Laro Service Systems, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 2010

356 NLRB No. 32 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

356 NLRB No. 32
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive 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.
Laro Service Systems, Inc. and Local 32BJ, Service
Employees International Union. Case 2–CA–
39481
November 22, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS BECKER
AND HAYES
The Acting 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
on September 10, 2009, and an amended charge filed on
November 6, 2009, by Local 32BJ, Service Employees
International Union, the Union, the Acting General
Counsel issued a complaint on June 29, 2010, against
Laro Service Systems, Inc., the Respondent, alleging that
it violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The Re-
spondent failed to file an answer.
On September 7, 2010, the Acting General Counsel
filed a Petition for Summary Judgment with the Board.
On September 14, 2010, the Board issued an order con-
struing the petition as a motion for default judgment,
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 received on or before July 13,
2010, the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for de-
fault judgment, that the allegations in the complaint are
true.1 Further, the undisputed allegations in the motion

1 By letter dated July 26, 2010, the Respondent’s former counsel
stated that the Respondent has been out of business for over 1 year and
that any assets at the time of its closing have been seized by Signature
Bank. Respondent’s former counsel further stated that because the
Respondent would not be able to continue paying him legal fees, he
would not continue to represent the Respondent in this matter. It is
well established that neither financial insolvency nor cessation of op-
erations relieves a respondent of its obligation to file an answer. See
OK Toilet & Towel Supply, 339 NLRB 1100, 1100–1101 (2003); Val-
iant Metal Products, 244 NLRB 1049 (1979).
for default judgment disclose that the Region, by certi-
fied letter dated July 30, 2010, notified the Respondent
that unless an answer was received by August 13, 2010, a
motion for default judgment would be filed with the
Board.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail-
ure to file an answer, we grant the Acting General Coun-
sel’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, a New York
corporation, with an office and place of business located
at 271 Skip Lane, Bay Shore, New York, has been en-
gaged in the business of providing maintenance services
to commercial clients throughout the New York area.
Annually, in the course and conduct of its business op-
erations described above, the Respondent purchases and
receives at its New York, New York facility products,
goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points located outside the State of New York.
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.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the Respondent has been a con-
stituent member of the Realty Advisory Board on Labor
Relations, Inc., a multiemployer bargaining association.
At all material times, Robert Bertuglia has been the
chief executive officer and a supervisor of the Respon-
dent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and
an agent acting on its behalf.
The following employees of the Respondent, the unit,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All service employees [employed by the Respondent]
in any facility, including residential buildings, in the
City of New York and in such other areas that are cur-
rently within the geographical jurisdiction of the Union
and the RAB.
The most recent collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Union and the Respondent is effective by its
terms January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2011.
At all material times, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the
Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the bargaining unit.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Since about August 14, 2009, the Union, by its griev-
ance representative, Edith Villavicencio, has requested
that the Respondent furnish it with the following infor-
mation:
(1) for Jose L. Jimenez: payroll records from December
1, 2008 through August 7, 2009 and evidence of his
hours worked and pay rate received and retail store lo-
cation where he was employed;
(2) for John Gallagher: payroll records from May 1,
2005 through December 31, 2008 and other evidence
of his hours worked and rate of pay received;
(3) for Carmen Fernandez: payroll records from Janu-
ary 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009; and
(4) for Evelyn Gonzalez: payroll records from January
1, 2008 through March 31, 2009.
Since about September 1, 2009, the Union, by its
counsel, Katchen Locke, has requested that the Respon-
dent furnish the Union with the following information:
(1) for each shareholder of the Respondent: their name,
business address and phone number, home address and
phone number and percentage of ownership in the Re-
spondent;
(2) a list and description of the Employer’s assets,
sources thereof and address where they are located; and
(3) payroll records and dates of hire for the following
employees: Carmen Fernandez, Evelyn Gonzalez,
John Gallagher and Jose L. Jimenez.
The information requested by the Union is necessary
for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit.
Since about August 15, 2009, the Respondent has
failed and refused to furnish the Union with the informa-
tion requested on August 14, 2009, and since about Sep-
tember 1, 2009, the Respondent has failed and refused to
furnish the Union with the information requested on Sep-
tember 1, 2009.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing to furnish the Union with the
information it requested, the Respondent has failed and
refused to bargain collectively and in good faith with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of its employees and, therefore, has engaged in un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and 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. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with
information that is necessary for and relevant to its per-
formance of its duties as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Respondent’s employ-
ees, we shall order the Respondent to furnish the Union
with the information it requested about August 14, 2009,
and September 1, 2009.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Laro Service Systems, Inc., Bay Shore, New
York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with Local 32BJ, Service Employees Interna-
tional Union, by failing and refusing to furnish the Union
with information that is necessary for and relevant to the
performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the follow-
ing appropriate bargaining unit:
All service employees [employed by the Respondent]
in any facility, including residential buildings, in the
City of New York and in such other areas that are cur-
rently within the geographical jurisdiction of the Union
and the RAB.
(b) 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) Furnish the Union with the information it requested
about August 14, 2009, and September 1, 2009.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Bay Shore, New York facility copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-

2 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.”
LARO SERVICE SYSTEMS 3
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent custom-
arily communicates with its employees by such means.3
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respon-
dent at any time since August 15, 2009.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. November 22, 2010
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Craig Becker, Member
Brian E. Hayes, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

3 For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in J. Picini Floor-
ing, 356 NLRB No. 9 (2010), Member Hayes would not require elec-
tronic distribution of the notice.
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 Federal labor law 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 fail and refuse to bargain collectively
and in good faith with Local 32BJ, Service Employees
International Union, by failing and refusing to furnish the
Union with information necessary for and relevant to the
performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the follow-
ing appropriate bargaining unit:
All service employees employed by us in any facility,
including residential buildings, in the City of New
York and in such other areas that are currently within
the geographical jurisdiction of the Union and the
RAB.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL furnish the Union the information it re-
quested about August 14, 2009, and September 1, 2009.
LARO SERVICE SYSTEMS, INC.