Strassheim Printing Co., (2007)

Docket Number:04-CA-34892

Strassheim Printing Co., Inc. and Graphic Communications Conference Local 4-C a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Case 4–CA–34892

January 11, 2007


By Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Schaumber

The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file an answer to the complaint. Upon a charge filed by the Union on September 5, 2006, the General Counsel issued the complaint on October 27, 2006, against Strassheim Printing Co., Inc., the Respondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The Respondent failed to file an answer.

On November 27, 2006, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Default Judgment with the Board. Thereafter, on November 28, 2006, 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 a 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 filed by November 13, 2006, all the allegations in the complaint may, pursuant to a motion for default judgment, be found by the Board to be true. Further, the undisputed allegations in the General Counsel’s motion disclose that the Region, by letter dated November 14, 2006, notified the Respondent that unless an answer was received by November 21, 2006, a motion for default 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 Default Judgment.

On the entire record, the Board makes the following

Findings of Fact

i. jurisdiction

At all material times, until on about June 30, 2006, the Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation with a facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was engaged in printing books, periodicals, and other printed materials. During the 12-month period ending June 30, 2006, the Respondent, in conducting its business operations described above, sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

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 Graphic Communications Conference Local 4-C a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 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, William Strassheim and Rachael Strassheim held the positions of the Respondent’s president and office manager, respectively, and have been supervisors of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents 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 pressmen, offset assistants, and offset...

To continue reading