Kline Mechanical Contracting

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 17, 1991

306 N.L.R.B. 30 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

30
306 NLRB No. 14
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 All subsequent dates refer to 1991 unless specified otherwise.
2 On June 27, the Acting Regional Director issued an order con-
solidating the instant case with Case 6–RC–10551 for purposes of
hearing, ruling, and decision by an administrative law judge.
3 We also deny the motions to dismiss the complaint allegations
against Northway and Kline. Their status as an ‘‘employer’’ and
their relationship to each other and to MEC are issues to be deter-
mined during the hearing of the matter.
Kline Mechanical Contracting, Inc., and/or MEC,
Inc., and/or Northway Development, Inc., a sin-
gle employer and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local No. 5, AFL–CIO.
Case 6–CA–23677
January 17, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND OVIATT
Upon a charge filed by the Union in Case 6–CA–
23677 on June 7, 1991,1 and amended on June 19, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board issued a complaint on June 26, against Kline
Mechanical Contracting, Inc., and/or MEC, Inc., and/or
Northway Development, Inc., the Respondents, alleg-
ing that the Respondents are a single employer and
have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act.2
On July 22, Respondent MEC, Inc. (MEC) filed an
answer denying the substantive allegations of the com-
plaint and the allegations of single-employer status. On
September 23, the General Counsel filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment against Kline Mechanical Con-
tracting, Inc. (Kline) and Northway Development, Inc.
(Northway), alleging that Kline and Northway failed to
answer the complaint. On October 3, Respondent
Northway filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
against it on the grounds that Northway is not an em-
ployer within the meaning of the Act. On October 8,
Respondent MEC filed a response to the General
Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment and a mo-
tion to dismiss the complaint allegations that Northway
and Kline are employers engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act. On November 4, the General
Counsel filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
On the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In his Motion for Summary Judgment, the General
Counsel contends that Kline and Northway have failed
to file an answer to the complaint, that, under Section
102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
Board should find the allegations of the complaint to
be true, and that the Board should issue an order based
on those findings.
We find that summary judgment is not proper under
the circumstances of this case. The General Counsel’s
complaint alleges that the Respondents constitute a sin-
gle employer. Assuming that the allegations in the
complaint are true and the Respondents constitute a
single employer, the answer filed by MEC suffices to
preclude entry of summary judgment against Kline and
Northway. Caribe Cleaning Services, 304 NLRB 932
fn. 3 (1991). Accordingly, we deny the General Coun-
sel’s Motion for Summary Judgment.3
ORDER
It is ordered that the General Counsel’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondents’ mo-
tions to dismiss are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is re-
manded to the Regional Director for Region 6 for fur-
ther appropriate action.