Metro Detroit Valet Parking, 71 (2001)

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive 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.

Metro Detroit Valet Parking, Inc.; Greektown Casino LLC and Joint Council 43, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA- 43633

July 11, 2001

DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS

LIEBMAN AND WALSH

Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by the Union on January 3 and February 15, 2001, the Acting Ge neral Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board is-sued a complaint on March 22, 2001 against Metro Detroit Valet Parking, Inc. (Respondent Metro) and Greek-town Casino LLC (Respondent Casino). The complaint alleges that Respondent Metro has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, and that Respondent Casino is a successor to Respondent Metro and is jointly liable with Respondent Metro for affirmatively remedying the alleged unfair labor practices pursuant to Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 (1973). On April 10, 2001, Respondent Casino filed an answer to the complaint. Although properly served copies of the charges and complaint, Respondent Metro failed to file an answer.

On May 18, 2001, the Acting General Counsel filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with the Board, regarding the complaint allegations concerning Respon-dent Metro.1 On May 25, 2001, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. Respondent Metro 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 Partial 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 from service of the complaint, unless good cause is shown. In addition, the complaint affirmatively notes that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of service, all the allegations in the complaint will be considered

1 The General Counsel does not seek summary judgment against Respondent Casino, and we do not pass on whether it is liable for Respon-dent Metro's unfair labor practices. See B/E Aerospace, 323 NLRB 604 (1997).

admitted. Further, the undisputed allegations in the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment disclose that the Region, by letter dated April 25, 2001, notified Respondent Metro that unless an answer were received by May 2, 2001, a Motion for Default Summary Judg ment would be filed. To date, Respondent Metro has not filed an answer.

In the absence of good cause being shown for the failure to file a timely answer, we grant the Acting General Counsel's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

On the entire record, the Board makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. JURISDICTION

    At all material times, Respondent Metro, a Michigan corporation with an office and place of business at 719 Griswold Street, Detroit, Michigan, has been engaged in the furnishing of valet automobile parking services. At all material times, Respondent Metro has maintained a place of business at 400 Monroe Street, Detroit, Michigan (at Respondent Casino's site) (the Monroe facility), which is the only facility involved in this proceeding.

    Based on a projection of its operations since about November 10, 2000, at which time Respondent Metro commenced its operations at the Monroe facility, Respondent Metro, in conducting its business operations described above, would annually have provided services valued in excess of $50,000 to Respondent Casino.

    At all material times, Respondent Casino, a Michigan corporation with an office and place of business at the Monroe facility has been engaged in the operation of a gambling casino.

    Based on a projection of its operations since about November 10, 2000, at which time Respondent Casino commenced its operations, Respondent Casino, in conducting its business operations described above, will annually derive gross revenues in excess of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT