CMA Logistics, LLC, (2022)

Date15 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
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
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
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.
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
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-
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-
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.
By the conduct described above in paragraph 2, the
Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and

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