Littco Metals, LLC, (2023)

• Date: 08 November 2023

372 NLRB No. 155

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.

Littco Metals LLC and Romir Brownlee. Case 15 –

CA–297643

November 8, 2023

DECISION AND ORDER

BY MEMBERS KAPLAN, PROUTY,AND WILCOX

The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this

case on the ground that Littco Metals, LLC (the Re-

spondent) has failed to file an answer to the complaint

and compliance specification. Upon a charge and first

amended charge filed by Romir Brownlee (the Charging

Party) on June 15, 2022, and March 21, 2023,1respec-

tively, the Regional Director for Region 15 issued a

complaint, compliance specification, and notice of hear-

ing (the complaint and compliance specification) on July

21, against the Respondent, alleging that it has violated

Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.2

The Respondent failed to file an answer.

On September 12, the General Counsel filed with the

National Labor Relations Board a Motion for Default

Judgment. On September 13, 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 Board has delegated its authority in this proceed-

ing 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. Similarly, Section 102.56 of the Board’s Rules

and Regulations provides that the allegations in a com-

pliance specification will be taken as true if an answer is

not filed within 21 days from the service of the compli-

ance specification. In addition, the complaint and com-

pliance specification affirmatively statedthat unless an

answer was received on or before August 11, the Board

may find, pursuant to a motion for default judgment, that

the allegations in the complaint and compliance specifi-

cation are true. Further, the undisputed allegations in the

General Counsel’s motion disclose that the Region, by

1 Dates are in 2023, unless otherwise indicated.

2The complaint alleges that the Charging Party filed a second

amended charge on May 11, 2023. The General Counsel’s Motion for

Default Judgment does not mention or attach a copy of this charge,

which was served on the Respondent by email on May 12, 2023.

letter and email dated August 16 (which enclosed a copy

of the complaint and compliance specification), advised

the Respondent that unless an answer was received by

August 23, a motion for default judgment would be filed.

Subsequently, by email dated August 22, the Region no-

tified the Respondent and the Chapter 7 Trustee that no

answer had been filed and extended the deadline for fil-

ing to August 29.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 and compliance specification to be admitted as

true, and we grant the General Counsel’s Motion for De-

fault Judgment.3

On the entire record, the Board makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. JURISDICTION

At all material times, the Respondent has been a lim-

ited liability company with an office and place of busi-

ness in West Point, Mississippi (the Respondent’s facili-

ty), and has been engaged in the construction of residen-

tial and commercial metal structures.

In conducting its operations during the calendar year

ending December 31, 2022, the Respondent sold and

shipped from its West Point, Mississippi facility goods

valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the

State of Mississippi.

In conducting its operations during the calendar year

ending December 31, 2022, the Respondent purchased

and received at its West Point, Mississippi facility goods

valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside

the State of Mississippi.

In conducting its operations during the calendar year

ending December 31, 2022, the Respondent performed

3 The General Counsel’s motion indicates that on January 10, 2023,

the Respondent filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United

States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Mississippi, Case Num-

ber 23-10069-SDM. On May 2, 2023, that case was converted from

Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 by Court Order. It is well established that the

institution of bankruptcy proceedings does not deprive the Board of

jurisdiction or authority to entertain and process an unfair labor practice

case to its final disposition. See, e.g., Cardinal Services, 295 NLRB

933, 933 fn. 2 (1989), and cases cited there. Board proceedings fall

within the exception to the automatic stay provisions for proceedings

by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory powers. See

id., and cases cited there; NLRB v. 15th Avenue Iron Works, Inc., 964

F.2d 1336 (2d Cir. 1992). Accord Ahrens Aircraft, Inc. v. NLRB, 703

F.2d 23 (1st Cir. 1983).

Further, a respondent’s cessation of operations does not excuse it

from filing an answer to a complaint or compliance specification. See,

e.g., OK Toilet & Towel Supply, Inc.,339 NLRB 1100, 1100–1101

(2003); Dong-A Daily North America, 332 NLRB 15, 15–16 (2000).

See also GDT Electrical, Inc., 356 NLRB No. 154, slip op. at 1, fn. 2

(2011).