H.W. Weidco/Ren LLC d/b/a South Jersey Extended Care

368 NLRB No. 80 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. H.W. Weidco/Ren LLC d/b/a South Jersey Extended Care and United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 152. Case 04–CA–213035 September 24, 2019 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS MCFERRAN, KAPLAN, AND EMANUEL The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this case on the ground that H.W. Weidco/Ren, LLC d/b/a South Jersey Extended Care (the Respondent) failed to file an answer to the amended complaint. Upon a charge and amended charges filed by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 152 (the Un- ion) on January 16 and 31 and February 2, 2018, the Gen- eral Counsel initially issued a complaint on June 26, 2018, alleging that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondent failed to file an answer. On July 25, 2018, the General Counsel filed with the National La- bor Relations Board a Motion for Default Judgment. The Board denied the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment on May 10, 2019, because the com- plaint did not include certain factual allegations necessary for finding the alleged violation.1 H.W. Weidco/Ren LLC d/b/a S. Jersey Extended Care, 367 NLRB No. 126 (2019). Nevertheless, the Board found that “[n]othing herein will require a hearing if, in the event the complaint is appropri- ately amended, the Respondent again fails to answer, thereby admitting evidence that would permit the Board to find the alleged violation.” Id. slip op. at 2. On May 20, 2019, the General Counsel issued an amended complaint consistent with the Board’s direction. The Respondent again failed to file an answer. On July 18, 2019, the General Counsel filed with the Board a Sec- ond Motion for Default Judgment. On July 24, 2019, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted, to which the Respondent failed to respond. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that the allegations in a complaint shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days from service of the complaint, unless good cause is shown. 1 As explained in her dissent in H.W. Weidco/Ren LLC d/b/a S. Jersey Extended Care, 367 NLRB No. 126, slip op. 3 (2019), Member McFer- ran would have granted the General Counsel’s motion for default In addition, the amended complaint affirmatively stated that unless an answer was received by June 3, 2019, the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for default judg- ment, that the allegations in the amended complaint are true. Further, the undisputed allegations in the General Counsel’s motion disclose that the Region, by letter dated July 8, 2019, advised the Respondent that unless an an- swer was received by July 15, 2019, a motion for default judgment would be filed. Nonetheless, the Respondent failed to file an answer. In the absence of good cause being shown for the failure to file an answer, we deem the allegations in the amended complaint to be admitted as true, and we grant the General Counsel’s Second 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 New Jersey lim- ited liability company, has operated a rehabilitation and long-term care nursing facility in Bridgeton, New Jersey (the facility). During the year preceding issuance of the amended complaint, the Respondent, in conducting its business op- erations described above, derived gross revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchased and received at the facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of New Jersey. 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 a health-care institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act, and that 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, the following named individuals held the positions at the facility set forth opposite their re- spective names and have been supervisors of the Respond- ent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Joshua Rosenberg Administrator Marquise Williams Dietary Director The following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act (the unit): judgment in the first instance, because her view is that the complaint suf- ficiently stated the alleged violation as required under Sec. 102.15 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations and raised no due process concerns. 2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All full-time and part-time janitors, dietary and kitchen employees, nurse’s aides, orderlies, laundry, housekeep- ing employees, cooks, and restorative aides employed at the company’s nursing home in Bridgeton, New Jersey, excluding all business office clerical employees, tech- nical employees, registered nurses, confidential employ- ees, managerial employees, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Since about 1993, and at all material times, the Re- spondent has recognized the Union as the exclusive col- lective-bargaining representative of the unit. This recog- nition has been embodied in successive collective-bar- gaining agreements, the most recent of which was effec- tive from April 15, 2014, through April 15, 2018, and was extended by agreement of the parties to May 31, 2019. At all material times since at least 1993, based on Sec- tion 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive col- lective-bargaining representative of the unit. The following events occurred, giving rise to this pro- ceeding. About December 27, 2017, the Respondent, by Joshua Rosenberg, at a conference room at the facility, denied the request of its employee Rosalind Hickman to be repre- sented by a union representative during an investigatory interview. At all material times, including on December 27, 2017, Rosalind Hickman was in the unit. Rosalind Hickman had reasonable cause to believe that the interview described above would result in disciplinary action being taken against her. About December 27, 2017, the Respondent, by Joshua Rosenberg and Marquise Williams, at a conference room at the facility, conducted the interview described above with Rosalind Hickman, even though the Respondent de- nied the employee’s request for union representation de- scribed above. CONCLUSION OF LAW By the conduct described above, the Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Re- spondent’s unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of 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 2 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 Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re- spondent, H.W. Weidco/Ren LLC d/b/a South Jersey Ex- tended Care, Bridgeton, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing the requests of employees for union rep- resentation during investigatory meetings which they rea- sonably believe may result in discipline. (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) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Bridgeton, New Jersey facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, af- ter 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, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are custom- arily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper no- tices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former em- ployees employed by the Respondent at its Bridgeport, New Jersey facility at any time since December 27, 2017. (b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 4 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com- ply. Dated, Washington, D.C. September 24, 2019 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Member United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” H.W. WEIDCO/REN LLC D/B/A SOUTH JERSEY EXTENDED CARE 3 _____________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member _____________________________________ William J. Emanuel, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 vi- olated 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 Act together with other employees for your bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac- tivities. WE WILL NOT refuse your requests for union representa- tion during investigatory interviews that you reasonably believe may result in discipline. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above. H.W. WEIDCO/REN LLC D/B/A SOUTH JERSEY EXTENDED CARE The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/04-CA-213035 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.