Gregory Sheets d/b/a Tri-Parish Electric, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1998

325 N.L.R.B. 667 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

667
325 NLRB No. 118
TRI-PARISH ELECTRIC
1 Judge Cates did not pass on the General Counsel’s other motions,
‘‘allow[ing] Counsel for the General Counsel to file what, if any,
motions she may deem appropriate with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.’’
Gregory Sheets d/b/a Tri-Parish Electric, Inc. and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers Local Union No. 995, AFL–CIO. Cases 15–
CA–13308 and 15–CA–13331
April 20, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, HURTGEN, AND BRAME
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by the
Union on July 13 and 21, 1995, respectively in Case
15–CA–13308, and upon a charge filed by the Union
on July 24, 1995, in Case 15–CA–13331, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued
a consolidated complaint on August 31, 1995, against
Gregory Sheets d/b/a Tri-Parish Electric, Inc., the Re-
spondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and (4) of the Act. On September 13, 1995, an un-
dated, unsigned document labeled ‘‘Answers to Com-
plaint by Number and Paragraph’’ (the answer) was re-
ceived by the Regional Director for Region 15. On
September 18, 1995, the General Counsel issued an
amended complaint alleging violations of the same
sections of the Act. Although properly served copies of
the amended complaint, the Respondent failed to file
an answer.
On June 6, 1996, the General Counsel filed with As-
sociate Administrative Law Judge William N. Cates an
unopposed motion to strike the Respondent’s Septem-
ber 13 ‘‘answer,’’ to issue a decision on the pleadings,
and, alternatively, to postpone the hearing indefinitely.
On June 7, 1996, Judge Cates granted the General
Counsel’s motion to postpone the hearing indefinitely.1
On October 28, 1997, the General Counsel filed
with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment. On
October 30, 1997, the Board issued an order transfer-
ring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show
Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Re-
spondent filed no response. The allegations in the mo-
tion are therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations provide that the allegations in the
complaint shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not
filed within 14 days of service of the complaint, unless
good cause is shown. In addition, the complaint affirm-
atively notes that unless an answer is filed within 14
days of service, all the allegations in the complaint
will be considered admitted. Further, the undisputed al-
legations in the Motion for Summary Judgment dis-
close that counsel for the General Counsel, by letter
dated June 3, 1996, notified the Respondent that unless
a proper answer were filed by June 6, 1996, she would
move to strike the ‘‘answer’’ and to enter judgment by
default as to all the allegations in the amended com-
plaint.
We grant the General Counsel’s renewed motion to
strike the unsigned ‘‘answer.’’ McElroy Electric Co.,
297 NLRB 765 (1990). In the absence of good cause
being shown for the failure to file a timely answer, we
grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent has done busi-
ness as a sole proprietor with an office and place of
business in Livingston, Louisiana, where it has been
engaged as an electrical contractor in the building and
construction industry. During the 12-month period end-
ing July 31, 1995, the Respondent, in conducting this
business operation, has purchased and received at its
facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 from other
enterprises located within the State of Louisiana, each
of which had received these goods directly from points
outside the State of Louisiana. We find that the Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) 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
A. 8(a)(1) Allegations
At the Respondent’s Lowes jobsite in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, the Respondent’s owner, Gregory Sheets (1)
about May 23, 1995, (a) threatened employees by in-
forming them that the Respondent would not allow an
employee to apply for work, or would not hire that
employee, because the Union had filed unfair labor
practice charges on behalf of that employee against the
Respondent; (b) threatened its employees with arrest
because they aided or assisted the Union; (2) about
May 30, 1995, (a) interrogated employees about their
union membership, activities, and sympathies; and (b)
informed an employee that the reason that the Re-
spondent had put a question on its job application form
asking about employees’ membership in organizations
or trade schools was to avoid hiring employees who
joined, formed, or supported the Union; (3) about July
18, 1995, promulgated and maintained a rule prohibit-
ing union solicitation during working time; (4) about
July 18, 1995, (a) threatened the Respondent’s employ-
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00667 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.091 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
668 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 See Lancet Arch, Inc., 324 NLRB No. 28 (Aug. 8, 1997).
ees with stricter scrutiny of their work because the em-
ployees had joined, formed, and assisted the Union; (b)
threatened the Respondent’s employees with denial of
overtime because they had joined, formed, and assisted
the Union; (c) threatened union organizers in the pres-
ence of employees; and (d) interrogated its employees
about their union membership, activities, and sym-
pathies; and (5) about July 19, 1995, (a) threatened the
Respondent’s employees with stricter scrutiny of their
work because they had joined, formed, and assisted the
Union; (b) threatened the Respondent’s employees
with denial of overtime because they had joined,
formed, or assisted the Union; and (c) threatened the
Respondent’s employees with plant closure if they se-
lected the Union as their bargaining representative.
About July 11, 1995, the Respondent changed its
hiring procedure by refusing to accept job applications
that had been photocopied.
B. 8(a)(3) and (1) Allegations
About March 1995, the Respondent changed its job
application form and changed its application policies
by refusing to consider applications submitted more
than 30 days prior to the hire date.
About July 14, 1995, the Respondent’s owner and
supervisor, Gregory Sheets, enforced these application
rules selectively and disparately by failing to apply
them to employees who refrained from joining, form-
ing, or aiding the Union.
About July 7, 1994, the Respondent refused to ac-
cept job application forms from applicants Richard N.
Bailey, Kendrick E. Russell, Charles Thomasee Jr.,
Randell K. Roshto, and Billy C. Stiles because they
had formed, joined, or assisted the Union and had en-
gaged in concerted activities.
About July 11, 1995, the Respondent refused to con-
sider for employment or to employ Leslie G. Carter,
Kendrick E. Russell, Jimmy Hudson, and Charles
Thomasee Jr., because they had formed, joined, or as-
sisted the Union and had engaged in concerted activi-
ties.
Between about July 19 and 31, 1995, the Respond-
ent has refused to allow Kevin Evans to work overtime
because he had formed, joined, or assisted the Union
and had engaged in concerted activities.
C. 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) Allegations
Since about May 23, 1995, the Respondent refused
to accept a job application from applicant Michael
Clary or has refused to consider to hire him because
he had formed, joined, or assisted the Union and had
engaged in concerted activities, to discourage employ-
ees from engaging in these activities, and because he
had given an affidavit in support of the charge filed in
Case 15–CA–13031 and was named as a discriminatee
in that charge.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the acts and conduct described above, the Re-
spondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By the promulgation and enforcement of changes
in its job application form and application policies de-
scribed above to discourage its employees from joining
or assisting the Union or engaging in other protected
activities, by changing its hiring procedure by refusing
to accept applications which have been photocopied,
and by refusing to accept applications from, to con-
sider for employment or to employ job applicants, and
refusing to grant overtime to an employee, the Re-
spondent has also discriminated in regard to the hire
or tenure or terms and conditions of employment of its
employees and employee applicants, thereby discourag-
ing membership in a labor organization, and has there-
by engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
3. By refusing to accept a job application from Mi-
chael Clary or to consider hiring him because he had
given an affidavit in support of an unfair labor practice
charge in Case 15–CA–13031 and was named as an al-
leged discriminatee in that charge, the Respondent has
discriminated against him for filing charges or giving
testimony under the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(4)
of the Act.
4. The Respondent’s unfair labor practices described
above affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifi-
cally, having found that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by changes in its job applica-
tion form and application policies and changes in its
hiring procedure, we shall order the Respondent to re-
scind those changes. Having found that the Respondent
has unlawfully refused to accept applications from job
applicants Richard N. Bailey, Kendrick E. Russell,
Charles Thomasee Jr., Randell K. Roshto, and Billy C.
Stiles and has refused to accept an application from or
consider for hire job applicant Michael Clary, we shall
order it to, on request, provide job applications to
them.2 Having found that the Respondent unlawfully
refused to consider for employment, or to employ, job
applicants Leslie G. Carter, Kendrick E. Russell,
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00668 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.091 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
669TRI-PARISH ELECTRIC
3 The General Counsel has stated that the Respondent is currently
out of business. Accordingly, resolution of the affirmative provisions
of this Order relating to hiring is left to the compliance stage of the
proceeding.
4 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 United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
Jimmy Judson, and Charles Thomasee Jr., we shall
order it to consider for employment or to employ
them,3 and to make them whole for any loss of earn-
ings that they may have suffered by reason of the Re-
spondent’s discrimination against them. Backpay shall
be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed
in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987). Having found that the Respondent
discriminatorily refused to allow Kevin Evans to work
overtime, we shall order that he be made whole with
backpay computed in accordance with Ogle Protection
Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), plus interest as set
forth in New Horizons, supra.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Gregory Sheets d/b/a Tri-Parish Electric,
Inc., Livingston, Louisiana, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening not to allow applicants to apply for
work or not to hire those applicants because the Union
has filed unfair labor practice charges on their behalf.
(b) Threatening employees with arrest because of
their union activities.
(c) Interrogating employees about their union mem-
bership, activities, and sympathies.
(d) Informing employees that the reason for a ques-
tion on the job application form asking about em-
ployee membership in organizations or trade schools
was to avoid hiring employees who had engaged in
union activities.
(e) Promulgating and maintaining rules prohibiting
union solicitation during working time.
(f) Threatening employees with stricter scrutiny of
their work because of their union activities.
(g) Threatening to deny overtime to employees be-
cause of their union activities.
(h) Threatening union organizers in the presence of
employees.
(i) Threatening employees with plant closure be-
cause they selected the Union as their bargaining rep-
resentative.
(j) Changing the hiring procedure by refusing to ac-
cept job applications that have been photocopied.
(k) Changing the job application form and changing
job application policies by refusing to consider appli-
cations submitted more than 30 days prior to the hire
date.
(l) Selectively and disparately enforcing new job ap-
plication rules by failing to apply them to employees
who refrain from union activity.
(m) Refusing to accept job application forms from,
consider for employment, or to employ job applicants
because of their union activities or because they have
given testimony supporting charges filed with the
Board or because they have been named in those
charges.
(n) Refusing to allow employees to work overtime
because of their union activities.
(o) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, provide job application forms to Mi-
chael Clary, Richard N. Bailey, Kendrick E. Russell,
Charles Thomasee Jr., Randell K. Roshto, and Billy C.
Stiles.
(b) Make job applicants Leslie G. Carter, Kendrick
E. Russell, Jimmy Hudson, and Charles Thomasee Jr.,
and employee Kevin Evans whole, with interest, for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them, in the manner
set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make
available to the Board or its agents for examination
and copying, all payroll records, social security pay-
ment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amount
of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post
at its facility in Livingston, Louisiana, copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’4 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 15, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of
these proceedings, the Respondent has, as the General
Counsel asserts, gone out of business or closed the fa-
cility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of
the notice to all current employees, former employees,
and job applicants who have applied for jobs with the
Respondent at any time since July 7, 1994.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00669 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.091 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
670 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a
responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting 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
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these pro-
tected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten not to allow employees to
apply for work or not to hire those employees because
the Union has filed unfair labor practice charges
against us on their behalf.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with arrest be-
cause of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their
union membership, activities, and sympathies.
WE WILL NOT inform employees that the reason for
a question on the job application form asking about
membership in organizations or trade schools was to
avoid hiring employees who had engaged in union ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and maintain rules prohib-
iting union solicitation during working time.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with stricter scru-
tiny because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to deny overtime to employ-
ees because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten union organizers in the pres-
ence of employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with plant closure
because they selected the Union as their bargaining
representative.
WE WILL NOT change the hiring procedure by refus-
ing to accept job applications that have been
photocopied.
WE WILL NOT change the job application form and
WE WILL NOT change job application policies by refus-
ing to consider applications submitted more than 30
days prior to the hire date.
WE WILL NOT selectively and disparately enforce
new job application rules by failing to apply them to
employees who refrain from union activity.
WE WILL NOT refuse to accept job application forms
from, consider for employment, or to employ job ap-
plicants because of their union activities or because
they have given testimony supporting charges filed
with the National Labor Relations Board or because
they have been named in those charges.
WE WILL NOT refuse to allow employees to work
overtime because of their union activities.
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, on request, provide job application forms
to Michael Clary, Richard N. Bailey, Kendrick E. Rus-
sell, Charles Thomasee Jr., Randell K. Roshto, and
Billy C. Stiles.
WE WILL consider for employment or employ Leslie
G. Carter, Kendrick E. Russell, Jimmy Hudson, and
Charles Thomasee Jr., and WE WILL make them and
Kevin Evans whole, with interest, for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against them.
GREGORY SHEETS D/B/A TRI-PARISH
ELECTRIC, INC.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00670 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.091 APPS10 PsN: APPS10