Row-Wall Electric, Inc., No. 66 (2004)

• Docket Number: 16-CA-23630

Row-Wall Electric, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 602. Cases 16–CA–23630 and 16–CA–23814

October 29, 2004

DECISION AND ORDER

By Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Walsh

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. Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by the Union on May 14 and June 14, 2004 in Case 16–CA–23630, and a charge filed by the Union in Case 16–CA–23814 on August 17, 2004, the General Counsel issued the consolidated complaint on September 14, 2004, against Row-Wall Electric, Inc., the Respondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The Respondent failed to file an answer.

On October 1, 2004, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Default Judgment with the Board. On October 5, 2004, 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 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 consolidated complaint affirmatively stated that unless an answer was filed by September 28, 2004, all the allegations in the consolidated complaint could be considered admitted. Further, the undisputed allegations in the General Counsel’s motion disclose that on September 24, 2004, counsel for the Respondent informed the Region that the Respondent had closed its business and that no answer would be filed. On that same date, the Region advised the Respondent that a motion for default judgment would be filed if the Respondent failed to file an answer. Thereafter, on September 28, 2004, the Respondent’s counsel notified the Region, in writing, that the Respondent would not be filing an answer to the consolidated complaint and that the Respondent had closed its business.[1]

In the absence of good cause being shown for the failure to file an answer, we grant the General CounselÂ’s motion for default judgment.

On the entire record, the Board makes the following

Findings of Fact

i. jurisdiction

At all material times, the Respondent, a Texas corporation with an office and a place of business in Lubbock, Texas, has been engaged as an electrical contractor in the construction industry, performing residential, commercial, and industrial construction. During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the consolidated complaint, the Respondent, in conducting its business operations described above, purchased materials and services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Texas.

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 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 602 (the Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

ii. alleged unfair labor practices

At all material times, Lynn B. Rowan, III has been the RespondentÂ’s owner, and has been a supervisor of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and/or 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 with the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

Included:Â All employees performing electrical construction work within the jurisdiction of the Local on all present and future jobs.

Excluded:Â All guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

At all material times, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the designated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit, and has been recognized as the representative by the Respondent. This recognition was embodied in a recognition agreement dated October 3, 1994.

Since about March 2, 2004, the Respondent and the Union met for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of the unit.

On about March 2, 2004, the Respondent failed to confirm with the Union the time to meet for negotiation; arrived at the union hall unannounced; and offered a proposal designed to frustrate the bargaining process.

On about April 22,...