HENRY RODRIGUEZ, SR., HENRY RODRIGUEZ, JR., MONICA PRITCHETT, AND CHRISTOPHER PRITCHETT, A CALIFORNI

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 18, 2012

358 N.L.R.B. 1256 (N.L.R.B. 2012)

1256 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

358 NLRB No. 139
Henry Rodriguez, Sr., Henry Rodriguez, Jr., Monica
Pritchett, and Christopher Pritchett, a Califor-
nia General Partnership d/b/a Life’s Connec-
tions and Chris Mora and Constance Sifton.
Cases 32–CA–068654 and 32–CA–068656
September 18, 2012
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS GRIFFIN
AND BLOCK
The Acting General Counsel seeks a default judgment
in this case on the ground that the Respondent failed to
file an answer to the consolidated complaint. Upon
charges filed on November 10, 2011, by Chris Mora in
Case 32–CA–068654, and by Constance Sifton in Case
32–CA–068656, the Acting General Counsel issued an
order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint and
notice of hearing on April 10, 2012, against Henry Ro-
driguez Sr., Henry Rodriguez Jr., Monica Pritchett, and
Christopher Pritchett, a California general partnership,
d/b/a Life’s Connections, the Respondent, alleging that it
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The Re-
spondent failed to file an answer.
On May 11, 2012, the Acting General Counsel filed a
Motion for Default Judgment with the Board. Thereaf-
ter, on May 15, 2012, the Board issued an order transfer-
ring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show
Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Re-
spondent filed no response. The allegations in the mo-
tion 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 consolidated complaint affirma-
tively stated that unless an answer was received by April
24, 2012, the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for
default judgment, that the allegations in the consolidated
complaint are true.1 The Respondent failed to file an
answer.
By separate letters dated April 27, 2012, the Region
sent the Respondent and each of the four partners indi-
vidually, at both their business and home addresses, a
letter informing them that no answer to the consolidated

1 The Acting General Counsel’s motion and attachments confirm
that the Respondent and each of the four partners individually were
properly served with the consolidated complaint at both their business
and home addresses.
complaint had been received and further advising them
that unless an answer was received by May 4, 2012, a
motion for default judgment would be filed. However,
no answer was filed.2
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail-
ure to file an answer to the consolidated complaint, we
deem the allegations in the consolidated complaint and
notice of hearing to be admitted as true, and we grant the
Acting 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, the Respondent has been owned
by Henry Rodriguez Sr., Henry Rodriguez Jr., Monica
Pritchett, and Christopher Pritchett, as a California gen-
eral partnership doing business as Life’s Connections,
with offices and places of business in Hollister and San
Jose, California, and has been engaged in the provision
of social services to disabled adults.
In conducting its operations during the calendar year
ending December 31, 2011, the Respondent derived
gross revenues in excess of $250,000 and during the
same period of time, purchased and received goods or

2 The Region also sent a copy of the reminder letter to Attorney Gary
J. Clifford, who had previously informed the Region that he represented
Monica and Christopher Pritchett in a private lawsuit involving the
Respondent. By letter to the Region dated May 3, 2012, Clifford stat-
ed, among other things, that the Respondent’s partnership had been
dissolved on April 20, 2012; that Henry Rodriguez Sr. and Henry Ro-
driguez Jr. had assumed full control of the business and had been in
control for several months prior to the dissolution; that due to this the
Pritchetts were never afforded the opportunity to participate in the
instant proceeding; and that the partnership was never properly served
with the complaint as the Rodríguezes had changed the Respondent’s
physical location when the complaint was served. The letter also stated
that “[i]n the event that you intend to amend the complaint to include
the Pritchetts individually please notify me and I will file a Notice of
Appearance.” However, despite numerous requests from the Region,
Clifford did not file a notice of appearance.
By letter to the Region dated May 8, 2012, Clifford repeated that the
partnership dissolved on April 20, 2012, and asserted that “it would be
impossible for the Pritchetts to file an answer” because the complaint
was issued against a respondent for which they have no authority to file
an answer. Neither the May 3, 2012 letter nor the May 8, 2012 letter
addressed the consolidated complaint allegations or purported to be an
answer to the consolidated complaint. It is well established that a re-
spondent’s dissolution does not excuse it from filing an answer to a
complaint. See DRW Electric, 356 NLRB No. 121 slip op. at 1 fn. 2
(2011) (not reported in Board volumes); OK Toilet & Towel Supply,
Inc., 339 NLRB 1100, 1100–1101 (2003); Dong-A Daily North Ameri-
ca, 332 NLRB 15, 15–16 (2000).
In addition, we agree with the Acting General Counsel’s assertion in
his motion that the purported fact that the “Buyout Agreement” was
signed on April 20, 2012, has no legal impact in this proceeding, par-
ticularly because the alleged unfair labor practices occurred in October
2011, some 6 months before the Buyout Agreement was signed.
LIFE’S CONNECTIONS 1257
services valued in excess of $1800 which originated out-
side the State of California.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the individuals named below
held the positions set forth opposite their respective
names 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:

Henry Rodriguez Sr.–Owner/Co-Executive Director
Henry Rodriguez Jr.–Owner/Senior Case Manager
Monica Pritchett–Owner/Co-Executive Director
Christopher Pritchett–Owner/Director of Operations

The consolidated complaint alleges that the Respond-
ent engaged in the following conduct.
1. On October 5, 2011, the Respondent, at its Hollister,
California facility, acting through Henry Rodriguez Sr.,
threatened to terminate employees because they concert-
edly complained about a pay cut; told employees not to
tell each other how much they were paid or to discuss
their terms and conditions of employment with each oth-
er; and told employees that their protected concerted ac-
tivities, including discussion about their wages, consti-
tuted insubordination and a breach of confidentiality.
2. On October 5, 2011, the Respondent, at its Hollister,
California facility, acting through Monica Pritchett,
threatened employees that their protected concerted ac-
tivities, including discussion about their wages, consti-
tuted insubordination and would not be tolerated.
3. On October 7, 2011, the Respondent, at its Hollister,
California facility, acting through Henry Rodriguez Sr.
and Monica Pritchett, issued a written suspension notice
to an employee which cited the employee’s protected
concerted activities as a reason for the issuance of the
suspension and which prohibited the employee from dis-
cussing work-related subjects with coworkers while the
employee was on suspension.
4. On October 20, 2011, the Respondent, at its San Jo-
se facility, acting through Henry Rodriguez Sr., told an
employee that the employee was being discharged be-
cause of the employee’s protected concerted activities
and because it had come to his attention that the employ-
ee had spoken to other employees about unionizing.
5. In about September and October 2011, the Re-
spondent’s employees Chris Mora and Constance Sifton
engaged in concerted activities with each other and with
other employees for the purposes of collective-
bargaining and other mutual aid and protection by con-
tacting the State of California Department of Labor
Standards Enforcement, by complaining about their pay
schedule and a pay cut, and by discussing their wages
and other terms and conditions of employment with each
other and with other employees.
6. On October 7, 2011, the Respondent suspended em-
ployee Chris Mora.
7. On October 18 and 19, 2011, the Respondent elimi-
nated the work hours of employee Constance Sifton.
8. On October 20, 2011, the Respondent terminated
employee Constance Sifton.
9. On October 21, 2011, the Respondent terminated
employee Chris Mora.
10. The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above in paragraphs 6–9 because Chris Mora and Con-
stance Sifton engaged in the conduct described above in
paragraph 5, and to discourage employees from engaging
in these and other concerted activities.
11. The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above in paragraphs 7 and 8 because the Respondent
mistakenly believed employee Constance Sifton formed,
joined, or assisted a union, and engaged in concerted
activity, and to discourage employees from engaging in
these activities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 1–4
and 6–9, the Respondent has been interfering with, re-
straining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 7, 8,
and 11, the Respondent has been discriminating in regard
to the hire or tenure or conditions of employment of its
employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
3. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent, de-
scribed above, affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by dis-
charging Chris Mora and Constance Sifton, and addition-
ally violated Section 8(a)(3) by discharging Sifton, we
shall order the Respondent to offer them full reinstate-
ment to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist,
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1258
to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed. Further, we shall order the Respondent to make
whole Chris Mora and Constance Sifton for any loss of
earnings or other benefits suffered as a result of the Re-
spondent’s unlawful actions against them. Backpay shall
be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co.,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed
in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded
daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center,
356 NLRB 6 (2010).3
In addition, having found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) by suspending Chris Mora on October 7,
2011, and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by eliminating
the work hours of Constance Sifton on October 18 and
19, 2011, we shall order the Respondent to rescind Chris
Mora’s suspension and reinstate Constance Sifton’s
hours. We shall also order the Respondent to make Chris
Mora and Constance Sifton whole for any loss of earn-
ings or other benefits suffered as a result of the Respond-
ent’s unlawful actions against them. Backpay shall be
computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., su-
pra (for the unlawful suspension), and Ogle Protection
Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th
Cir. 1971) (for the unlawful elimination of work hours),
with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, su-
pra, compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River
Medical Center, supra.
The Respondent shall also be required to remove from
its files any and all references to the unlawful discharge
of Chris Mora and Constance Sifton, the unlawful sus-
pension of Chris Mora on October 7, 2011, and the un-
lawful elimination of the work hours of Constance Sifton
on October 18 and 19, 2011. The Respondent shall noti-
fy Chris Mora and Constance Sifton in writing that this
has been done and that the unlawful references will not
be used against them in any way.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Henry Rodriguez, Sr., Henry Rodriguez, Jr.,

3 The Acting General Counsel’s motion seeks an order requiring re-
imbursement of amounts equal to the difference in taxes owed upon
receipt of a lump-sum payment and taxes that would have been owed
had there been no discrimination. Further, the Acting General Counsel
requests that the Respondent be required to submit the appropriate
documentation to the Social Security Administration so that when
backpay is paid, it will be allocated the appropriate pay periods. Be-
cause the relief sought would involve a change in Board law, we be-
lieve that the appropriateness of this proposed remedy should be re-
solved after a full briefing by the affected parties, and there has been no
such briefing in this case. Accordingly, we decline to order this relief
at this time. See, e.g., Ishikawa Gasket America, Inc., 337 NLRB 175,
176 (2001), enfd. 354 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2004), and cases cited therein.
Monica Pritchett, and Christopher Pritchett, a California
General Partnership, d/b/a Life’s Connections, Hollister
and San Jose, California, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening to discharge employees because they
concertedly complained about a pay cut.
(b) Telling employees not to tell each other how much
they are paid or to discuss their terms and conditions of
employment with each other.
(c) Telling employees that their protected concerted
activities, including discussion about their wages, consti-
tute insubordination and a breach of confidentiality.
(d) Threatening employees that their protected con-
certed activities, including discussion about their wages,
constitutes insubordination and will not be tolerated.
(e) Issuing written suspension notices to employees
which cite their protected concerted activities as a reason
for the suspension and which prohibit employees from
discussing work-related subjects with coworkers while
they are on suspension.
(f) Telling employees that they are being discharged
because of their protected concerted activities and be-
cause employees speak to each other about unionizing.
(g) Suspending employees because they engage in pro-
tected concerted activities, and to discourage employees
from engaging in these activities.
(h) Eliminating employees’ work hours because they
formed, joined, or assisted a union and engaged in pro-
tected concerted activities, or because the Respondent
believes they have done so, and to discourage employees
from engaging in these activities.
(i) Discharging employees because they formed,
joined, or assisted a union and engaged in protected con-
certed activities, or because the Respondent believes they
have done so, and to discourage employees from engag-
ing in these activities.
(j) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Chris Mora and Constance Sifton reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their sen-
iority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed.
(b) Make whole Chris Mora and Constance Sifton for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a re-
sult of the discrimination against them, in the manner set
forth in the remedy section of this decision.
LIFE’S CONNECTIONS 1259
(c) Rescind the suspension of Chris Mora.
(d) Reinstate the work hours of Constance Sifton.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from their files all references to the unlawful discharge of
Chris Mora and Constance Sifton, the suspension of
Chris Mora, and the elimination of the work hours of
Constance Sifton, and, within 3 days thereafter, notify
the discriminatees in writing that this has been done and
that its unlawful conduct will not be used against them in
any way.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities in Hollister and San Jose, California, copies
of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 32, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical
posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed elec-
tronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an
internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Re-
spondent customarily communicates with its employees
by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facilities
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since October 5, 2011.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 32 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.

4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted By Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you because you
concertedly complain about a pay cut.
WE WILL NOT tell you not to tell each other how much
you are paid or to discuss your terms and conditions of
employment with each other.
WE WILL NOT tell you that your protected concerted ac-
tivities, including discussions about your wages, consti-
tute insubordination and a breach of confidentiality.
WE WILL NOT threaten you that your protected concert-
ed activities, including discussions about your wages,
constitute insubordination and will not be tolerated.
WE WILL NOT issue written suspension notices to you
which cite your protected concerted activities as a reason
for the suspension and which prohibit you from discuss-
ing work-related subjects with coworkers while you are
on suspension.
WE WILL NOT tell you that you are being discharged be-
cause of your protected concerted activities and because
you speak to each other about unionizing.
WE WILL NOT suspend you because you engage in pro-
tected concerted activities, and to discourage you from
engaging in these activities.
WE WILL NOT eliminate your work hours because you
formed, joined, or assisted a union and engaged in pro-
tected concerted activities, or because we believe you
engage in such activities and to discourage you from
engaging in these activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge you because you formed,
joined, or assisted a union and engaged in protected con-
certed activities, or because we believe you have done so
and to discourage you from engaging in these activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1260
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order,
offer Chris Mora and Constance Sifton reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed.
WE WILL make whole Chris Mora and Constance
Sifton for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
as a result of our discrimination against them, plus inter-
est.
WE WILL rescind Chris Mora’s suspension.
WE WILL reinstate the work hours of Constance Sifton.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files all references to the unlaw-
ful actions against Chris Mora and Constance Sifton, and
WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify each of them in
writing that this has been done and that our unlawful
conduct will not be used against them in any way.

HENRY RODRIGUEZ, SR., HENRY RODRIGUEZ,
JR., MONICA PRITCHETT, AND CHRISTOPHER
PRITCHETT, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP D/B/A LIFE’S CONNECTIONS