StageTech Productions, LLC, (2012)

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.

Stagetech Productions, LLC and Jeffery Skinner.

Cases 112013CA2013022813 112013CA2013023147

August 31, 2012

DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HAYES AND BLOCK

The Acting General Counsel seeks default judgment in Case 112013CA2013022813 pursuant to the terms of an informal settlement agreement, and in Case 112013CA2013 023147 on the ground that the Respondent withdrew its answers to the consolidated complaint and amendment to the consolidated complaint. The Respondent filed no response to the Acting General Counsel2019s Motion for Default Judgment. The allegations in the motion are therefore undisputed. The procedural aspects and substantive allegations in each case are discussed below.

Case 112013CA2013022813: Upon a September 15, 2010 charge, a November 10, 2010 first amended charge, a December 20, 2010 second amended charge, and a January 26, 2011 third amended charge filed by Jeffery Skinner, the Charging Party, against StageTech Productions, LLC, the Respondent, alleging that it violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, the Acting General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent entered into an informal settlement agreement. The parties2019 agreement was approved by the Regional Director for Region 11 on April 12, 2011. Among other things, the settlement agreement required the Respondent to post a Board notice to employees; make backpay payments with interest to each of the seven named discriminatees; call employees for work even if they support a union; remove from the Respondent2019s files all references to the failure of the Respondent to call for work each of the seven named discriminatees; and remove from its files all references to the discipline issued to Gareth Owings between March and April 2010.

The settlement agreement also contained the following provision:

The Charged Party agrees that in case of noncompliance with any of the terms of this Settlement Agreement by the Charged Party, and after 14 days notice from the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board of such non-compliance without remedy by the Charged Party, the Regional Director will issue the complaint on the allegations spelled out above in the Scope of Agreement section.

Thereafter, the General Counsel may file a motion for summary judgment with the Board on the allegations of the complaint. The Charged Party understands and agrees that all of the allegations of the aforementioned complaint will be deemed admitted and it will have waived its right to file an Answer to such complaint. The only issue that may be raised before the Board is whether the Charged Party defaulted on the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The Board may then, without necessity of trial or any other proceeding, find all allegations of the complaint to be true and make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with those allegations adverse to the Charged Party on all issues raised by the pleadings. The Board may then issue an order providing a full remedy for the violations found as is appropriate to remedy such violations. The parties further agree that a U.S. Court of Appeals Judgment may be entered enforcing the Board order ex parte.

As set forth in the Acting General Counsel2019s motion, the Respondent made backpay payments with interest to all seven named discriminatees, fully complied with the expungement notification provisions with respect to Gareth Owings, and posted the agreed-upon Notice to Employees for the requisite period of time. In addition, the uncontroverted allegations in the Motion state that the Respondent has failed to comply with the terms of the informal settlement agreement by: since about May 2011, establishing and maintaining a discriminatory hiring list/system; and about April 12, 2011, failing and refusing to call or return employees Jeffery Skinner, Gareth Owings, Wesley Dickson, Matt LeRoux, Chris Wilkerson, and Justin Gasper to their normal work frequency.

Case 112013CA2013023147: Upon a June 17, 2011 charge, an August 26, 2011 first amended charge, an October 28, 2011 second amended charge, and a November 30, 2011 third amended charge filed by Jeffery Skinner, the Acting General Counsel issued an order consolidating Cases 112013CA2013022813 and 112013CA2013023147, order revoking settlement, and a consolidated complaint on December 30, 2011. The Respondent filed an answer to the consolidated complaint. On February 14, 2012, the Acting Regional Director issued an amendment to the above-described order and consolidated complaint.¹ The Respondent filed an answer to the amendment to the consolidated complaint. On May 10, 2012, the Respondent withdrew its answers to the consolidated complaint and the amendment to the con

¹ The amendment to the order and the consolidated complaint replaced the introductory paragraphs in the consolidated complaint and recast the title of the pleading to Order Consolidating Cases and Consolidated Complaint.

solidated complaint. The consolidated complaint and amendment to the consolidated complaint (collectively, the amended consolidated complaint) allege, inter alia, that the Respondent violated the Act and breached the terms of the informal settlement agreement by: since on about May 2011, establishing and maintaining a discriminatory hiring list/system; and about April 12, 2011, failing and refusing to call or return employees Jeffery Skinner, Gareth Owings, Wesley Dickson, Matt LeRoux, Chris Wilkerson, and Justin Gasper to their normal work frequency.

On July 6, 2012, the Acting General Counsel filed the Motion for Default Judgment in Cases 112013CA2013 022813 and 112013CA2013023147. Thereafter, on July 10, 2012, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. As noted above, the Respondent filed no response, and the allegations...