This National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision addresses a Motion for Default Judgment filed by the General Counsel against LSRI, LLC d/b/a Lone Star Rebar Installers (the Respondent). The General Counsel sought this judgment due to the Respondent's failure to file an answer to a consolidated complaint alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

The consolidated complaint, issued on February 6, 2026, arose from charges filed by Miguel Angel Bartolo Salvador, Eugenio Lobato Falcon, and Alfredo Cezar Duarte Gonzalez. The complaint alleged that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Specifically, the complaint detailed instances of supervisors threatening employees with job loss and inviting them to quit due to their concerted activities, denying employees the right to complain about working conditions and pay, and terminating employees because of their concerted activities. The alleged concerted activities included group complaints about late paychecks.

The Respondent was served with the consolidated complaint and notice of hearing. The Board's Rules and Regulations, specifically Section 102.20, stipulate that allegations in a complaint are deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days, absent good cause shown. The complaint itself also cautioned that failure to answer by a specific date could lead to a default judgment. Furthermore, the General Counsel's Region advised the Respondent via letter that a motion for default judgment would be filed if an answer was not received by a specified date. Despite these notifications, the Respondent failed to file an answer.

On March 20, 2026, the General Counsel filed the Motion for Default Judgment. The Board subsequently issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause, giving the Respondent an opportunity to respond. The Respondent did not file any response to this notice.

Given the Respondent's complete failure to file an answer to the complaint and its subsequent failure to respond to the Notice to Show Cause, the Board found that the allegations in the complaint were undisputed. The Board concluded that no good cause was shown for the Respondent's failure to file an answer. Therefore, the Board deemed the allegations of the complaint to be admitted as true and granted the General Counsel's Motion for Default Judgment.

The Board's findings of fact established that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. The findings detailed the alleged unfair labor practices, including threats of job loss and invitations to quit due to concerted activities, statements that employees had no legal right to complain, and terminations motivated by concerted activities. The Board specifically found that employees Miguel Angel Bartolo Salvador, Eugenio Lobato Falcon, and Alfredo Cezar Duarte Gonzalez engaged in protected concerted activities, including complaining about late paychecks, and were subsequently discharged because of these activities and to discourage further such actions.

The Board's conclusion of law stated that by these actions, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

The Board ordered the Respondent to cease and desist from committing the described unfair labor practices and to take affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. This included offering full reinstatement to the unlawfully discharged employees, making them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, and compensating them for other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms, including search-for-work and interim employment expenses, with interest. The remedy also included compensation for adverse tax consequences of lump-sum backpay awards, and reporting requirements for backpay allocation and W-2 forms. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to remove any references to the unlawful discharges from its files and to notify the affected employees in writing that this had been done and would not be used against them. The Respondent was also required to preserve relevant records and post a notice to employees informing them of their rights and the Board's findings.

The decision was issued by Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer. Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer noted their continued position regarding the remedies announced in Thryv, Inc., but agreed to apply the precedent in this case due to the lack of a three-member majority to overrule it.

Significant Cases Cited

This summary was generated using Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite. It could contain errors.