LE FORT ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A MERRY MAIDS OF BOSTON

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 2014

360 N.L.R.B. 954 (N.L.R.B. 2014)

954 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
360 NLRB No. 119
Le Fort Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Merry Maids of Bos-
ton and International Association of Bridge,
Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron
Workers, Local 7, AFL–CIO. Case 01–CA–
123707
May 22, 2014
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HIROZAWA
AND JOHNSON
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Re-
spondent is contesting the Union’s certification as bar-
gaining representative in the underlying representation
proceeding. Pursuant to a charge filed by International
Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Rein-
forcing Iron Workers, Local 7, AFL–CIO, the Union, on
March 5, 2014, the General Counsel issued the complaint
on March 14, 2014, alleging that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act by refusing the Union’s request to bargain
following the Union’s certification in Case 01–RC–
097257. (Official notice is taken of the “record” in the
representation proceeding as defined in the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, Sections 102.68 and 102.69(g).
Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent
filed an answer, admitting in part and denying in part the
allegations in the complaint, and asserting affirmative
defenses.
On April 1, 2014, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment and a memorandum in support.
On April 2, 2014, 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 a response.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
The Respondent admits its refusal to recognize and
bargain, but contests the validity of the certification on
the basis of its contentions, raised and rejected in the
underlying representation proceeding, that the Board
lacks jurisdiction over the Respondent and that the Union
was not properly certified.1

1 In addition, the Respondent’s answer asserts as affirmative defens-
es that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be grant-
ed; the proceeding is barred by waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands;
and some or all of the allegations set forth in the charge are untimely.
The Respondent has not offered any explanation or evidence to support
these bare assertions. Thus, we find that these affirmative defenses are
insufficient to warrant denial of the General Counsel’s Motion for
Summary Judgment in this proceeding. See, e.g., George Washington
University, 346 NLRB 155 fn. 2 (2005); Circus Circus Hotel, 316
NLRB 1235 fn. 1 (1995).
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior representa-
tion proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to ad-
duce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously
unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir-
cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine
the decisions made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any
representation issue that is properly litigable in this un-
fair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment.2
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent has been a cor-
poration with an office and place of business located at
1644 Dorchester Avenue, Dorchester, Massachusetts,
and has been engaged in the business of providing clean-
ing services to private residences.
The Respondent, in conducting its business operations
described above, annually derives gross revenues in ex-
cess of $500,000, and paid franchise fees in excess of
$50,000 directly to points outside the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
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
A. The Certification
Following the representation election held on March
28, 2013, the Union was certified on December 3, 2013,
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the following appropriate unit (the
unit):
All full-time and regular part-time maids and house-
cleaners employed by the Employer at its 1644 Dor-
chester Avenue, Dorchester, Massachusetts location,
but excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees under
Section 9(a) of the Act.

2 The Respondent’s requests that the complaint be dismissed with
prejudice, and that it be granted judgment for costs and attorneys’ fees,
and any other relief the Court deems appropriate are therefore denied.
MERRY MAIDS OF BOSTON 955
B. Refusal to Bargain
By letter dated January 7, 2014, and by electronic mail
dated February 6, 2014, the Union requested that the
Respondent bargain collectively with it as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit. Since
about February 6, 2014, the Respondent has failed and
refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
We find that this failure and refusal constitutes an un-
lawful failure and refusal to recognize and bargain with
the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing since about February 6, 2014,
to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of employees in the
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and
desist, to bargain on request with the Union and, if an
understanding is reached, to embody the understanding
in a signed agreement.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services
of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by law, we shall construe the initial period of the certifi-
cation as beginning the date the Respondent begins to
bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry
Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); accord: Burnett Construc-
tion Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d
57 (10th Cir. 1965); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229
(1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied
379 U.S. 817 (1964).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Le Fort Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Merry Maids
of Boston, Dorchester, Massachusetts, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Orna-
mental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 7, AFL–
CIO as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the bargaining unit.
(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) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit on terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody
the understanding in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time maids and house-
cleaners employed by the Employer at its 1644 Dor-
chester Avenue, Dorchester, Massachusetts location,
but excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Dorchester, Massachusetts, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 1, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily 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
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent 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 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 cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since about February 6, 2014.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 1 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.

3 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.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD956
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 recognize and bargain
with International Association of Bridge, Structural, Or-
namental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 7, AFL–
CIO as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put
in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the fol-
lowing bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time maids and house-
cleaners employed by us at our 1644 Dorchester Ave-
nue, Dorchester, Massachusetts location, but excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the National Labor
Relations Act.
LE FORT ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A MERRY
MAIDS OF BOSTON
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/01-CA-123707 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273–1940.