Air Tech Services, 49 (1997)

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Board 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.

Air Tech Services, Inc. and Local No. 9, Plumbers and Pipefitters Association. Case 22-CA-21544

March 26, 1997

DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND HIGGINS

Upon a charge filed by the Union on August 15, 1996, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on November 29, 1996, against Air Tech Services, Inc., the Respondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. Although properly served copies of the charge and complaint, the Respondent failed to file an answer.

On February 20, 1997, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board. On February 21, 1997, 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. The allegations in the motion are therefore undisputed.

Ruling on Motion for 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 admitted. Further, the undisputed allegations in the Motion for Summary Judgment disclose that the Region, by letter dated December 20, 1996, notified the Respondent that unless an answer were received by January 3, 1997, a Motion for Summary Judgment would be filed.

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.

On the entire record, the Board makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. JURISDICTION

   At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation, with an office and place of business in Hamilton, New Jersey, has been engaged as a contractor for plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning services. During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint, the Respondent, in conducting its business operations, pur

   chased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 at its Hamilton, New Jersey facility directly from points outside the State of New Jersey and from other enterprises, including plumbing supply houses, located within the State of New Jersey, each of which other enterprises had received the goods directly from points outside the State of New Jersey. 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

   About August 4, 1996, the Respondent threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals because they engaged in activity in support of the Union. About the same date the Respondent discharged its employee Cortland Leaming Jr. because he assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   By the acts and conduct described above, the Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. By discharging Cortland Leaming Jr....