Donald Sullivan & Sons, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 2001

335 N.L.R.B. 107 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

1
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound
volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Sec­
retary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typo-
graphical or otherformal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound
volumes.
Donald Sullivan & Sons, LLC and John Ceraldi and
Brian Ostrowski. Cases 34–CA–9592–1 and 34–
CA–9592–2
September 26, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, TRUESDALE, AND WALSH
Upon charges and amended charges filed by John Cer­
aldi, an individual, and Brian Ostrowski, an individual,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board issued a consolidated complaint on May 24, 2001,
against Donald Sullivan & Sons, LLC, the Respondent,
alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Na­
tional Labor Relations Act. Although properly served
copies of the charges, amended charges, and consolidated
complaint, the Respondent failed to file an answer.
On July 6, 2001, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment with the Board. On July 10,
2001, the Board issued an order transferring the proceed­
ing 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 Summary Judgment
Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations provide that the allegations in the 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 af­
firmatively notes that unless an answer is filed within 14
days of service, all the allegations in the complaint will
be considered admitted.
Further, the undisputed allegations in the Motion for
Summary Judgment disclose that the Region, by letter
dated June 18, 2001, sent by facsimile transmission and
regular mail, notified the Respondent that unless an an­
swer was received by June 22, 2001, a Motion for Su m­
mary Judgment would be filed. On June 18, 2001, the
Region received a facsimile transmission from the Re­
spondent in connection with the June 18 letter described
above, asking, among other things, “What this is in re­
gards to.”
The Region responded by letter dated June 18, 2001,
reiterating that its previous communication was in re­
gards to the consolidated complaint. The Region’s letter
pointed out that the consolidated complaint had been
personally received by Arthur Sullivan, Respondent’s
owner and manager, on May 26, 2001, that instructions
were attached to the consolidated complaint, and that the
Respondent had been involved in a previous case with
the Region. The Respondent was again advised that if no
answer to the consolidated complaint was received by
June 22, 2001, the Region would seek summary judg­
ment. The Respondent did not file an answer.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail­
ure to file a timely answer, we grant the General Coun­
sel’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent has been a lim­
ited liability company licensed to do business in the State
of Connecticut with its principal place of business lo­
cated in Plantsville, Connecticut, and has been engaged
as a plumbing contractor in the construction industry
doing residential and commercial construction. During
the 12-month period ending April 30, 2001, the Respon­
dent, in conducting its business operations, purchased
and received at its facility goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the State of Con­
necticut. 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 following individuals held
the positions that are 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.
Arthur Sullivan Owner/Manager
Martin Sullivan Owner/ Foreman
John Ceraldi and Brian Ostrowski each filed unfair la­
bor practice charges against the Respondent in Cases 34–
CA–8799–1 and –2, which resulted in a Board Decision
and Order dated January 18, 2001, and reported at 333
NLRB No. 7.
On or about February 15, 2001, the Respondent, in re­
taliation for the conduct described above, threatened to
file a lawsuit against Ceraldi and Ostrowski by serving
each of them with a civil summons and complaint it had
purportedly filed against them in the State of Connecticut
Superior Court.
335 NLRB No. 107
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Respon­
dent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) 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)(1)
by threatening to file a lawsuit against John Ceraldi and
Brian Ostrowski in retaliation for the unfair labor prac­
tice charges they filed in Cases 34–CA–8799–1 and –2,
we shall order the Respondent to cease and desist from
this conduct, and to reimburse employees Ceraldi and
Ostrowski for all reasonable legal fees and expenses in­
curred by them in connection with the threatened lawsuit,
plus interest as computed in New Horizons for the Re­
tarded, 287 NLRB 1173 (1987).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Donald Sullivan & Sons, LLC, Plantsville,
Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1.Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening, in retaliation for the unfair labor prac­
tice charges John Ceraldi and Brian Ostrowski filed
against the Respondent in Cases 34–CA–8799–1 and –2,
to file a lawsuit against them by serving each of them
with a civil summons and complaint that the Respondent
had purportedly filed against them in the State of Con­
necticut Superior Court.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exe rcise 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) Reimburse employees Ceraldi and Ostrowski for all
reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred by them in
connection with the threatened lawsuit, in the manner set
forth in the re medy section.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Plantsville, Connecticut, copies of the at­
tached notice marked “Appendix.”1 Copies of the notice,
1 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice “Posted by Order of the National
Labor Relations Board’’ shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
34, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
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. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al­
tered, 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 facil­
ity involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no­
tice to all current employees and former employees em­
ployed by the Respondent at any time since February 15,
2001.
(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 com­
ply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 26, 2001
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
John C. Truesdale, Member
Dennis P. Walsh, 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
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or­
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten, in retaliation for the unfair labor
practice charges John Ceraldi and Brian Ostrowski filed
against us in Cases 34–CA–8799–1 and –2, to file a law-
suit against them by serving each of them with a civil
summons and complaint that we had purportedly filed
against them in the State of Connecticut Superior Court.
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board.’’
DONALD SULLIVAN & SONS, LLC 3
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere them in connection with the threatened lawsuit, plus in-
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights terest.
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse employees Ceraldi and Ostrowski DONALD SULLIVAN & SONS, LLC
for all reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred by