Interstate Brands, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 2010

356 NLRB No. 50 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

356 NLRB No. 50
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.
Interstate Brands, Inc. and United Food and Com-
mercial Workers Union Local 367. Case 19–
CA–32618
December 8, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS BECKER
AND HAYES
The Acting 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 filed
by the Union on July 15, 2010, the Acting General Coun-
sel issued the complaint on August 27, 2010, against
Interstate Brands, Inc., the Respondent, alleging that it
has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The Re-
spondent failed to file an answer.
On October 4, 2010, the Acting General Counsel filed
a Motion for Default Judgment with the Board. On Oc-
tober 5, 2010, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause
why the motion should not be granted. On November 4,
2010, the Board issued a revised Notice to Show Cause.
The Respondent filed no response. The allegations in the
motion are therefore undisputed.
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. In addition, the complaint affirmatively states
that unless an answer was filed by September 10, 2010,
the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for default
judgment, that the allegations in the complaint are true.
Further, the undisputed allegations in the Acting General
Counsel’s motion disclose that the Region, by letter
dated September 22, 2010, notified the Respondent that
unless an answer was received by September 29, 2010, a
motion for default judgment would be filed. The Re-
spondent failed to file an answer.
Accordingly, in the absence of good cause being
shown for the failure to file an answer, we grant the Act-
ing General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a State of Delaware corporation with
offices and places of business in Pierce and Thurston
Counties in the State of Washington, is engaged in the
business of retail sales of bread, snack-food and pastry
products.
During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the
complaint, the Respondent, in conducting its operations
described above, derived gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 and purchased and received at its State of
Washington facilities goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points outside the State of Washington.
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 Food and Commercial
Workers Union Local 367 (the Union) is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, Janeen Duncan held the position
of field human resources manager, has been a supervisor
of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11)
of the Act, and has been 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 (the
unit):
All retail sales employees in Retail Baking operations
of Respondent’s present and future retail establish-
ments located within the jurisdiction of the Union, ex-
cluding supervisors as defined in the Act.
Since at least 1978, and at all material times, the Union
has been the designated exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit and recognized as such repre-
sentative by the Respondent. This recognition has been
embodied in successive collective-bargaining agree-
ments, the most recent of which is effective from Febru-
ary 8, 2009, to July 13, 2013.
At all times since at least 1978, based on Section 9(a)
of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit.
About March 19, 2009, the Union filed a grievance on
behalf of unit employee Antoinette Keuler regarding
overtime pay.
About March 19, 2009, the same date, the Union, by
letter to Duncan, requested that the Respondent furnish
the Union with schedules and pay records for employee
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Keuler for the previous 3 months if it denied the griev-
ance described above.
About April 3, 2009, the Respondent, by letter from
Duncan to the Union, denied the grievance, and provided
the information requested.
About November 10, 2009, the Union, by electronic
mail to Duncan, requested that the Respondent furnish
the Union with pay records, schedules, and hours worked
for Keuler for the previous 2 years, minus the previously
provided information.
About April 15, 2010, the Union, by electronic mail to
Duncan, repeated its request for the information set forth
above.
About May 13, 2010, the Respondent, by Duncan at a
meeting with the Union, provided the pay records re-
quested above.
About May 14, 2010, the Union, in a telephone con-
versation with Duncan, repeated its request for the
schedules and hours worked information described
above.
The information requested by the Union 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 May 14, 2010, the Respondent has failed
and refused to furnish the Union with the schedules and
hours worked information it requested as described
above.
Between about November 10, 2009, and May 13,
2010, the Respondent unreasonably delayed providing
the Union the pay records as described above.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing to furnish the Union with certain requested
information and by unreasonably delaying providing the
Union with other requested information, the Respondent
has failed and refused to bargain collectively and in good
faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees, in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The Respondent’s
unfair labor practices affect commerce within the mean-
ing 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
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with cer-
tain information that is relevant and necessary to its role
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit employees, and by unreasonably delaying in
providing the Union with other such requested informa-
tion, we shall order the Respondent to furnish the Union
with the information it requested on November 10, 2009,
and May 14, 2010, that has not already been provided.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Interstate Brands, Inc., Pierce and Thurston
Counties, Washington, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with United Food and Commercial Workers
Union Local 367 as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit employees by failing to furnish
the Union with certain requested information and by un-
reasonably delaying in providing the Union with other
requested information that is necessary and relevant to
the performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees.
(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 re-
quested on about November 10, 2009, and May 14, 2010,
that it has not already provided.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities located at Pierce and Thurston Counties, in
the State of Washington, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”1 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices,
notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or

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.”
INTERSTATE BRANDS, INC. 3
other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily
communicates with its employees by such means.2 Rea-
sonable 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 pend-
ency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out
of business or closed its facilities involved in these pro-
ceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employ-
ees and former employees employed by the Respondent
at any time since May 14, 2010.
(d) 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.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 8, 2010
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Craig Becker, Member
Brian E. Hayes, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

2 For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in J. Picini Floor-
ing, 356 NLRB No. 9 (2010), Member Hayes would not require elec-
tronic distribution of the notice.
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
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 bargain collectively
and in good faith with United Food and Commercial
Workers Union Local 367 as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our unit employees by fail-
ing to furnish the Union with certain requested informa-
tion and by unreasonably delaying in providing the Un-
ion with other requested information that is necessary
and relevant to the performance of its duties as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the collective-bargaining unit.
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 about November 10, 2009, and May 14, 2010,
that we have not already provided.
INTERSTATE BRANDS, INC.