Adair Express L.L.C.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 2002

338 N.L.R.B. 11 (N.L.R.B. 2002)

1
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the E x­
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.
Adair Express L.L.C. and Package & General Utility
Drivers, Local No. 396, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO. Cases 31–CA–
24291 and CA–31–CA–24484
September 26, 2002
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, COWEN, AND BARTLETT
The General Counsel seeks summary judgment in this case
on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file an answer
to the compliance specification.
On September 21, 2001, the Board issued a Decision and
Order1 that, among other things, ordered the Respondent to
make whole certain employees for loss of earnings and other
benefits resulting from the Respondent’s refusal to employ
them in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. A con­
troversy having arisen over the amount of backpay due Gary
Bailey, Rolando Estrada, Gerardo Lachica, Jofre Macoy, Mario
Rodriguez, Craig Smith, and Eddie Zamora, the Regional Di­
rector issued a compliance specification and notice of hearing
on May 1, 2002, alleging the amounts due under the Board’s
Order, and notifying the Respondent that it should file a timely
answer complying with the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
Although properly served with a copy of the compliance speci­
fication, the Respondent failed to file an answer.
By letter dated May 23, 2002, counsel for the General Coun­
sel advised the Respondent that no answer to the compliance
specification had been received and that unless an appropriate
answer was filed by May 29, 2002, summary judgment would
be sought. The Respondent filed no answer.
On June 11, 2002, the General Counsel filed with the Board
a Motion for Summary Judgment, with exhibits attached. On
June 14, 2002, the Board issued an order transferring the pro­
ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the
motion should not be granted. The Respondent did not file a
response. The allegations in the motion and in the compliance
specification are therefore undisputed. On June 20, 2002, the
Charging Party filed a Joinder in Motion for Summary Judg­
ment on this compliance specification.
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.56(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations pro­
vides that a respondent shall file an answer within 21 days from
service of a compliance specification. Section 102.56(c) of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations states:
1 335 NLRB No. 96.
If the respondent fails to file any answer to the specification
within the time prescribed by this section, the Board may,
either with or without taking evidence in support of the alle­
gations of the specification and without further notice to the
respondent, find the specification to be true and enter such
order as may be appropriate.
According to the uncontroverted allegations of the Motion
for Summary Judgment, the Respondent, despite having been
advised of the filing requirements, has failed to file an answer
to the compliance specification. In the absence of good cause
for the Respondent’s failure to file an answer, we deem the
allegations in the compliance specification to be admitted as
true, and grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the net backpay due
Gary Bailey, Rolando Estrada, Gerardo Lachica, Jofre Macoy,
Mario Rodriguez, Craig Smith, and Eddie Zamora is as stated
in the compliance specification and we will order payment by
the Respondent of those amounts to the discriminatees, plus
interest accrued on the amounts to the date of payment.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respon­
dent, Adair Express L.L.C., Van Nuys, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole the individu­
als named below by paying them the amounts following their
names, plus interest3 and minus tax withholdings required by
Federal and state laws:
Gary Bailey $ 4,906.55
Rolando Estrada 8,934.30
Gerardo Lachica 6,631.50
Jofre Macoy 22,186.25
Mario Rodriguez 7,083.47
Craig Smith 36,500.36
Eddie Zamora 11,418.00
Total Backpay $97,660.43
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 26, 2002
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
William B. Cowen, Member
Michael J. Bartlett, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 The compliance specification reserved for further litigation all
backpay which may be due after December 31, 2001.
3 Interest shall be computed as set forth in New Horizons forthe Re­
tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).