Enjoi Transportation, LLC, (2012)

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.

Enjoi Transportation, LLC and Local 243, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Cases 072013CA2013 072086 and 072013CA2013075061

September 28, 2012 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS GRIFFIN AND BLOCK

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 consolidated complaint. Upon a charge filed by Local 243, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Union, on January 9, and amended on February 13, 2012, and a charge filed by the Union on February 22, 2012, the Acting General Counsel issued an order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint, and notice of hearing on April 23, 2012, against Enjoi Transportation, LLC, the Respondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The Respondent failed to file an answer.

On July 6, 2012, the Acting General Counsel filed a Motion for Default Judgment with the Board. Thereafter, on July 10, 2012, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed no response.1 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 Board2019s 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. In addition, the consolidated complaint affirmatively stated that unless an answer was received by May 7, 2012, the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for default judgment, that the allegations in the consolidated complaint are true. Further, the undisputed allegations in the Acting General Counsel2019s motion disclose that the Region, by letter dated June 18, 2012, advised the Re-

1 The Respondent requested an extension of time to file a response to the Notice to Show Cause. In its request, the Respondent contended that due to economic hardship brought on by the city of Detroit2019s financial crisis it could not meet financial obligations and could not hire an attorney to respond to the instant charges. On July 25, 2012, the Board granted the Respondent2019s request. However, despite this extension, the Respondent has failed to file a response to the Notice to Show Cause.

spondent that unless an answer was received by June 26, 2012, a motion for default judgment would be filed. Nevertheless, the Respondent failed to file an answer.

In the absence of good cause being shown for the failure to file a timely answer, we grant the Acting General Counsel2019s Motion for Default Judgment.

On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. JURISDICTION

    At all material times, the Respondent has been a Michigan limited liability company with an office and place of business located at 2866 E. Grand Blvd., Detroit, Michigan, and has been engaged in the operation of providing transit and paratransit services to the public.

    During the calendar year ending December 31, 2011, a representative period, the Respondent, in conducting its business operations described above, derived gross revenues in excess of $250,000, and purchased and received at its Detroit, Michigan facility goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Michigan.

    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.

  2. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

    At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

    Paulette Hamilton CEO/Chairman

    Gregory Lynn Vice President of Business

    Development

    Sylvia Tyler Human Resources Manager

    At all material times, Frank Vogel held the position of the...

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