American Backflow & Fire Prevention, Inc.

373 NLRB No. 71 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. American Backflow & Fire Prevention, Inc. and Plumbers Local 130, United Association of Journeymen and Ap- prentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL–CIO. Case 13–CA– 288185 June 25, 2024 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS KAPLAN, PROUTY, AND WILCOX The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this case pursuant to the terms of an informal settlement agreement. Fol- lowing the filing of a charge by Plumbers Local 130, United As- sociation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL–CIO (the Union), on December 28, 2021, as amended on March 15, 2022, against American Backflow & Fire Prevention (the Re- spondent), the parties entered into a bilateral informal settlement agreement, which was approved by the Acting Regional Director for Region 13 on April 26, 2022. Amng other things, the settlement agreement required the Re- spondent to: (1) post and read the attached notice in its facility at 111 Kerry Lane, Wauconda, Illinois; (2) remove from its bulletin board a posting from December 2021 seeking to decertify the Union; (3) if requested by the Union, meet at reasonable times and intervals and bargain in good faith with the Union as em- ployees’ recognized bargaining representative and put in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and conditions of em- ployment for unit employees; (4) agree that, pursuant to Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962), the certification year will be extended to January 24, 2023—a date 12 months from the point at which the parties agree that the Respondent began to bargain in good faith; (5) commit to a bargaining schedule of not less than four bargaining sessions per month, with each session span- ning at least eight hours in length, provided that the Union re- quests and/or agrees to bargain for this number of sessions in any given month, until a collective-bargaining agreement or lawful impasse is reached; and (6) provide the Union with the relevant information it requested on November 23, 2021, and November 29, 2021. The settlement agreement also contained the following provi- sion: The Charged Party agrees that in case of non-compliance with any of the terms of this Settlement Agreement by the Charged Party, and after 14 days’ notice from the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board of such non-compliance without remedy by the Charged Party, the Regional Director will issue a Complaint that includes the allegations covered by the Notice to Employees, as identified above in the Scope of Agreement section, as well as filing and service of the charge(s), commerce facts necessary to establish Board 1 All dates hereinafter are in 2023. jurisdiction, labor organization status, appropriate bargaining unit (if applicable), and any other allegations the General Counsel would ordinarily plead to establish the unfair labor practices. Thereafter, the General Counsel may file a Motion for Default Judgment with the Board on the allegations of the Complaint. The Charged Party understands and agrees that all of the allegations of the Complaint will be deemed admitted and that it will have waived its right to file an Answer to such Complaint. The only issue that the Charged Party may raise before the Board will be whether it defaulted on the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The General Counsel may seek, and the Board may impose, a full remedy for each unfair labor practice identified in the Notice to Employees. The Board may then, without necessity of trial or any other proceeding, find all allegations of the Complaint to be true and make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with those allegations adverse to the Charged Party on all issues raised by the plead- ings. The Board may then issue an Order providing a full rem- edy for the violations found as is appropriate to remedy such violations. The parties further agree that a U.S. Court of Ap- peals Judgment may be entered enforcing the Board Order ex parte, after service or attempted service upon Charged Party at the last address provided to the General Counsel. By letter dated April 28, 2022, the Region’s compliance assis- tant sent the Respondent a copy of the conformed settlement agreement, with a cover letter explaining the remedial actions it was required to take by May 12, 2022, in order to comply. There is no allegation that the Respondent failed to comply with the settlement agreement at that time or did not provide the required certification of compliance. On March 13, 2023,1 despite holding a bargaining session on March 7, the Respondent notified the Union and Sprinkler Fitters Local 281 that it was immediately withdrawing recognition of them as its unit employees’ exclusive collective-bargaining rep- resentatives and was cancelling all scheduled meetings, includ- ing a scheduled bargaining session for March 28. The Respond- ent stated that, “[a]s reflected in the multiple enclosed letters, [the Respondent] has been presented with documentary evidence that Locals 281/130 no longer enjoys the support of an uncoerced majority of the employees.” By email dated May 26, the Region notified the Respondent that it had failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement, including by “unlawfully with[drawing] recognition” of the Union and “refusing to bargain in good faith,” and that a complaint would issue if it did not comply with the settlement within 14 days. Furthermore, the Region informed the Respond- ent that it found merit to a separate charge in Case 13–CA– 313981 alleging that, since about March 13, the Respondent failed and refused to bargain with the Union and Sprinkler Fitters Local 281 by cancelling a scheduled bargaining session and that the Respondent’s unlawful withdrawal of recognition and refusal to bargain had the effect of creating disaffection with the Union among the bargaining-unit employees and led to employees fil- ing tainted decertification petitions. The Region advised the Re- spondent that a complaint would also issue in Case 13–CA– DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 313981 if the Respondent failed to comply with the settlement within 14 days. By email that same day, the Respondent replied “[t]ake whatever action you believe is appropriate.” On August 28, the Regional Director issued an Order Further Consolidating Cases, Second Consolidated Complaint and No- tice of Hearing (the second consolidated complaint) in Case 13- CA-313981 alleging, among other things, that: (1) the Respond- ent altered its hiring practices to discourage “employees of Re- spondent, including applicants . . . and others” who had “joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities” (par. 8); (2) the Respondent withdrew recognition of the Union on March 13 (par. 12); (3) the Union requested that the Respondent bargain collectively about the terms for an initial collective-bar- gaining agreement by confirming a negotiation session for March 28 but that the Respondent has refused to bargain since March 13 (par. 11); and (4) the Respondent’s withdrawal of recognition was based on tainted decertification petitions filed between October 17, 2022, and March 6 (par. 13). In its September 11 amended answer to the second consoli- dated complaint, while denying that it has refused to bargain since March 13 (par. 11(b)), the Respondent admitted that: (1) the Union requested that the Respondent confirm a negotiation session for March 28 (par. 11(a)); (2) on March 13, it withdrew its recognition of the Union as its employees’ collective-bargain- ing representative (par. 12); (3) it altered its hiring practices to discourage employees and applicants from engaging in con- certed activity with the Union (par. 8(c)); and (4) employees had filed twenty decertification petitions between October 17, 2022 and March 6 (par. 13). Thereafter, on October 7, in accordance with the noncompli- ance provisions of the settlement agreement, the Regional Direc- tor issued a complaint based on breach of provisions of settle- ment agreement. On November 29, the General Counsel filed the instant Motion for Default Judgment. On December 1, the Board issued an Order Transferring the Proceeding to the Board and Notice to Show Cause why the Motion for Default Judgment should not be granted. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its author- ity in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment The General Counsel contends in her Motion for Default Judgment that, by unlawfully withdrawing recognition and can- celling any future bargaining sessions, the Respondent breached its obligations under the settlement agreement to recognize the “Union [as] the exclusive collective bargaining representative” and to commit to “meet[ing] with the Union at reasonable times and intervals to bargain for a collective-bargaining agreement.” Moreover, the General Counsel asserts that the Respondent’s ad- missions in its September 11 amended answer to the August 28 second consolidated complaint demonstrate that the Respondent unlawfully withdrew recognition. The General Counsel notes that the withdrawal of recognition occurred while there were un- remedied unfair labor practices because the Respondent, by its 2 The General Counsel did not file a response to the Notice to Show Cause or a reply to the Respondent’s response. own admission, altered its hiring practices to discourage employ- ees and applicants from engaging in concerted activity and com- mitted the other unfair labor practices alleged in the August 28 second consolidated complaint that remained unremedied when employees filed their decertification petitions. The General Counsel requests that the Board issue a Decision and Order against the Respondent containing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law based on the allegations in the complaint and that the Board require the Respondent to “comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement” and “grant [] such other relief as may be just and proper to remedy the violations described in the com- plaint.” In response to the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent notes that, on December 14, it filed an amended answer to the August 28 second consolidated complaint to deny the allegation that it altered its hiring practices to discourage employees and applicants from engaging in concerted activity with the Union. Furthermore, the Respondent contends that it has not engaged in conduct with the intent to discourage union activity or cause dis- affection with the Union and claims that the Region is mistaken in its assertion that the Respondent relied on decertification pe- titions filed between October 7, 2022, and March 6 to withdraw recognition of the Union. The Union points out in its reply to the Respondent’s response that the Respondent has admitted to withdrawing recognition from the Union and refusing to meet and bargain in good faith with the Union as the employees’ bargaining representative, in contravention of the settlement agreement. The Union also notes that the Respondent’s March 13 letter to the Union cited the de- certification petitions as its basis for withdrawing recognition. The Union argues that, even if the Board accepts the Respond- ent’s shifting defense that it did not rely on the decertification petitions, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1), and thereby failed to comply with the settlement agreement, by with- drawing recognition without objective evidence of the Union’s loss of majority support.2 As noted above, the Respondent does not dispute the crux of the General Counsel’s argument relating to the Respondent’s withdrawal of recognition of the Union and refusal to bargain. In fact, the Respondent admits in its December 14 second amended answer that it withdrew recognition of the Union and cancelled a scheduled bargaining session for March 28. The Re- spondent could only do so—even though the one-year extension of the certification year provided for in the settlement agreement had elapsed—if it had objective evidence of the Union’s loss of majority support. See Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pacific, 333 NLRB 717, 725 (2001). In its response to the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent has not attested to having the requisite evidence. Granted, the Respondent claimed in its March 13 letter to the Union that it relied on several decertification petitions. However, after the Region asserted that those petitions were tainted by the Respond- ent’s unlawful conduct, the Respondent maintained that it did not rely on the petitions at all, without proffering the evidence, if any, it had relied on to support its withdrawal of recognition. AMERICAN BACKFLOW & FIRE PREVENTION, INC. 3 Notably, the Respondent has made no effort—either in response to the Region’s May 26 email or the Board’s December 1 Notice to Show Cause—to explain how its conduct was consistent with the settlement agreement by having had a lawful basis to with- draw recognition.3 Accordingly, because the Respondent failed to comply with the settlement agreement, we grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment and, pursuant to the noncompliance provisions of the settlement agreement set forth above, find all of the allegations in the complaint to be true.4 On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all material times, the Respondent has been a corporation with an office and place of business located in Wauconda, Illi- nois (the Respondent’s facility) and has been engaged in the business of installing and repairing backflow, plumbing, and fire line safety inspection equipment. During the preceding 12 months (a representative period), the Respondent, in conducting its business operations described above, purchased and received at the Respondent’s facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside of the State of Illinois. We find that at all material times the Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. We further find that at all material times the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1. At all material times, the following individuals held the 3 As noted above, the settlement agreement provides that “[t]he only issue that the Charged Party may raise before the Board [is] whether it defaulted on the terms of this Settlement Agreement.” Although the Re- spondent generally denies that its withdrawal of recognition was unlaw- ful, it has otherwise made no effort to show that its withdrawal of recog- nition was consistent with the settlement. Such a general denial is neither an adequate refutation of the General Counsel’s detailed account of the conduct that constituted a breach of the settlement nor sufficient to raise any material issue of fact warranting a hearing. See, e.g., Alaris at Ham- ilton Park Health Care Center, 366 NLRB No. 90, slip op. at 1–2 & fn. 2 (2018) (respondent “failed to raise any material issue of fact warranting a hearing” when it offered only a “general denial that it breached the settlement agreement” and otherwise “offered nothing that would specif- ically refute the General Counsel’s detailed account of the Respondent’s breach”); Williamsville Suburban, LLC, 365 NLRB No. 14, slip op. at 2 (2017) (granting a motion for default judgment where respondents failed to support their general denial that they had breached the settlement agreement). 4 We do not agree with our dissenting colleague that the General Counsel creates “confusion” by using the term “default judgment” in set- tlement agreements to describe a motion seeking judgment on unfair la- bor practice complaint allegations in the event of a breach of the settle- ment agreement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, in the event of a settlement breach, “all allegations of the complaint will be deemed ad- mitted” and the Respondent “will have waived its right to file an answer to such Complaint.” As with a motion filed against a party that has failed to plead or otherwise defend against an action, the term “default judg- ment” is reasonably used to describe a motion where no response to the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the Respondent within the mean- ing of Section 2(13) of the Act: Thomas Grubbs - Plumbing Division Manager Dan Harbut - Owner Kaden Harbut - IT Manager James Hermann - Backflow Division Manager David Larcombe - Fire Suppression Division Manager David Loes - Operations Manager Joshua Quintana - Fire Sprinkler Division Manager Ramon Quintero - Fire Alarm Division Manager 2. About December 7, 2021, the Respondent interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights by posting and/or allowing a decer- tification petition to be posted at the Respondent’s facility. 3. About December 7, 2021, the Respondent, by David Loes, interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights by emailing employ- ees notifying them that a decertification petition was posted at the Respondent’s facility. 4. About December 7, 2021, the Respondent, by David Loes, via electronic mail, solicited employees to sign a decertification petition by informing employees that a decertification petition was posted at the Respondent’s facility. 5. About December 7, 2021, the Respondent, by David Loes, via electronic mail, provided more than ministerial assistance to employees in helping them get rid of the Union. 6. About July 6, 2021, the Respondent, by David Loes, at the Respondent’s facility, by telling employees that it would not ne- gotiate with the Union, informed its employees that it would be futile for them to select the Union as their bargaining representa- tive. allegations of the complaint is permitted because the only issue that re- mains litigable is the issue of whether the Respondent defaulted on the terms of the settlement agreement. In addition, contrary to our colleague, we find that the settlement agreement in this case does expressly address the grounds on which the General Counsel is alleging a breach here. The settlement agreement provides that the Respondent, upon the Union’s request, would bargain in good faith with the Union and commit to a bargaining schedule until a collective-bargaining agreement or lawful impasse is reached. There is no dispute that, despite the Union’s request, the Respondent unilaterally ceased bargaining with the Union. As noted above, the Respondent has not proffered any evidence to raise a material issue of fact to require a hearing on the issue of whether it breached the settlement agreement and has only defended its failure to bargain by making the unsupported assertion that its withdrawal of recognition and refusal to bargain were lawful. This general denial of having violated the Act with nothing more—after being given the opportunity by the Re- gion and in response to the Board’s Notice to Show Cause to provide at least some substantiation of its claim that the Union no longer enjoyed majority support—is not sufficient. Moreover, contrary to our col- league’s suggestion, we do not “prematurely” rule on the merits of the General Counsel’s allegations in Case 13–CA–313981. Instead, in the face of a breach of the settlement agreement, the allegation that the Re- spondent has failed to adhere to its bargaining obligation is ripe for sum- mary disposition. Here, the only issue is whether the Respondent de- faulted on the terms of the settlement agreement. We find that it has. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 7. About July 6, 2021, the Respondent, by David Loes, at the Respondent’s facility, threatened employees that it would re- place the Union by selecting its own collective-bargaining rep- resentative. 8. The following employees of the Respondent (the unit) con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time and regular part-time journeymen and apprentice Fire Sprinkler Technicians, Fire Sprinkler/Ansul Technicians, Plumbers, and Backflow Technicians employed by the Re- spondent at its facility currently located at 111 Kerry Lane, Wauconda, Illinois 60084; but excluding all other employees, managers, office clericals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 9. On June 9, 2021, a representation election was conducted among the employees in the unit, and on June 22, 2021, the Un- ion was certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the unit. 10. At all times since June 9, 2021, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit. 11. Since about November 23, 2021, the Union has requested, in writing, that the Respondent furnish the Union with infor- mation. 12. The information requested by the Union as described in paragraph 11 above, excluding Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Union’s November 23, 2021 letter to the Respondent, is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the ex- clusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit. 13. Since about November 29, 2021, the Union has requested, in writing, that the Respondent furnish the Union with infor- mation. 14. The information requested by the Union as described in paragraph 13 above, is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit. 15. Since about November 21, 2021, the Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the Union with the relevant infor- mation requested by it as described above in paragraph 11. 16. Since about November 29, 2021, the Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the Union with the relevant infor- mation requested by it as described above in paragraph 13. 17. At various times from about June 2021 through December 2021, the Union has requested that Respondent meet for the pur- poses of negotiating a collective-bargaining agreement. 5 The General Counsel does not allege that the Respondent violated any other terms of the settlement agreement other than the Respondent’s unlawful withdrawal of recognition of the Union and refusal to bargain in good faith, including cancelling a scheduled bargaining session. As noted above, the Region’s April 28, 2022 letter to the Respondent solic- iting compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement required the Respondent to take the required actions and provide certification to the Region of it having done so by May 12, 2022. Because it was not until May 26, 2023, that the Region notified the Respondent of its failure to comply with the settlement agreement, and the General Counsel’s Mo- tion for Default Judgment does not allege any other violations, the 18. During the period described above in paragraph 17, the Respondent refused to meet at reasonable times and intervals. 19. By its overall conduct, including the conduct described above in paragraph 18, the Respondent has failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the Unit. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 2-7, the Re- spondent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. By its overall conduct, including the conduct described in paragraphs 11–19, the Respondent has failed and refused to bar- gain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of the unit, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 3. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent described above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un- fair labor practices, we shall order it to take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifi- cally, we shall order the Respondent to comply with the unmet terms of the settlement agreement approved by the Acting Re- gional Director for Region 13 on April 26, 2022. Accordingly, having found that the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order the Respondent, on request, to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of unit em- ployees and, if an understanding is reached, to embody the un- derstanding in a signed agreement. The Respondent shall meet and bargain collectively with the Union on specified scheduled dates as agreed on by the parties, at least four times a month, for at least 8 hours per meeting, provided that the Union requests and/or agrees to bargain for this number of sessions in any given month, until a complete collective-bargaining agreement or law- ful impasse is reached.5 In limiting our affirmative remedies to those enumerated above, we are mindful that the General Counsel is empowered under the default provision of the settlement agreement to seek “a full remedy for the violations found as is appropriate to rem- edy such violations.”6 However, in her Motion for De- fault Judgment, the General Counsel has not sought such addi- tional remedies, and we will not, sua sponte, include them.7 Respondent presumably has satisfied all of its other obligations under the settlement agreement. 6 As set forth above, the settlement agreement provided that, in case of noncompliance, the Board may issue such a full remedy. 7 See, e.g., Benchmark Mechanical, Inc., 348 NLRB 576, 578 (2006). The General Counsel specifically requests in her Motion for Default Judgment that the Board issue “a Decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law based on, and in accordance with, the allegations of the Complaint, remedying such unfair labor practices, including re- quiring Respondent to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agree- ment, including cease and desist, recission, and notice requirements, and AMERICAN BACKFLOW & FIRE PREVENTION, INC. 5 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respond- ent, American Backflow & Fire Prevention, Inc., Wauconda, IL, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the follow- ing affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. 1. If requested by the Union, meet at reasonable times and intervals and bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, put in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and conditions of em- ployment: All full-time and regular part-time journeymen and apprentice Fire Sprinkler Technicians, Fire Sprinkler/Ansul Technicians, Plumbers, and Backflow Technicians employed by the Em- ployer at its facility currently located at 111 Kerry Lane, Wauconda, Illinois 60084; but excluding all other employees, managers, office clericals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. Commit to a bargaining schedule of not less than four bar- gaining sessions per month, with each session spanning at least eight hours in length, provided that the Union requests and/or agrees to bargain for this number of sessions in any given month, until a collective-bargaining agreement or lawful impasse is reached. 3. Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 13 a sworn affidavit of a responsi- ble official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C. June 25, 2024 ________________________________________ David M. Prouty, Member ________________________________________ Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MEMBER KAPLAN, dissenting. I would not grant the General Counsel’s motion for default judgment in this matter. To begin, this case exemplifies the in- herent confusion caused by the wording used in the General Counsel’s settlement agreements. First, the settlement granting such other relief as may be just and proper to remedy the viola- tions described in the complaint.” We construe the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment—in particular its reference to requiring the Respondent “to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement”— as only seeking enforcement of the unmet provisions of the settlement agreement. See, e.g., Sun Holdings, Inc. & Florida Pop, LLC d/b/a Pop- eye’s Louisiana Kitchen, 372 NLRB No. 150, slip op. at 5 & fn. 5 (2023); agreements use the term “default judgment” when, in reality, they are not applying a default judgment standard. Under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, default judgment is appropriate under the following circumstance: “Where a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend” the action at issue. Accord- ingly, under the long-established, widely recognized meaning of the legal term “default judgment,” a party is not required to prof- fer any evidence in support of its position. Rather, it is only re- quired to file a response defending itself from the action against it. The Respondent’s response here clearly conforms with the requirements of Rule 55; namely, the Respondent filed a re- sponse to the Notice to Show Cause denying that it breached the settlement agreement. So, if not a “default judgment” analysis, what analysis is to be applied in determining whether the Respondent breached the set- tlement agreement? It is not particularly clear from the settle- ment language. The agreement states, in relevant part: [T]he General Counsel may file a Motion for Default Judgment with the Board on the allegations of the Complaint. The Charged Party understands and agrees that all of the allegations of the Complaint will be deemed admitted and that it will have waived its right to file an Answer to such Complaint. The only issue that the Charged Party may raise before the Board will be whether it defaulted on the terms of this Settlement Agree- ment. The General Counsel may seek, and the Board may im- pose, a full remedy for each unfair labor practice identified in the Notice to Employees. The Board may then, without neces- sity of trial or any other proceeding, find all allegations of the Complaint to be true and make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with those allegations adverse to the Charged Party on all issues raised by the pleadings. (Emphases added). So, even though the settlement agreement expressly reserves for the Respondent the ability to dispute whether it breached the settlement agreement, it appears that, un- der the settlement’s terms, the Board has the right to reject the Respondent’s defense without even resolving any conflicting as- sertions of fact or law. This makes some sense when the question whether a settlement agreement is breached or not is straightfor- ward—for example, whether a respondent posted a notice or made employees whole as required by the settlement. That is a black and white question. But I am not sure that it makes sense where, as here, the settlement agreement does not expressly ad- dress the grounds upon which the General Counsel is alleging that the agreement was breached: an unlawful withdrawal of recognition. The determination of that legal question turns on facts beyond the scope of the settlement agreement. Accord- ingly, I believe that the Respondent is entitled to a hearing on that issue. Which brings me to the second reason for my dissent. The East End Bus Lines, Inc. and Floyd Bus Company, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 54, slip op. at 5–6 & fn. 12 (2016). In these circumstances, because the General Counsel only seeks compliance with the settlement agreement and there is no allegation that the Respondent has failed to comply with the other provisions of the settlement agreement not mentioned in the Motion for Default Judgment, we decline the Union’s request for a full remedy. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6 General Counsel chose to file a complaint prior to filing its mo- tion for default judgment that alleges that the Respondent unlaw- fully withdrew recognition from the Union, and the Respond- ent’s answer denies that charge.1 Accordingly, before the instant motion was filed, the General Counsel filed a complaint address- ing the very legal issue before the Board at this time—whether the Respondent’s withdrawal of recognition from the Union vi- olated the Act. In her motion for default judgment, the General Counsel could have indicated that, should the Board grant its mo- tion for default judgment, she would withdraw her complaint in the other matter. But not only did she not do so, she failed to even mention the previously filed complaint in her motion for default judgment.2 Accordingly, for all intents and purposes, my colleagues today are prematurely finding that the General Coun- sel’s allegations in Case 13–CA–313981 have merit, before any hearing is held to establish the facts surrounding the Respondent’s withdrawal of recognition and before any admin- istrative law judge has the opportunity to make credibility deter- minations regarding the relevant circumstances. Because I would not prejudge a case that has the potential to reach the Board in the future, I do not find it proper to determine here that the Respondent unlawfully withdrew recognition from the Un- ion. Dated, Washington, D.C. June 25, 2024 ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 See Case 13–CA–313981. 2 Case 13–CA–313981 was mentioned in Exhs. 4 and 6 to the General Counsel’s motion, but not in the motion itself.