American Commercial Finance, (2006)

American Commercial Finance, Inc. and Local 580, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Case 7–CA–49153

August 14, 2006

DECISION AND ORDER

By Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Schaumber

The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file an answer to the complaint. Upon a charge and amended charges filed by the Union on December 15, 2005, and February 6 and March 14, 2006, respectively, the General Counsel issued the complaint on March 15, 2006, against American Commercial Finance, Inc., the Respondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The Respondent failed to file an answer.

On April 14, 2006, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Default Judgment with the Board. On April 20, 2006, 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.

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 Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that the allegations in a 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 stated that unless an answer was filed by March 29, 2006, all the allegations in the complaint could be considered admitted. Further, the undisputed allegations in the General Counsel’s motion disclose that the Region, by letter dated March 29, 2006, notified the Respondent that unless an answer was received by April 5, 2006, a motion for default 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 Default Judgment.

On the entire record, the Board makes the following

Findings of Fact

i. jurisdiction

At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation with a place of business at 9608 Davis Highway, Dimondale, Michigan, has been engaged in the business of providing freight, pickup, and delivery service for DHL Express (USA), Inc. During the calendar year 2005, a representative period, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations described above, derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000. During this same period, the Respondent provided services valued in excess of $50,000 to DHL Express (USA), Inc., which is directly engaged in interstate commerce.

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 Local 580, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

ii. alleged unfair labor practices

At all material times, Sean Howard has held the position of president of the Respondent and has been a supervisor of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.

The following employees of the Respondent (the unit) constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

All full-time and regular part-time drivers and warehouse employees employed by the Respondent at its place of business located in the DHL Express (USA), Inc., distribution facility at 9608 Davis Highway, Dimondale, Michigan, but excluding all office clerical employees, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

At all material times, by virtue of a certification of representative issued by the Board in Case 7–RC–22822 on January 28, 2005, the Union has been the designated collective-bargaining representative of the unit, and has been recognized as the representative by the Respondent.

At all material times, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.

About December 14, 2005, the Union, by letter, requested that the Respondent furnish the Union with, “the name of the person who informed the Employer [Respondent] that approval from the International Union was required prior to implementation and execution” of a collective-bargaining agreement over which the Union and the Respondent were bargaining.

The information requested by the Union, as described above, is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.

Since about December 14, 2005, the Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the Union with the information requested by it.

About December 2005, the Respondent implemented changes in its health insurance policy for the unit by changing the benefit coverage of the policy.

The subject set forth above relates to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of the unit, and is a mandatory subject for the purposes of...