Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 874 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards, Inc.
and Robert L. DiMarco. Case 27-CA-7110
September 30, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
Upon a charge filed on January 16, 1981, and an
amended charge filed on February 9, 1981, by
Robert DiMarco and duly served on the Coalition
of Indian Controlled School Boards, Inc., herein
called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Acting Re-
gional Director for Region 27, issued a complaint
and notice of hearing on May 29, 1981, against Re-
spondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, and
amended charge, and the complaint and notice of
hearing before an administrative law judge were
duly served on the parties to this proceeding. Re-
spondent thereafter failed to file an answer to the
complaint.
On July 14, 1981, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment. Subsequently, on July 20, 1981,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted. Respondent did
not file a response to the Notice To Show Cause,
and therefore the allegations in the Motion for
Summary Judgment stand uncontroverted.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer there-
to. The respondent shall specifically admit,
deny, or explain each of the facts alleged in
the complaint, unless the respondent is without
knowledge, in which case the respondent shall
so state, such statement operating as a denial.
All allegations in the complaint, if no answer
is filed, or any allegation in the complaint not
specifically denied or explained in an answer
258 NLRB No. 117
filed, unless the respondent shall state in the
answer that he is without knowledge, shall be
deemed to be admitted to be true and shall be
so found by the Board, unless good cause to
the contrary is shown.
The complaint and notice of hearing served on
Respondent herein specifically states that unless an
answer to the complaint i. fc.ro within 10 days of
service thereof "all of l.'l:. d;ations in the Com-
plaint shall be deemed c ldinitted to be true
and shall be so found by he. Board." Further, ac-
cording to the uncontroverted allegations of the
Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent was
duly served with the complaint and notice of hear-
ing on May 29, 1981. As noted above, Respondent
has failed to file a response to the Notice To Show
Cause.
Accordingly, under the rule set forth above, no
good cause having been shown for the failure to
file a timely answer, the allegations of the com-
plaint are deemed admitted and are found to be
true, and we grant the General Counsel's Motion
for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, a Colorado corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Westminister, Colo-
rado. Respondent is engaged in the business of pro-
viding educational servi,_,. Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations annu-
ally sells services valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly to points and places outside the State of
Colorado. Respondent in the course and conduct
of its business operations has gross annual revenues
in excess of $500,000.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
On or about July 30, 1980, Respondent laid off
its employee James Washinawatok and since that
date has failed and refused to reinstate him because
he engaged in protected concerted activities.
Accordingly, we find that, by the aforesaid con-
duct, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act and
974
COALITION OF INDIAN CONIRROIL.ED SCH(O()I I()ARI)S
that, by such conduct, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
III. THE :EFIECT OF THE UNFAIR ABOR
PRACTICE UPON COMMERCI:
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
II, above, occurring in connection with its oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
IV. THE REMEI)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We shall order that Respondent offer James Wa-
shinawatok immediate and full reinstatement to his
former position, or, if such position no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed. We shall also order
that Respondent make James Washinawatok whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered because
of his unlawful layoff, to be computed in accord-
ance with F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest to be computed as pre-
scribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716 (1962).'
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. The Respondent, Coalition of Indian Con-
trolled School Boards, Inc., is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. By laying off and refusing to reinstate employ-
ee James Washinawatok because he engaged in
protected concerted activities, Respondent has in-
terfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
'Member Jenkins would award interest on backpay in accord with his
dissent in Olympic Medicu l Corporation, 25(0 N.RR 146 (180)
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards, Inc.,
Westminister, Colorado, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Laying off and refusing to reinstate employ-
ees because they choose to engage in protected
concerted activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer James Washinawatok immediate and
full reinstatement to his former position or, if such
position no longer exists, to a substantially equiva-
lent job, without prejudice to his seniority and
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered
by him by paying him a sum of money to be deter-
mined in accordance with the formula set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Post at its Westminister, Colorado, facility
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 27, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has been taken to
comply herewith.
In the event that 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 Nalional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT lay off and refuse to reinstate
any employees because they engage in protect-
ed concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WIl. offer James Washinawatok imme-
diate and full reinstatement to his former posi-
tion or, if that position no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to his seniority or other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed, and WE WIll. make
him whole for any loss of earnings he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him, plus interest.
COALITION OIF INDIAN CONTROI.I.ED
SCHOOL BOARD)S, INC.
976