Romac Sportswear, Inc., 1182 (1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Romac Sportswear, Inc. and Local 169, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFLCIO. Case 22-CA-9556

September 30, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS

JENKINS AND PENELLO

Upon a charge filed on October 22, 1979, and amended November 7, 1979, by Local 169, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,

AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and duly served upon Romac Sportswear, Inc., herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 22, issued a complaint and notice of hearing against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of hearing before an administrative law judge were duly served on the parties to this proceeding.

Respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint or request an extension of time for filing an answer.

On August 11, 1980, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment with exhibits attached. Subsequently, on August 28, 1980, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment shuld not be granted. Respondent did not thereafter file a response to the Notice To Show Cause, and thus the allegations of the Motion for Summary Judgment stand uncontroverted.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following:

Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, provides as follows:

The respondent shall, within 10 days from the service of the complaint, file an answer thereto. The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint, unless the respondent is without knowledge, in which case the respondent shall 252 NLRB No. 165 so state, such statement operating as a denial.

All allegations in the complaint, if no answer is filed, or any allegation in the complaint not specifically denied or explained in the answer filed, unless the respondent shall state in the answer that he is without knowledge, shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and shall be so found by the Board, unless good cause to the contrary is shown.

The complaint and notice of hearing issued on December 29, 1979, and duly served on the Respondent and Union, specifically states that unless an answer to the complaint is filed by Respondent within 10 days of service thereof, 'All of the allegations in said complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and may be so found by the Board.' Further, according to the uncontroverted allegations of the General Counsel's memorandum in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, by order dated May 21, 1979, and attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Regional Director advised Respondent that due to Respondent's failure to file an answer, counsel for the General Counsel would move for Summary Judgment. No answer has been received.

Good cause for failure to answer the complaint has not been shown. Under the rule set forth above, the allegations of the complaint are deemed admitted and are found to be true. Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.

On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is a corporation which, until an unknown date in October 1979, engaged in the business of manufacturing sportswear and related products at its principal office and place of business 426

   53d Street, West New York, New Jersey. During the past calendar year, a representative period, Respondent purchased and received at its facility in the State of New Jersey goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported directly from States other than the State of New Jersey.

   We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.

   1182

   ROMAC SPORTSWEAR. INC II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOIVEtD Local 169, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

3. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Unit The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

   All employees employed by Respondent at its West New York, New Jersey plant, including but not limited to cutters, markers, operators, pressers, carters, and/or shippers of garments, office or clerical workers, miscellaneous or auxiliary workers but excluding executives, supervisors, managers and guards within the meaning of the Act.

   2. The Representative Status of the Union The Union had represented the employees since on or beforeSeptember 3, 1977. The current collective-bargaining agreement, which has been effective at all times material herein, expires October 15, 1981, and the Union continues to be the employees' exclusive representative within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.

   3. The Request To Bargainand Respondent's Refusal Commencing on or about September 5, 1979, and at all times thereafter, the Union has requested Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in the above-described unit. Commencing on or about September 4, 1979, Respondent offered and promised its employees an improved health insurance plan to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union or giving any assistance or support to it, and threatened its employees with loss of employment if they did join or support the Union. Further, on or about September 5, 1979, Respondent unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employment by refusing a representative of the Union access to the plant. Respondent also unilaterally changed existing wage rates and other terms and conditions of employment on or about October 20, 1979, notwithstanding the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement, and since on or about September 5, 1979, including on or about October 20, 1979, has refused to recognize and bargain with the Union. On or about October 22, 1979, Respondent decided to permanently cease its business operations at the West New York plant here in question, having neglected and failed to inform or notify the Union of such decision at all times material herein prior to October 22, 1979. In addition, since an unknown date during the month of October 1979, Respondent has unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employment by failing to remit to the Union contributions to the health and welfare plan as required under the collective-bargaining agreement, and has permanently ceased operations at its West New York plant...