CMA Logistics, LLC, (2022)

• Date: 15 April 2022

371 NLRB No. 90

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

bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-

ecutive 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.

CMA Logistics, LLC and Yessica Emiliano-Ramirez.

Case 22–CA–283429

April 15, 2022

DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS KAPLAN

AND WILCOX

The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this

case on the ground that CMA Logistics, LLC (the Re-

spondent) has failed to file an answer to the complaint.

Upon a charge filed by Yessica Emiliano-Ramirez on

September 23, 2021,and amended on November 3, 2021,

the General Counsel issued a complaint and notice of

hearing on December 23, 2021, against the Respondent,

alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the

Act. The Respondent failed to file an answer.

On February 11, 2022, the General Counsel filed with

the National Labor Relations Board a Motion for Default

Judgment. On February 15, 2022, the Board issued an

order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a No-

tice to Show Cause why the motion should not be grant-

ed. 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 states

that unless an answer is received on or before January 6,

2022, the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for de-

fault judgment, that the allegations in the complaint are

true. Further, the undisputed allegations in the General

Counsel’s motion disclose that th e Region, by email dat-

ed January 11, 2022, advised the Respondent that unless

an answer was received by January 20,2022, 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 fail-

ure to file an answer, we deem the allegations of the

complaint to be admitted as true, and we grant the Gen-

eral 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 has been a cor-

poration with an office and place of business at 523 Jack-

son Avenue, Suite #2, Elizabeth, New Jersey, and has

been engaged in the provision of logistic transportation

services.

During the 12 months preceding the complaint, in con-

ducting its operations described above, the Respondent

derived gross revenues in excess of $50,000 from the

performance of its services in States other than 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.

We find that Transportation, Production & Warehouse

Employees, Local 438 is a labor organization within the

meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

II.ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

1. 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:

Christian Velasquez –Owner

Salvador Velasquez –Owner

2. About September 2, 2021, the Respondent, by

Christian Velasquez, during a telephone conversation:

(a) interrogated employees about their union sympa-

thies and support; and

(b) directed employees not to communicate directly

with the Respondent’s Owner Christian Velasquez.

3. About September 3, 2021, the Respondent issued a

written warning to its employee Yessica Emiliano-

Ramirez.

4. About September 2021, the Respondent imposed

onerous and rigorous terms and conditions of employ-

ment on Yessica Emiliano-Ramirez by switching her

truck and giving her a truck in poor maintenance condi-

tion.

5. The Respondent engaged in the conduct described

above in the paragraphs 3 and 4 because Yessica Emili-

ano-Ramirez assisted the Union and engaged in concert-

ed activities, and to discourage employees from engaging

in these activities.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

By the conduct described above in paragraph 2, the

Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and