S.C.O. Contractors, Inc., No. 73* (1997)

S.C.O. Contractors, Inc. and Construction One, Inc. and Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-39402 and 7-CA-39403

September 19, 1997

DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND HIGGINS

Upon charges filed by the Union on January 23, 1997, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a consolidated complaint (complaint) on April 25, 1997, against S.C.O. Contractors, Inc. (Respondent SCO) and Construction One, Inc. (Respondent One), the Respondents, alleging that they have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. Although properly served copies of the charges and complaint, Respondent SCO failed to file an answer.

On August 11, 1997, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Partial Default Summary Judgment with the Board with respect to the allegations involving Respondent SCO. On August 14, 1997, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. Neither Respondent filed a response. The allegations in the motion are therefore undisputed.

Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment

Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board's Rules and Regulations provide 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 notes that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of service, all the allegations in the complaint will be considered admitted. Further, the undisputed allegations in the Motion for Partial Default Summary Judgment disclose that the Region, by letter dated May 27, 1997, notified Respondent SCO that unless an answer were received by June 11, 1997, a Motion for Default Summary Judgment would be filed.

In the absence of good cause being shown for the failure to file a timely answer, we grant the General Counsel's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.1

On the entire record, the Board makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. JURISDICTION

   At all material times, Respondent SCO, a corporation with its principal office and place of business in Grove City, Pennsylvania, has been a carpentry contractor in the construction industry and has provided such services as a subcontractor at an Amerihost Hotel jobsite on Range Road in Port Huron, Michigan (the Port Huron site). During the 1996 calendar year, Respondent SCO, in conducting its operations described above, had gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for carpentry services performed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and also had gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for carpentry services performed for customers outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We find that Respondent SCO is now, and has been at all material times, 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

   About December 17, 26, and 30, 1996, and January 12, 21, and 24, 1997, Respondent SCO coercively interrogated employees regarding their activities on behalf of and in support of the Union.

   About December 17, 1996, and January 12 and 21, 1997, Respondent SCO conveyed to employees the futility of selecting the Union as their exclusive collective-bargaining representative.

   About December 17, 1996, Respondent SCO asked employees if they were ready to sign an affidavit swearing that they were not and had never belonged to a union, told employees they had to make sure that a union did not get in, and asked employees if they could promise that they could keep a union out.

   About December 26, 1996, Respondent SCO told employees that it would not be able to hire them because of their support of the Union, that it was not allowed to hire union people, and that it could only hire employees on the condition that they would agree that it was a nonunion job.

   About January 21, 1997, Respondent SCO threatened employees with loss of employment by stating that it would shut the job down and bring in another crew from Pennsylvania to finish the job if they selected the Union as their representative, supported the position that employees were to remain nonunion if they wished to remain on the job, interfered with employee rights by trying to persuade them to delay their selection of a union, told employees that a ''union

   1 As indicated above, the General Counsel's motion does not seek summary judgment with respect to Respondent One, which did file an answer denying various allegations of the complaint, including the joint-employer allegations. Accordingly, the joint employer and

   other allegations involving Respondent One are remanded to the Regional Director for further appropriate action, as requested.

   VerDate 08-MAY-96 11:50 Sep 24, 1997 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 O:\GPOBV\V324.073 nlrb01

   brother'' had been on the jobsite and that they had lied when hired by stating that they were not union members, and threatened employees regarding their support for the Union by stating that they would be terminated if they lied when asked about being in the Union.

   About January 22, 1997, Respondent SCO told employees they would be terminated if they wore a union hardhat, interfered with Section 7 rights of employees and coercively interrogated them by asking them to sign a union waiver agreement, and threatened employees that they would be discharged if they did not sign the union waiver agreement.

   About January 24, 1997, Respondent SCO attempted to disparage the Union by telling employees that the Union would try to flatten tires and vandalize the job.

   About January 29 and February 13, 1997, Respondent SCO promised employees further job opportunities if they did not vote for the Union.

   About February 10, 1997, Respondent SCO threatened employees with loss of jobs if they voted for the Union.

   About January 21, 1997, Respondent SCO discharged its employee Ralph Giese, and on January 22, 1997, discharged its employees Teresa Zinzo and Kirk Klebba. Since about March 1997, Respondent SCO has declined to offer additional job opportunities to its employees who had worked on the Port Huron site. Respondent SCO took these actions because of the activities of its employees on behalf of and in support of the Union and to discourage employees from engaging in these and other concerted activities.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   By the acts and conduct described above, Respondent SCO has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of...