Ringo Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 2020

369 N.L.R.B. 143 (N.L.R.B. 2020)

369 NLRB No. 143
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.
Ringo Services, Inc. and Local 324, International Un-
ion of Operating Engineers (IUOE), AFL–CIO.
Cases 07–CA–209485 and 07–CA–214290
July 29, 2020
DECISION, ORDER, AND NOTICE TO
SHOW CAUSE
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN
AND EMANUEL
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case because Ringo Services, Inc. (the Respondent) has
failed to file an answer to the consolidated complaint and
compliance specification. A charge and amended charge
were filed by Local 324, International Union of Operating
Engineers (IUOE), AFL–CIO (the Union), in Case 07–
CA–209485 on November 7, 2017, and January 30, 2018,
respectively, and a charge was filed by the Union in Case
07–CA–214290 on February 5, 2018. On December 11,
2018, the Acting Regional Director for Region 7 approved
an informal settlement agreement. Thereafter, having
concluded that the informal settlement agreement should
be vacated and set aside, the General Counsel issued a re-
issued consolidated complaint and order revoking settle-
ment, a compliance specification, an order consolidating
the reissued consolidated complaint, as amended, and
compliance specification, and an answer requirement and
notice of consolidated hearing (the consolidated complaint
and compliance specification) on May 14, 2019, alleging
that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). On May
22, 2019, the General Counsel served the consolidated
complaint and compliance specification on the
1 The General Counsel’s motion for default judgment and attached
exhibits indicate that the consolidated complaint and compliance speci-
fication was initially served on the Respondent by certified mail, return
receipt requested, at a Detroit address that is out of date (the old Detroit
address). On May 22, 2019, the consolidated complaint and compliance
specification was again served on the Respondent, this time by regular
mail to a different Detroit address, which the Respondent’s chief execu-
tive officer, in a February 11, 2019 email, had identified as the Respond-
ent’s new address and which was also the address registered with the
State of Michigan for service of process on the Respondent (the State-
registered address). On the same date, according to an exhibit attached
to the motion, the Region sent a courtesy copy of the consolidated com-
plaint and compliance specification to the Respondent’s chief executive
officer at his email address, and there is no indication in the record that
the email was returned as undeliverable. The Region’s June 7 reminder
letter, with another copy of the consolidated complaint and compliance
specification attached, was served on the Respondent by regular mail to
the State-registered address. Neither of the copies sent by regular mail
Respondent again, at a newer address. The Respondent
failed to file an answer.
On June 17, 2019, the General Counsel filed with the
National Labor Relations Board a Motion for Default
Judgment. Thereafter, on June 20, 2019, the Board issued
an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a
Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be
granted. On September 13, 2019, and November 21,
2019, the Board issued a Supplemental Notice to Show
Cause and a Second Supplemental Notice to Show Cause,
respectively, attempting service on the Respondent at ad-
ditional addresses. The Respondent filed no response to
any of the notices. The allegations in the motion are there-
fore undisputed.
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.
Similarly, Section 102.56 of the Board’s Rules and Regu-
lations provides that the allegations in a compliance spec-
ification will be taken as true if an answer is not filed
within 21 days from service of the compliance specifica-
tion. In addition, the consolidated complaint and compli-
ance specification affirmatively stated that unless an an-
swer was received by June 4, 2019, the Board may find,
pursuant to a motion for default judgment, that the allega-
tions in the consolidated complaint and compliance spec-
ification are true. Further, the undisputed allegations in
the General Counsel’s motion disclose that the Region, by
letter dated June 7, 2019, advised the Respondent that un-
less an answer was filed by June 14, 2019, the Region
would have no alternative but to pursue a default judg-
ment. Nevertheless, the Respondent failed to file an an-
swer to the consolidated complaint and compliance speci-
fication.1
was returned as undeliverable. The General Counsel’s motion for default
judgment was served on the Respondent by regular mail to three ad-
dresses—the old Detroit address, the State-registered address, and an ad-
dress in Chicago—and the record does not indicate that it was returned
as undeliverable.
It is well settled that a respondent’s failure or refusal to accept certi-
fied mail or to provide for appropriate service cannot serve to defeat the
purposes of the Act. See, e.g., Cray Construction Group, LLC, 341
NLRB 944, 944 fn. 5 (2004); I.C.E. Electric, Inc., 339 NLRB 247, 247
fn. 2 (2003). Further, the failure of the postal service to return documents
served by regular mail indicates actual receipt of those documents by the
Respondent. Id.; Lite Flight, Inc., 285 NLRB 649, 650 (1987), enfd. sub
nom. NLRB v. Sherman, 843 F.2d 1392 (6th Cir. 1988).
The Region informed the Board’s Office of the Executive Secretary
by telephone that it has no current contact information for the Respond-
ent and that it believes the Respondent has closed its business, an infer-
ence supported by the Respondent’s multiple undeliverable addresses
and the State of Michigan’s online business registry, which reflects that
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record indicates that, since at least May 17, 2019,
the Respondent has not been represented by counsel in this
proceeding.2 Although the Board, unlike the federal
courts,3 permits respondent corporations to appear without
counsel, the Board has consistently held that the choice to
forgo representation by counsel does not establish good
cause for failing to file a timely answer. See, e.g., Patri-
cian Assisted Living Facility, 339 NLRB 1153, 1153
(2003); Sage Professional Painting Co., 338 NLRB 1068,
1068 (2003). See also Starrs Group Home, Inc., 357
NLRB 1219, 1219–1220 (2011); Lockhart Concrete, 336
NLRB 956, 957 (2001).
In the absence of good cause being shown for the failure
to file an answer, we deem the allegations in the consoli-
dated complaint to be admitted as true, and we grant the
General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment as to
those allegations. For the reasons stated below, we deny
the Motion for Default Judgment with respect to the alle-
gations in the compliance specification regarding amounts
owed to the Union as a remedy for the Respondent’s un-
lawful failure to remit dues deducted from employees’
pay. In all other respects, we grant the Motion for Default
Judgment with respect to the compliance specification.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent has been a corpo-
ration with an office and place of business in Detroit,
Michigan (the Detroit facility), and has been engaged in
providing facility maintenance services at certain Detroit
Public Schools Community District (DPSCD) facilities.
At all material times, the Respondent and Lakeshore-
Rickman JV LLC (Lakeshore) have been parties to a con-
tract that provides that the Respondent is the agent for
Lakeshore in connection with providing facility manage-
ment services for DPSCD.
About April 2017, the Respondent assumed certain
DPSCD facility management services of Lakeshore, and,
until about April 2018, continued to operate the business
of Lakeshore in basically unchanged form at those
DPSCD facilities, and, at those DPSCD facilities,
the Respondent was dissolved as of July 19, 2019. It is well established
that a respondent’s asserted or actual cessation of operations does not
excuse it from filing an answer to a complaint or a compliance specifi-
cation. See, e.g., UNY LLC d/b/a General Super Plating, 367 NLRB No.
113, slip op. at 1 fn. 2 (2019); Cobalt Coal Corp. Mining, Inc., 367
NLRB No. 45, slip op. at 1–2 fn. 2 (2018); OK Toilet & Towel Supply,
Inc., 339 NLRB 1100, 1100–1101 (2003); Dong-A Daily North America,
332 NLRB 15, 15–16 (2000).
2 On May 15, 2019, the Region sent a courtesy copy of the consoli-
dated complaint and compliance specification to the Respondent’s coun-
sel of record by email, but the Region received a letter in response on
employed as a majority of its employees individuals who
were previously employees of Lakeshore.
Based on its operations described above, we find that
the Respondent has continued the employing entity and is
a successor to Lakeshore.
In conducting its operations during the calendar year
ending December 31, 2017, a representative period, the
Respondent provided services valued in excess of $50,000
for DPSCD, an enterprise within the State of Michigan,
and directly engaged in interstate commerce.
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 the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. At all material times, the following individuals have
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 Re-
spondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:
Dan Ringo-Chief Executive Officer
Alex Riley-Chief Operating Officer
2. The following employees of the Respondent (the
unit) constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All full-time employees employed by the Respondent as
Stationary Engineers and Boiler Operators in Detroit
Public Schools Community District buildings, and
buildings related to Detroit Public Schools Community
District, all of whom are hereinafter referred to as “em-
ployees” and classified in positions as listed in Article
XVII, Wages and Classifications, contained in the col-
lective bargaining agreement dated August 13, 2014,
through August 12, 2017, between the [Union] and
Lakeshore.
(a) From about August 2014 until about April 2017, the
Union had been the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit employed by Lakeshore, and during
that time the Union had been recognized as such
May 17, 2019, stating that the attorney no longer represented the Re-
spondent.
3 See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory
Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–202 (1993) (“It has been the law for the bet-
ter part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal
courts only through licensed counsel.”); Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764
F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985) (“The rule is well established that a
corporation is an artificial entity that can act only through agents, cannot
appear pro se, and must be represented by counsel.”), cert. denied, 474
U.S. 1058 (1986).
RINGO SERVICES, INC. 3
representative by Lakeshore. The recognition has been
embodied in successive collective-bargaining agreements,
the most recent of which was effective from August 13,
2014, to August 12, 2017.
(b) Since about April 2017, based on the facts described
above, the Union has been the designated exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the unit.
(c) Since about August 2013 to about April 2017, based
on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the unit em-
ployed by Lakeshore.
(d) At all times since April 2017, based on Section 9(a)
of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Respondent’s employees
in the unit.
3. In about April 2017, the Respondent adopted the
terms and conditions set forth in the collective-bargaining
agreement described above in paragraph 2(a) and applied
various terms and conditions set forth in the collective-
bargaining agreement to its unit employees and continued
to adhere to those terms and conditions until about August
6, 2017.
4. Since about November 2017, following the expira-
tion of the collective-bargaining agreement, the Respond-
ent has failed to remit to the Union dues deducted pursuant
to valid, unexpired, and unrevoked employee check-off
authorizations.
5. Since about August 6, 2017, the Respondent has
failed to adhere to the terms and conditions set forth in the
collective-bargaining agreement described above by,
among other things:
(a) On about August 6, 2017, the Respondent ceased
remitting payments to the apprenticeship fund.
(b) On about October 1, 2017, the Respondent ceased
remitting payments to the central pension fund and the an-
nuity fund.
(c) On about October 31, 2017, the Respondent
switched health care providers from Blue Cross Blue
Shield to Total Health Care for unit employees.
(d) On about October 31, 2017, the Respondent in-
creased health care deductibles and premiums for unit em-
ployees.
(e) On about November 1, 2017, the Respondent, after
recalling unit employees from layoff, placed the recalled
unit employees in a lower classification.
(f) On about November 24, 2017, the Respondent
ceased paying unit employees holiday pay for the Friday
after Thanksgiving.
4 The settlement agreement provided that:
Respondent agrees that in case of non-compliance with any of the terms
of this Settlement Agreement by the Charged Party, and after 14 days’
notice from the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations
(g) On about October 31, 2017, the Respondent ceased
remitting payments to the health care plan that is identified
in the collective-bargaining agreement described above.
6. The subjects set forth above in paragraph 5 relate to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment of the unit and are mandatory subjects for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
7. The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above in paragraph 5 without prior notice to the Union and
without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain
with the Respondent with respect to this conduct and ef-
fects of this conduct and without first bargaining to an
overall good-faith impasse for a successor collective-bar-
gaining agreement.
8. In disposition of Cases 07–CA–209485 and 07–CA–
214290, the Respondent entered into a settlement agree-
ment, which was approved by the Acting Regional Direc-
tor on December 11, 2018.4
(a) Since about January 15, 2019, by failing to make
agreed-upon monthly payments and failing to post and
mail a notice to employees, the Respondent has failed and
refused to comply with the settlement agreement de-
scribed above in paragraph 8.
(b) In light of the conduct described above in paragraph
8(a), the Respondent violated the terms of the settlement
agreement described above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described above in paragraph 4, the
Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and co-
ercing 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 5 and
7, the Respondent has been failing and refusing to bargain
collectively and in good faith with the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of its employees in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
3. The Respondent’s unfair labor practices described
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. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
by unilaterally implementing changes concerning health
Board of such non-compliance without remedy by the Charged Party,
the Regional Director will reissue the Consolidated Complaint previ-
ously issued on April 20, 2018 and the Amendment to the Consolidated
Complaint previously issued on October 26, 2018 in the instant cases.
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
insurance benefits, layoff and recall, holiday pay, and
fringe benefit payments, we shall order the Respondent to
make the benefit funds and the unit employees whole.
Specifically, we shall order the Respondents to make all
such delinquent fund contributions on behalf of unit em-
ployees in the amounts set forth in the compliance speci-
fication and the Attachment, with interest accrued to the
date of payment, as prescribed in New Horizons, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010), and
minus tax withholdings required by Federal and State
laws.
In addition, the Respondent shall make the employees
whole for any expenses they may have incurred as a result
of the Respondents’ failure to make such payments as set
forth in the Attachment and in Kraft Plumbing & Heating,
252 NLRB 891, 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. mem. 661 F.2d
940 (9th Cir. 1981), such amounts to be computed in the
manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB
682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with inter-
est as prescribed in New Horizons, above, compounded
daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center,
above.5
We shall also order the Respondent to make the unit em-
ployees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
they may have suffered as a result of the Respondent’s un-
lawful conduct by paying them the amounts set forth in
the compliance specification and the Attachment,6 such
amounts to be computed in the manner set forth in Ogle
Protection Service, above, with interest accrued to the date
of payment as prescribed in New Horizons, above, com-
pounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical
Center, above, and minus tax withholdings required by
Federal and State laws.
The compliance specification alleges that the Respond-
ent owes the Union $4341.09 for its unlawful failure to
remit to the Union dues deducted from employees’ pay.
As the Board explained in Betteroads Asphalt, LLC, 369
NLRB No. 114, slip op. at 1–2 (2020), an employer may
lawfully cease deducting dues from employees’ pay fol-
lowing the expiration of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment containing a dues checkoff provision, but it violates
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act if it continues to deduct dues
without remitting them to the Union. The remedy for such
5 To the extent that an employee has made personal contributions to
a fund that are accepted by the fund in lieu of the Respondent’s delin-
quent contributions during the period of the delinquency, the Respondent
will reimburse the employee, but the amount of such reimbursement will
constitute a setoff to the amount that the Respondent otherwise owes the
fund.
6 Par. 7 of the compliance specification cites Attachment I to support
its calculation of $329,743.87 as the amount the Respondent owes, be-
fore interest and excess tax liability. Attachment I, however, shows a
a violation, however, is an order requiring the employer to
return the funds to the employees, with interest. Id. at 4–
5. Accordingly, we deny the Motion for Default Judgment
with respect to this aspect of the compliance specification,
and we shall sever and retain the relevant allegations and
issue below a notice to show cause why the remedy for the
violation of Section 8(a)(1) should not be modified to
comport with Betteroads Asphalt, above.
The Respondent shall also be required to remove from
its files any and all references to the unlawful placement
of employees Cheryl Cowan, Morris Mims, and Travis
Piggee in a lower classification after their recall from
layoff and to notify Cowan, Mims, and Piggee in writing
that this has been done and that the unlawful conduct will
not be used against them in any way.
We shall also order the Respondent to compensate the
unit employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any,
of receiving lump-sum backpay awards and file with the
Regional Director for Region 7, within 21 days of the date
the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board order, a report allocating the backpay awards to the
appropriate calendar years for each employee, in accord-
ance with AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No.
143 (2016).
Finally, because the Respondent’s Detroit facility ap-
pears to have closed, we shall order the Respondent
to mail a copy of the attached notice to the Union and to
the last known addresses of its former unit employees to
inform them of the outcome of this proceeding.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re-
spondent, Ringo Services, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
by failing to remit to Local 324, International Union of
Operating Engineers (IUOE), AFL–CIO (the Union) dues
deducted pursuant to valid, unexpired, and unrevoked em-
ployee check-off authorizations.
(b) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the Union at times when it is the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of employees in the
following unit, by changing the terms and conditions of
figure of $329,718.32, reflecting a difference of $25.55 between the to-
tals. In the absence of an obvious reason for the difference, we order the
Respondent to pay the amount alleged in the text of the compliance spec-
ification itself, which the Respondent has not disputed, less the $4341.09
attributable to the Respondent’s failure to remit union dues, as discussed
below. If the General Counsel determines, however, that Attachment I,
reduced by $4341.09, reflects the correct dollar amount, the General
Counsel should use that base figure and calculate the updated interest
and excess tax liability accordingly.
RINGO SERVICES, INC. 5
employment of its unit employees without first notifying
the Union and giving it an opportunity to bargain:
All full-time employees employed by the Respondent as
Stationary Engineers and Boiler Operators in Detroit
Public Schools Community District buildings, and
buildings related to Detroit Public Schools Community
District, all of whom are hereinafter referred to as “em-
ployees” and classified in positions as listed in Article
XVII, Wages and Classifications, contained in the col-
lective-bargaining agreement dated August 13, 2014,
through August 12, 2017, between the [Union] and
Lakeshore.
(c) 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) Make whole employees Maurice Anderson, Robbie
Brown, Robert Byrd, Cheryl D. Cowan, Tony Evans,
Debra Frazier, Davida M. Green, Daryn Guinn, Helen
Hardy, Robert L. Harvey, Frank E. Johnson, Morris Mims,
Travis R. Piggee, Gerald L. Ross, Kumash Shah, Bruce O.
Smith, Bryan G. Smith, Anthony Sykes, Denise A. Tarver,
and Kirkland Williams for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the Respondent’s unlawful
conduct, by paying them the amounts shown opposite
their names in the Attachment, plus interest accrued to the
date of payment and minus tax withholdings required by
Federal and State laws, as set forth in the remedy section
of this decision.
(b) Remove from the Respondent’s files any and all ref-
erences to the unlawful placement of employees Cheryl D.
Cowan, Morris Mims, and Travis R. Piggee in a lower
classification after their recall from layoff and notify them
in writing that this has been done and that the unlawful
conduct will not be used against them in any way.
(c) Compensate affected employees for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and file with the Regional Director for Region 7,
within 21 days from the date of this Order, a report allo-
cating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar
years for each employee.
(d) Remit to the Union’s Health Care Plan, Pension
Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprentice Fund the amounts
7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Mailed by Order of the National
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Mailed Pursuant to a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
8 In light of the apparent permanent closure of the facility involved in
these proceedings, we do not modify the notification remedy as set forth
shown opposite their names in the Attachment, plus inter-
est accrued to the date of payment and minus tax withhold-
ings required by Federal and State laws, as set forth in the
remedy section of this decision.
(e) 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, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records including an electronic
copy of such records if stored in electronic form, neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay and remittances due
under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense and after being signed
by the Respondent’s authorized representative, copies of
the attached notice marked “Appendix,”7 to the Union and
to all unit employees who were employed by the Respond-
ent at any time since August 6, 2017. In addition to the
physical mailing of paper notices, notices shall be distrib-
uted electronically, such as by email, posting on an intra-
net or internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the
Respondent customarily communicates with its employ-
ees by such means.8
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 7 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of paragraph 1
of the compliance specification pertaining to dues remit-
tances owed to the Union and paragraph 3(c) of the com-
pliance specification are hereby severed and retained for
further consideration.
In addition, NOTICE IS GIVEN that cause be shown, in
writing, filed with the Board in Washington, D.C., on or
before August 12, 2020 (with affidavit of service on the
parties to this proceeding), why the Respondent’s failure
to remit to the Union dues deducted pursuant to valid, un-
expired, and unrevoked employee check-off authoriza-
tions should not be remedied, in accordance with Bet-
teroads Asphalt, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 114 (2020), by re-
imbursement to individual employees of the dues each
employee paid, in the amounts set forth in Attachment D
of the consolidated complaint and compliance
in Danbury Ambulance Service, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 68 (2020) (holding
that, if facility involved in proceedings is closed due to Coronavirus Dis-
ease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, notification obligation is delayed until
14 days after facility reopens and substantial complement of employees
have returned to work).
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
specification, plus interest accrued to the date of payment,
as prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medi-
cal Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). Any briefs or statements
in support of the motion shall be filed on the same date.
Dated, Washington, D.C. July 29, 2020
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
_____________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
_____________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) 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 vi-
olated 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 ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT fail to remit to Local 324, International
Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), AFL–CIO (the
Union) dues deducted pursuant to valid, unexpired, and
unrevoked employee check-off authorizations.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively and
in good faith with the Union at times when it is the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of our employ-
ees in the following unit, by changing the terms and con-
ditions of employment of its unit employees without first
notifying the Union and giving it an opportunity to bar-
gain:
All full-time employees employed by the Respondent as
Stationary Engineers and Boiler Operators in Detroit
Public Schools Community District buildings, and
buildings related to Detroit Public Schools Community
District, all of whom are hereinafter referred to as “em-
ployees” and classified in positions as listed in Article
XVII, Wages and Classifications, contained in the col-
lective-bargaining agreement dated August 13, 2014,
through August 12, 2017, between the [Union] and
Lakeshore.
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 make whole our employees Maurice Ander-
son, Robbie Brown, Robert Byrd, Cheryl D. Cowan, Tony
Evans, Debra Frazier, Davida M. Green, Daryn Guinn,
Helen Hardy, Robert L. Harvey, Frank E. Johnson, Morris
Mims, Travis R. Piggee, Gerald L. Ross, Kumash Shah,
Bruce O. Smith, Bryan G. Smith, Anthony Sykes, Denise
A. Tarver, and Kirkland Williams for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of our unfair labor
practices, paying them the amounts set forth in the Board’s
Order, plus interest.
WE WILL remove from our files any and all references
to the unlawful placement of employees Cheryl D. Cowan,
Morris Mims, and Travis R. Piggee in a lower classifica-
tion after their recall from layoff, and WE WILL notify them
in writing that this has been done and that the unlawful
conduct will not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL compensate affected employees for the ad-
verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum
backpay awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 7, within 21 days of the date of the
Board’s Order, a report allocating the backpay awards to
the appropriate calendar years for each employee.
WE WILL remit to the Union’s Health Care Plan, Pen-
sion Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprentice Fund the
amounts set forth in the Board’s Order, plus interest.
RINGO SERVICES, INC.
RINGO SERVICES, INC. 7
The Board’s decision can be found at or
www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-209485 by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the deci-
sion from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Rela-
tions Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
ATTACHMENT
Claimant Net Backpay Interim
Expenses
Medical
Expenses
Net Backpay +
Expenses
Excess Tax Total
Anderson,
Maurice 165.92 639.54 805.46 8.89 814.35
Brown,
Robbie 237.04 640.31 877.35 9.74 887.09
Byrd,
Robert 165.92 2,341.13 2,507.05 27.31 2,534.36
Cowan,
Cheryl D. 9,800.31 2,334.31 12,134.62 134.23 12,268.85
Evans,
Tony 237.04 237.04 2.81 239.85
Frazier,
Debra 189.60 639.54 829.14 9.17 838.31
Green,
Davida M. 213.28 369.36 582.64 6.53 589.17
Guinn,
Daryn 165.92 639.54 805.46 8.89 814.35
Hardy,
Helen 165.92 60.00 225.92 2.70 228.62
Harvey,
Robert L. 237.04 480.00 717.04 8.00 725.04
Johnson,
Frank E. 189.60 639.54 829.14 9.17 838.31
Mims,
Morris 10,265.74 10,265.74 114.12 10,379.86
Piggee,
Travis R. 3,197.29 639.54 3,836.83 42.55 3,879.38
Ross,
Gerald L. 165.92 165.92 1.97 167.89
Shah,
Kumash 237.04 237.04 2.81 239.85
Smith,
Bruce O. 165.92 523.26 689.18 7.77 696.95
Smith,
Bryan G. 189.60 189.60 2.25 191.85
Sykes,
Anthony 165.92 639.54 805.46 8.89 814.35
Tarver,
Denise A. 237.04 813.52 1,050.56 11.87 1,062.43
Williams,
Kirkland 165.92 2,334.31 2,500.23 27.24 2,527.47
Health
Care 119,328.30 119,328.30 119,328.30
El fl
8 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pension
Fund 114,283.30 114,283.30 114,283.30
Annuity
Fund 38,094.43 38,094.43 38,094.43
Apprentice
Fund 13,379.78 13,379.78 13,379.78
Total 311,643.79 13,733.44 325,377.23 446.91* 325,824.13*
* Attachment I to the Consolidated Complaint and Compliance Specification shows one cent less for each of these cal-
culations. Further, Attachment I’s totals for the columns reflecting Net Backpay, Net Backpay + Expenses, and Total
include $4341.09 attributable to union dues, as to which we deny default judgment.