Ben Ruegsegger Trucking Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 26, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 828 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

828 DECISIONS -OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ben Ruegsegger Trucking , Service, Inc. and Local No.
486; International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Ind. Case 7-CA-11850
November 26, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
Upon a charge filed on March 13, 1975, as
amended on April 23, 1975, by Local No. 486,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., herein
called the Union, and duly served on Ben Ruegseg-
ger Trucking Service, Inc., herein called the Respon-
dent, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 7, issued a complaint on July 16, 1975,
against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(l) 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.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act by coercively interrogating its employees
with respect to their feelings about the Union, by
threatening its employees with closure of its opera-
tions if the Union attempted to resolve employment-
related disputes in accordance with the wishes of the
employees, and by indicating to its employees that
reprimands were being issued to certain employees
because of their support for the Union. Although
duly served with the complaint, Respondent failed to
file an answer thereto.
On August 29, 1975, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment based on Respondent's failure
to file an answer to the complaint. Subsequently, on
September 9, 1975, 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. Respondent thereafter, by letter dated
September 17, 1975, received on September 19, 1975,
responded to the Notice To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
221 NLRB No. 138
National, Labor 'Relations Board has delegated its
authority m- the 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 provides:
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 herein specifically stated that unless an
answer to the complaint was filed within 10 days of
service thereof "all of the allegations in the Com-
plaint shall be deemed to be admitted true and may
be so found by the Board." Further, according to the
uncontroverted allegations of the Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment, Respondent was advised by letter of
August 21, 1975, that its answer to the complaint was
overdue, and that unless an answer was filed by
August 26, 1975, the instant motion would be filed.
No answer has been filed. Respondent did submit a
letter, dated September 17, 1975, in response to the
Notice To Show Cause, adverting to the settlement
of charges alleging refusal to bargain and refusal to
arbitrate a discharge grievance and stating that no
further action need be taken herein. Those charges
have not been alleged as violations in the instant
complaint. The letter in no way controverts the
General Counsel's allegations in the Motion for
Summary Judgment and offers no explanation for
the failure to file a timely answer. Accordingly, under
the rule set forth above, no good cause having been
shown for the failure to file a timely answer, the
allegations of the complaint are deemed admitted
and are found to be true, and we shall grant the
General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
BEN RUEGSEGGER TRUCKING SERVICE
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Ben Ruegsegger Trucking Service, Inc., a Michigan
corporation with its principal place of business in
Kawkawlin, Michigan, is, and has been at all times
material herein, engaged in the business of operating
a trucking enterprise providing for the transportation
and carriage of beer and related products. During the
year ending December 31, 1974, a representative
period, the Respondent had a gross revenue in excess
of $200,000, of which revenue in excess of $150,000
was derived from the interstate transportation and
carriage of beer and related products from points
located within Michigan directly to points located
outside Michigan.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, 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.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No. 486, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Ind., is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The 8(a)(1) Violations
Respondent, -at its Kawkawlin, Michigan facility,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act by engaging in the following acts and
conduct:
1. In and about November 1974, Respondent
coercively interrogated its employees about their
sympathies and desires concerning the Union and
solicited employee interest in withdrawing from the
Union.
2. On or about December 3, 1974, Respondent
threatened its employees with closure of its opera-
tions in the event the Union attempted to secure
resolution of disputes involving wages, hours, and
other terms or conditions of employment in accord-
ance with the wishes of the employees.
3. In and about December 1974, Respondent
indicated to its employees that reprimands were
being issued to employees because of their activities
on behalf of and sympathies and support for the
Union.
Accordingly, we find that by the aforesaid conduct
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
829
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act, and by
such conduct Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
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 by interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 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. Ben Ruegsegger Trucking Service,' Inc., is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local No. 486, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Ind., 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 the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) 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 Respondent Ben
Ruegsegger Trucking Service, Inc., Kawkawlin,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. ' Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees about
their sympathies and desires concerning the Union
and soliciting employee interest in withdrawing from
the Union.
(b) Threatening its employees with closure of its
operations in the event the Union attempts to secure
resolution of disputes involving wages, hours, and
other terms or conditions of employment in accord-
ance with, the wishes of the employees.
(c) Indicating to its employees that reprimands are
being issued to employees because of their activities
on behalf of and sympathies and support for the
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 Kawkawlin, Michigan,, facility copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
1 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 "
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR . RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees about their sympathies and desires
concerning the Union or solicit employee interest
in withdrawing from the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
closure of operations in the event the. Union
attempts to secure resolution of disputes involving
wages, hours, and other terms ' or conditions of
employment in accordance with the wishes of the
employees.
WE WILL NOT indicate to our employees that
reprimands are being issued to employees because
of their activities on behalf of and sympathies and
support for the Union.
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 Act.
BEN RUEGSEGGER
TRUCKING SERVICE, INC.