HMR3-7141 LLC d/b/a Carl's Jr,

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.

HMR3-7141 LLC d/b/a Carl’s Jr. and Los Angeles Workers Organizing Committee. Cases 31–CA– 192343, 31–CA–192345, and 31–CA–194874

November 21, 2017 DECISION AND ORDER

BY MEMBERS MCFERRAN, KAPLAN, AND EMANUEL

The 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 and compliance specification. Upon a charge and amended charges filed by Los Angeles Workers Organizing Committee (the Union) on January 26, February 15, and June 27, 2017, respectively, in Case 31–CA–192343, a charge and amended charges filed by the Union on January 26, May 23, and June 27, 2017, respectively, in Case 31–CA– 192345, and a charge and amended charge filed by the Union on March 14 and June 27, 2017, respectively, in Case 31–CA–194874, the General Counsel issued an order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint, and compliance specification, on July 31, 2017, alleging that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Respondent failed to file an answer.

On September 8, 2017, the General Counsel filed with the National Labor Relations Board a Motion for Default Judgment. Thereafter, on September 11, 2017, 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 of service of the complaint, unless good cause is shown. Similarly, Section 102.56 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that the allegations in a compliance specification will be taken as true if an answer is not filed within 21 days from service of the compliance specification. In addition, the consolidated complaint and compliance specification affirmatively stated that unless an answer was received by August 21, 2017, the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for default judgment, that the allegations in the consolidated complaint and compli-

ance specification are true. Further, the undisputed allegations in the General Counsel’s motion disclose that the Region, by letter dated August 22, 2017, advised the Respondent that unless an answer was received by August 28, 2017, a motion for default judgment would be filed.

On August 23, 2017, the Respondent’s representative, Michael Razipour, sent an email to the General Counsel in response to the August 22, 2017 letter, requesting an extension of time until September 10, 2017, to file an answer to the consolidated complaint and compliance specification. By letter dated August 23, 2017, the General Counsel informed the Respondent that it had until noon on September 1, 2017, to file its answer. The letter also informed the Respondent that the Region would file a motion for default judgment with the Board should the Respondent fail to file an answer by that date. Nevertheless, the Respondent failed to file an answer.

Accordingly, in the absence of good cause being shown for the failure to file an answer to the consolidated complaint and compliance specification, we deem the allegations to be admitted as true, and we grant the General Counsel’s 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 corporation with an office and place of business at 11224 S. Western Ave., Los Angeles, California (the Facility), and has been engaged in the retail sale of fast food and related products. In conducting its operations the Respondent annually derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and purchased and received at its Facility products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $5000, directly from points outside the State of California.

   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, Daisy Lopez held the position of the Respondent’s Facility General Manager 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 events occurred, giving rise to this proceeding:

   1. The Respondent, by Daisy Lopez:

      1. About December 14, 2016, at the Facility, prohibited employees from speaking with a union representative.

      2. About December 29, 2016, at the Facility, interrogated employees about their protected concerted activities.

      3. About December 29, 2016, at the Facility, solicited grievances from employees.

      4. About December 29, 2016, at the Facility, prohibited employees from speaking with coworkers about their terms and conditions of employment inside of the Facility.

      5. About December 29, 2016, at the Facility, instructed employees to speak directly to the Respondent’s owner concerning complaints about employees’ terms and conditions of employment rather than speaking with others.

      6. About January 14, 2017, by telephone, prohibited employees from speaking with their coworkers about terms and conditions of employment inside of the Facility.

      7. About January 20, 2017, at the Facility, interrogated employees about their protected concerted activities.

      8. About January 20, 2017, at the Facility, threatened...