JG Restaurant Ventures, LLC d/b/a Big Louie's Pizza,

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.

JG Restaurant Ventures, LLC d/b/a Big Louie’s Pizza and Michael Jablow. Case 12–CA–181210

October 27, 2017 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE AND KAPLAN

The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this case on the ground that JG Restaurant Ventures, LLC d/b/a Big Louie’s Pizza (the Respondent) has withdrawn its answer to the complaint. Upon a charge and amended charge filed by Michael Jablow on August 1 and September 16, 2016, respectively, the General Counsel issued a complaint on December 29, 2016, against JG Restaurant Ventures, LLC d/b/a/ Big Louie’s Pizza (the Respondent), alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Respondent filed an answer on January 10, 2017. However, by letter sent by email on July 19, 2017, the Respondent withdrew its answer to the complaint.

On August 15, 2017, the General Counsel filed with the National Labor Relations Board a Motion to Transfer Proceedings to the Board and Motion for Default Judgment. On August 18, 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 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 12, 2017, the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for default judgment, that the allegations in the complaint are true. Although the Respondent timely filed an answer on January 10, 2017, it later withdrew that answer. The withdrawal of an answer has the same effect as failure to file an answer, i.e., the allegations in the complaint must be considered to be admitted as true.¹ Accordingly,

¹ See Maislin Transport, 274 NLRB 529 (1985). On July 12, 2017, the Respondent sent counsel for the General Counsel via email a letter stating “I will not be contesting the NLRB’s allegations in the complaint filed in the Case 12–CA–181210 on December 29, 2016. I will

based on the withdrawal of the Respondent’s answer, we deem the allegations of the complaint 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 Florida limited liability corporation with offices and places of business in the State of Florida, including an office and place of business in Hollywood, Florida (Respondent’s Hollywood, Florida facility), and has been engaged in the business of operating a restaurant.

   During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint, in conducting its operations described above, the Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and purchased and received at its offices and places of business in the State of Florida goods valued in excess of $5000 directly from enterprises located outside the State of Florida, and from enterprises located within the State of Florida, each of which other enterprises had received those goods directly from points outside the State of Florida.

   We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and

   (7) of the Act.

2. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

   At all material times, the following individuals have 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:

   George Abbondante Manager Angela Novanty General Manager

   The following events occurred, giving rise to this proceeding.

   1. Since about February 1, 2016, the Respondent, by George Abbondante and Angela Novanty:

      (a) has instructed employees not to discuss wages or other terms and conditions of employment with coworkers.

      not dispute the alleged unfair labor practices claimed against the company.” See Motion, Exhs. 10, 11. On July 19, 2017, the Respondent sent counsel for the General Counsel via email a second letter explicitly stating “I am withdrawing my answer to the complaint I submitted back in January 2017. I accept liability of the allegations set forth.” See Motion, Exhs. 12–13.

      (b) has threatened employees with discipline or discharge if they discuss wages or other terms and conditions of employment with coworkers.

   2. Since about February 1, 2016, employee Michael Jablow engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of mutual aid and protection by discussing the Respondent’s change to employee wages and other terms and conditions of employment.

   3. About February 2, 2016, the Respondent issued a written warning to Jablow.

   4. About February 16, 2016, the Respondent discharged Jablow.

   5. The Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 3 and 4 because Jablow engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph 2, and to discourage employees from engaging in these or other concerted activities.

   6. Since at least March 16, 2016, the Respondent has maintained and enforced the following rule in its Employee Manual:

      STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

      [. . .]

      Rude or improper behavior with customers or employees including the discussion of tips and wages.

      CONCLUSION OF LAW

      By the conduct described above in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 6, the Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent described above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

      REMEDY

      Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining and enforcing the rule in its Employee Manual under Standards of Conduct which includes the discussion of tips and wages as rude or improper behavior, we shall order the Respondent to rescind that rule and to furnish all current employees with written notice that the rule is no longer being maintained.

      Additionally, having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by issuing Michael Jablow a written warning and discharging...