Texas Aerotech

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 1352 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1352
313 NLRB No. 251
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 Although the General Counsel did not send a reminder or warn-
ing of the consequences of failing to file an answer to the Respond-
ent, we find that this does not warrant denying the General Coun-
sel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. See M. Jacobs & Associates,
312 NLRB No. 13, JD slip op. at fn. 1 (Sept. 10, 1993) (not reported
in Board volumes); and Superior Industries, 289 NLRB 834, 835 fn.
13 (1988).
2 We have, pursuant to the General Counsel’s request, taken offi-
cial notice of the record in Case 16–RC–9578. Although the Re-
spondent has previously stated an intention to test the certification
therein, its failure to file an answer to the instant complaint is a
waiver of the right to challenge that certification.
Texas Aerotech and Communications Workers of
America, AFL–CIO. Case 16–CA–16639
May 31, 1994
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, DEVANEY, AND COHEN
Upon a charge filed by the Union on April 1, 1994,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board issued a complaint on April 8, 1994, against
Texas Aerotech, the Respondent, alleging that it has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act by refusing to bargain following the
Union’s certification in Case 16–RC–9578. Although
properly served copies of the charge and complaint,
the Respondent has failed to file an answer. (Official
notice is taken of the ‘‘record’’ in the representation
proceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regu-
lations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel,
265 NLRB 343 (1982).)
On May 2, 1994, the General Counsel filed a Mo-
tion to Transfer and Continue Case Before the Board
and Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 4, 1994,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding
to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the mo-
tion should not be granted. On May 18, 1994, the
Union filed a statement in support of the General
Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 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
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 complaint states that unless an answer
is filed within 14 days of service, ‘‘all the allegations
in the complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be
true and shall be so found by the Board.’’ The Re-
spondent did not file an answer.1
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.2
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a Texas cor-
poration and a subsidiary of United Education and
Software, Inc., with an office and place of business in
Dallas, Texas, has operated a trade school engaged in
training airline mechanics.
During the 12-month period ending April 8, 1994,
the Respondent, in conducting its business operations,
purchased and received goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000, that originated from points and
places located outside the State of Texas and were
shipped directly to its Dallas facility.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held April 23, 1993, the
Union was certified on February 24, 1994, as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit:
INCLUDED: All employees of Texas Aerotech.
EXCLUDED: Supervisors, and Admissions depart-
ment employees.
Since February 24, 1994, and at all times material,
the Union has been, and is, the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of employees in the above-
described unit by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
Since March 7, 1994, the Union, by letter, requested
the Respondent to bargain with it as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the unit and to furnish information. Since March 18,
1994, the Respondent has refused. On about March 7,
1994, the Union requested the Respondent to provide
it with information concerning employee wages and
benefits and since about March 18, 1994, the Respond-
ent has refused. The information sought by the Union
is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s perform-
ance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit employees.
1353TEXAS AEROTECH
3 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.’’
By its overall acts and conduct, the Respondent has
failed and refused, and is failing and refusing, to bar-
gain in good faith with the Union as the lawful rep-
resentative of the unit employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing on and after March 18, 1994, to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of employees in the appropriate unit and
to furnish the Union requested relevant and necessary
information, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to
cease and desist, to bargain on request with the Union,
and, if an understanding is reached, to embody the un-
derstanding in a signed agreement. We also shall order
the Respondent to furnish the Union the relevant and
necessary information on request.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the serv-
ices of their selected bargaining agent for the period
provided by the law, we shall construe the initial pe-
riod of the certification as beginning the date the Re-
spondent begins to bargain in good faith with the
Union. Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962);
Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328
F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817
(1964); Burnett Construction Co., 149 NLRB 1419,
1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Texas Aerotech, Dallas, Texas, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Communications Work-
ers of America, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the bar-
gaining unit, and refusing to furnish the Union infor-
mation that is relevant and necessary to its role as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employ-
ees.
(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) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit on terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and if an understanding is reached, embody the
understanding in a signed agreement:
INCLUDED: All employees of Texas Aerotech.
EXCLUDED: Supervisors, and Admissions depart-
ment employees.
(b) On request, furnish the Union information that is
relevant and necessary to its role as the exclusive col-
lective-representative of the unit employees.
(c) Post at its facility in Dallas, Texas, copies of the
attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 16, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized 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 refuse to bargain with Communica-
tions Workers of America, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit,
and WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union informa-
tion that is relevant and necessary to its role as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
employees.
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, bargain with the Union and
put in writing and sign any agreement reached on
terms and conditions of employment for our employees
in the bargaining unit:
INCLUDED: All employees of Texas Aerotech.
EXCLUDED: Supervisors, and Admissions depart-
ment employees.
1354 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL, on request, furnish the Union information
that is relevant and necessary to its role as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
employees.
TEXAS AEROTECH