T.E. Seidel Electric, 62 (1996)

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Board 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.

T. E. Seidel Electric, Inc. and Local 234, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 32-CA-15283 and 32-CA- 15377

October 21, 1996

DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND HIGGINS

Upon charges filed by the Union on March 7, and April 16, 1996, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a consolidated complaint (complaint) on July 16, 1996, against T. E. Seidel Electric, Inc., the Respondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. Although properly served copies of the charges and complaint, the Respondent failed to file an answer.

On September 23, 1996, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board. On September 25, 1996, 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 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 Summary Judgment disclose that the Region, by letter dated August 7, 1996, notified the Respondent that unless an answer were received by August 19, 1996, a Motion for 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 Summary Judgment.

On the entire record, the Board makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. JURISDICTION

   At all material times, the Respondent, a California corporation, with an office and place of business in Salinas, California, has been engaged as an electrical contractor in the building and construction industry. During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the consolidated complaint, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, sold and shipped goods or provided services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers or business enterprises who themselves meet one of the Board's jurisdictional standards, other than the indirect inflow or indirect outflow standards. 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 the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

2. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

   About December 14, 1995, the Respondent refused to hire employee-applicants James Nichols and Forest Bayer. About April 12, 1996, the Respondent discharged its employee William Nye, and since that date has failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to reinstate him to his former position of employment. The Respondent engaged in this conduct because Nichols, Bayer, and Nye joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other protected concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.

   CONCLUSION OF LAW

   By the acts and conduct described above, the Respondent has discriminated, and is discriminating, in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6)...