Karel of Cumberland

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 1237 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1237
313 NLRB No. 224
KAREL OF CUMBERLAND
1 All dates are 1993, unless otherwise indicated.
2 On August 10, the Respondent advised the Region that it would
need until August 13 to respond. No extension was granted. How-
ever, on August 30, the Respondent’s owner told the counsel for the
General Counsel that he would file an answer by September 3, and
was told that if he intended to file an answer, he should do so as
soon as possible, preferably by September 1.
3 To the extent that either document submitted by the Respondent
raises a claim of bankruptcy as a defense, we note that a respond-
ent’s claim of bankruptcy will not stay unfair labor practice charges.
It is well settled that the institution of bankruptcy proceedings does
not deprive the Board of jurisdiction or authority to process an un-
fair labor practice case to its final disposition. See, e.g., Cardinal
Services, 295 NLRB 933 fn. 2 (1989).
Cumberland Wood & Chair Corporation a/k/a
Karel of Cumberland and Teamsters Local
Union No. 651, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO. Cases 9–
CA–30643 and 9–CA–30665
May 17, 1994
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, DEVANEY, AND COHEN
Upon a charge filed by the Union on May 3, 1993,1
in Case 9–CA–30643 and May 6, in Case 9–CA–
30665, the General Counsel of the National Labor Re-
lations Board issued a consolidated complaint on June
17, against Cumberland Wood & Chair Corporation
a/k/a Karel of Cumberland, the Respondent, alleging
that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act. Although properly served
copies of the charges and consolidated complaint, the
Respondent failed to file an answer.
On September 20, the General Counsel filed a Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment with the Board. On Sep-
tember 22, 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 October 20,
the Respondent filed a letter in response to the Board’s
Notice to Show Cause.
The National Labor Relations Board has delgated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the allegations in the complaint shall be
deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14
days from service of the complaint, unless good cause
is shown. The consolidated complaint stated that unless
an answer is filed within 14 days of service, ‘‘all the
allegations in the consolidated complaint shall be con-
sidered to be admitted to be true and shall be so found
by the Board.’’ Further, the undisputed allegations in
the Motion for Summary Judgment disclose that the
Region, by letter dated August 4, notified the Respond-
ent that unless an answer was received immediately, a
Motion for Summary Judgment would be filed.2
It is undisputed that the Respondent failed to file an
answer within the allotted time. The Respondent, act-
ing pro se, asserts in its response to the Notice to
Show Cause that it has filed for bankruptcy under
Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code and does not have
the funds to secure legal counsel in this matter. The
response to the Board’s Show Cause Order is inad-
equate. The Respondent asserts that it did not respond
to the complaint because it does not have the funds to
secure legal counsel. The lack of legal counsel is not
a legally sufficient ground for failing to file a timely
answer. In view of the foregoing, we find that the Re-
spondent has not shown good cause for its failure to
file a timely answer.
Moreover, the ‘‘Response to Charges’’ that the Re-
spondent submitted with its October 20 letter is not
adequate as an answer. In its response to Case 9–CA–
30643, the Respondent ‘‘denies the charge in the com-
plaint’’ and asserts, in response to the allegation that
it failed to pay employees’ properly submitted medical
claims, that ‘‘[c]ertain Medical Claims have been paid
and company [sic] is awaiting funds to continue pay-
ments.’’ In its response to Case 9–CA–30665, the Re-
spondent again ‘‘denies the charge in the complaint’’
and asserts, in response to the allegation that it refused
to pay laid-off employees for accrued vacation, that the
Company was operating with a reduced labor force and
that ‘‘[v]acation days were allowed as available.’’
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the ‘‘respondent shall specifically admit,
deny, or explain each of the facts alleged in the com-
plaint, unless the respondent is without knowledge, in
which case the respondent shall so state, such state-
ment operating as a denial.’’
Even assuming that the pro se Respondent’s denials
in its two-paragraph ‘‘Response’’ satisfy the specificity
requirements for an answer under Section 102.20, we
nonetheless find that summary judgment is appropriate.
Thus, in its ‘‘Response’’ the Respondent expressly ad-
mits that certain medical claims and insurance pre-
miums had not been paid, and implicitly acknowledges
that some accrued vacation leave was not granted. In
these circumstances, where the Respondent admits that
it engaged in conduct alleged as unlawful, we find that
summary judgment is appropriate. See generally
Sportswear Group, 306 NLRB 854 (1992).
In accordance with the Rules set forth above, the al-
legations in the complaint are deemed to be admitted
as true.3 Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
1238 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation, has been engaged in
the manufacture of wood furniture at its facility in
Somerset, Kentucky. During the 12-month period end-
ing April 30, 1993, the Respondent, in conducting its
operations, purchased and received at its Somerset,
Kentucky facility goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points outside the Commonwealth of
Kentucky. 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 the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The following employees of the Respondent con-
stitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees and
truckdrivers of Cumberland Wood & Chair Cor-
poration a/k/a Karel of Cumberland employed at
Cumberland Wood & Chair Corporation a/k/a
Karel of Cumberland’s plant located on North
Highway 27, Somerset, Kentucky, but excluding
all office clerical employees, technical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and all other employees of Cumberland
Wood & Chair Corporation a/k/a Karel of Cum-
berland.
On June 10, 1974, the Union was certified as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
At all times since June 10, 1974, based on Section 9(a)
of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the unit. About Octo-
ber 23, 1992, the Respondent and the Union entered
into a collective-bargaining agreement with respect to
terms and conditions of employment of the unit, which
was to remain in effect until August 29, 1995.
During January 1993, the Respondent refused to pay
laid-off employees for accrued vacation in accordance
with the terms of a 1992 grievance settlement. About
February 1, the Respondent unilaterally discontinued
its employees’ health insurance benefits. About Feb-
ruary 22, the Respondent abrogated the terms of its
contract settlement with the Union, which required the
Respondent to pay all outstanding unpaid medical
claims within 90–120 days, by failing to pay employ-
ees’ medical claims which had properly been submit-
ted to it. These subjects relate to wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment and are
mandatory subjects for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. The Respondent engaged in these acts without
notifying the Union or affording it an opportunity to
bargain about this action.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Re-
spondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively
and in good faith with the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of its employees, and has thereby
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain 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 made uni-
lateral changes in the terms and conditions of employ-
ment of the unit employees, we shall order that the Re-
spondent restore the status quo and make the employ-
ees whole, with interest, for losses suffered as a result
of its unlawful unilateral changes. To remedy the Re-
spondent’s discontinuance of employees’ health insur-
ance benefits, we shall order the Respondent to pro-
vide medical insurance to the unit employees as re-
quired by the collective-bargaining agreement, and to
make the unit employees whole by reimbursing them
for expenses they may have incurred as a result of the
Respondent’s failure to do so, as set forth in Kraft
Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn. 2 (1980),
enfd. mem. 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981), with interest
as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Cumberland Wood & Chair Corporation
a/k/a Karel of Cumberland, Somerset, Kentucky, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain with Teamsters
Local Union No. 651, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO by unilaterally
refusing to pay laid-off employees for accrued vacation
benefits, discontinuing employees’ health insurance
benefits, or abrogating the terms of its contract settle-
ment with the Union by failing to pay employees’
medical claims that had properly been submitted to it.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, 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) Make unit employees whole as described in the
remedy section of this decision, for any loss of bene-
1239KAREL OF CUMBERLAND
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.’’
fits or other expenses suffered as a result of the Re-
spondent’s failure to pay laid-off employees for ac-
crued vacation, to provide health insurance benefits, or
to pay employees’ proper medical claims and provide
unit employees with health insurance coverage as re-
quired by the collective-bargaining agreement. The unit
consists of the following employees:
All production and maintenance employees and
truckdrivers of Cumberland Wood & Chair Cor-
poration a/k/a Karel of Cumberland employed at
Cumberland Wood & Chair Corporation a/k/a
Karel of Cumberland’s plant located on North
Highway 27, Somerset, Kentucky, but excluding
all office clerical employees, technical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and all other employees of Cumberland
Wood & Chair Corporation a/k/a Karel of Cum-
berland.
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its facility in Somerset, Kentucky, copies
of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’4 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 9, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt 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 Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within
20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent 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.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain with Team-
sters Local Union No. 651, affiliated with the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO by uni-
laterally refusing to pay laid-off employees for accrued
vacation benefits, discontinuing employees’ health in-
surance benefits, or abrogating the terms of our con-
tract settlement with the Union by failing to pay em-
ployees’ medical claims that had properly been submit-
ted.
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 provide unit employees with health insur-
ance coverage as required by our collective-bargaining
agreement and WE WILL make unit employees whole
for any loss of benefits or other expenses suffered as
a result of our failure to pay laid-off employees for ac-
crued vacation, to provide health insurance benefits, or
to pay employees’ proper medical claims. The unit
consists of the following employees:
All production and maintenance employees and
truckdrivers of Cumberland Wood & Chair Cor-
poration a/k/a Karel of Cumberland employed at
Cumberland Wood & Chair Corporation a/k/a
Karel of Cumberland’s plant located on North
Highway 27, Somerset, Kentucky, but excluding
all office clerical employees, technical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and all other employees of Cumberland
Wood & Chair Corporation a/k/a Karel of Cum-
berland.
CUMBERLAND WOOD & CHAIR COR-
PORATION A/K/A KAREL OF CUM-
BERLAND