REFLECTIONS CLEANING SERVICES LLC, (2017)

• Date: 03 October 2017
• Docket Number: 18-CA-182827
• Court: National Labor Relations Board (US)

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.

Reflections Cleaning Services, LLC and Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA), Local 563. Case 18–CA–182827

March 10, 2017

DECISION AND ORDER

BY ACTING CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE AND MCFERRAN

The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this case on the ground that Reflections Cleaning Services, LLC (the Respondent) failed to file an answer to the complaint. Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA), Local 563 (the Union) on August 24, and September 27, 2016, respectively, the General Counsel issued a complaint on October 26, 2016, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Respondent failed to file an answer.

On December 6, 2016, the General Counsel filed with the National Labor Relations Board a Motion for Default Judgment. Thereafter, on December 8, 2016, 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.

Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment

Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that the allegations in the 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 stated that unless an answer was received by November 9, 2016, the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for default judgment, that the allegations in the complaint are true. Further, undisputed allegations in the General Counsel’s motion disclose that by letter dated November 16, 2016, counsel for the General Counsel notified the Respondent that unless an answer was received by November 28, 2016, 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 failure to file an 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, a Minnesota limited liability company with an office and principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota, has been engaged in the building and construction industry as a cleaning company.

   During the calendar year preceding issuance of the complaint, the Respondent, in conducting its business operations described above, provided services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Minnesota.

   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, Velma Metters has been the owner of the Respondent, 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 employees of the Respondent (the unit) constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

   All employees performing work within the jurisdiction of the Union, as identified in the 2013-2016 Commercial Cleaning Services Agreement.

   On September 23, 2015, the Respondent signed a Commercial Cleaning Acceptance of Agreement (the Agreement) granting recognition to the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit and agreeing to be bound by the 2013–2016 Commercial Cleaning Services Agreement (the Agreement). After that date, the Union has been recognized as such representative by the Respondent without regard to whether the majority status of the Union has ever been established under the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act.

   Article 13, section 4 of the Agreement provides in relevant part that employers who have agreed to be bound to that Agreement also agreed that the Agreement would continue to be in effect from year to year thereafter unless terminated in writing by registered or certified mail to any party at least 60 days before the expiration date. At no time has the Respondent provided such notice.

   At all times since September 23, 2015, based on Section 8(f) of the Act, the Union has been, and is, the lim-

   ited 9(a) exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.¹

   At all times since September 23, 2015, the Union has requested that the Respondent recognize and bargain with it as the limited exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.

   Since February 24, 2016, the Respondent has refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as the limited exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Union and has repudiated its contract...