therefore undisputed. Ruling on Motion for Default 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. In addition, the complaint affirmatively stated that unless an answer was filed by January 5, 2005, all the allegations in the complaint could be considered ad- mitted. Further, the undisputed allegations in the Gen- eral Counsel’s motion disclose that the Region, by letter dated January 6, 2005, notified the Respondent that unless an answer was received by January 13, 2005, a motion for default 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 judgment. On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all material times, the Respondent, a California corporation with an office and place of business in Peta- luma, California (the Respondent’s facility), has been engaged in the construction industry as a residential roof- ing contractor. During the 12-month period ending November 30, 2004, the Respondent, in conducting its business opera- tions described above, derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased and received goods, supplies and materials valued in excess of $5000 which originated from points outside the State of California. 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 United Union of Roofers and Wa- terproofers, Local 81, AFL–CIO (the Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES At all material times, Alan Holmberg occupied the po- sition of the Respondent’s president, and has been a su- pervisor of the Respondent within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(11) of the Act and an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. The following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time and regular part-time journeyman roofers, apprentice roofers and foreman roofers employed by Holmberg Roofing, Inc., working out of its Petaluma, California facility; excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. Since about October 2002, 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 a collective-bargaining agreement effective by its terms for the period August 1, 2000 through July 31, 2005. At all times since about October 2002, based on Sec- tion 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit. Since about September 3, 2004, the Union, by its at- torney, has requested that the Respondent furnish the Union with the following information: 1. All jobs performed January 1, 2004, through No- vember 1, 2004; 2. Their locations; 3. The dates of those jobs; 4. The names of the workers on those jobs; 5. The nature of the jobs; 6. All employees employed by the Respondent from January 1, 2004, through November 1, 2004; DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL RELATIONS BOARD LABOR 2 7. Their rates of pay; 8. Their job classifications; 9. Their dates of hire; and 10. The names of those terminated from January 1, 2004, through November 1, 2004, the reasons for their termination, and the date each was terminated. The information requested by the Union, as described above, is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s per- formance of its duties as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the unit. Since about September 3, 2004, the Respondent, by Alan Holmberg, has failed and refused to furnish the Union with the information requested by it as described above. CONCLUSION OF LAW By the conduct described above, the Respondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively and in good faith with the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) 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 failed and refused to fur- nish the Union information that is relevant and necessary to its role as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employees, we shall order the Respondent to furnish the Union with the information it requested on September 3, 2004. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Holmberg Roofing, Inc., Petaluma, Califor- nia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing and refusing to furnish United Union of Roofers and Waterproofers, Local 81, AFL–CIO, with information necessary for and relevant to the perform- ance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appro- priate unit: All full-time and regular part-time journeyman roofers, apprentice roofers and foreman roofers employed by Holmberg Roofing, Inc., working out of its Petaluma, California facility; excluding all other employees, 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) Furnish the Union with the information it requested on September 3, 2004. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Petaluma, California, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”1 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, 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 September 3, 2004. (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 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 vio- lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf 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.” HOLMBERG ROOFING, INC. 3 Act together with other employees for your bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish United Union of Roofers and Waterproofers, Local 81, AFL–CIO, with information necessary for and relevant to the perform- ance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appro- priate unit: All full-time and regular part-time journeyman roofers, apprentice roofers and foreman roofers employed by us, working out of our Petaluma, California facility; exclud- ing all other employees, guards and supervisors as de- fined 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 furnish the Union with the information it re- quested on September 3, 2004. HOLMBERG ROOFING, INC.