Beta Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 2001

334 N.L.R.B. 32 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

334 NLRB No. 32
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
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.
Beta Steel Corporation and Dennis Holland. Case 25–
CA–25139–S
June 6, 2001
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND TRUESDALE
On September 30, 1998, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order,1 inter alia, ordering
Beta Steel Corporation, the Respondent, to make whole
employee Dennis Holland for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of his discharge in vio-
lation of the National Labor Relations Act. On March
14, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sev-
enth Circuit enforced the Board’s Order.2
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay due the discriminatee, on July 27, 2000, the Regional
Director for Region 25 issued a compliance specification
and notice of hearing identifying the amounts of backpay
due under the Board’s Order, and notifying the Respon-
dent that it must file a timely answer complying with the
Board’s Rules and Regulations. The Respondent subse-
quently filed an answer to the compliance specification.
By a letter dated October 3, 2000, the Region notified
the Respondent that its answer was inadequate and that if
it failed to correct the deficiencies by October 17, 2000,
the Region would move for summary judgment. The
Respondent failed to amend its answer.
On November 20, 2000, the General Counsel filed
with the Board a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
with exhibits attached. On November 21, 2000, the
Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the General
Counsel’s motion should not be granted. The Respon-
dent failed to file a response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
Ruling on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Section 102.56(b) and (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board’s Rules and Regulations states, in pert inent
part:
(b) Contents of answer to specification. The an-
swer shall specifically admit, deny, or explain each
and every allegation of the specification, unless the

1 326 NLRB 1267 (1998).
2 Beta Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 210 F. 3d 374 (7th Cir. 2000).
respondent is without knowledge, in which case the
respondent shall so state, such statement operating as
a denial. Denials shall fairly meet the substance of
the allegations of the specification at issue. As to all
matters within the knowledge of the respondent, in-
cluding but not limited to the various factors enter-
ing into the computation of gross backpay, a general
denial shall not suffice. As to such matters, if the re-
spondent disputes either the accuracy of the figures
in the specification or the premises on which they
are based, the answer shall specifically state the ba-
sis for such disagreement, setting forth in detail the
respondent’s position as to the applicable premises
and furnis hing the appropriate supporting figures.
(c) Effect of failure to answer or to plead specifi-
cally and in detail to backpay allegations of specifi-
cation. If the respondent files an answer to the
specification but fails to deny any allegation of the
specification in the manner required by paragraph
(b) of this section, and the failure so to deny is not
adequately explained, such allegation shall be
deemed to be admitted to be true, and may be so
found by the Board without the taking of evidence
supporting such allegation, and the respondent shall
be precluded from introducing any evidence contro-
verting the allegation.

In its answer to the Regional Director’s compliance
specification, the Respondent has offered general denials
to the General Counsel’s allegations in paragraph 2,
which pertains to the backpay period, and the allegations
in paragraph 6 and the summary paragraph, which per-
tain to the amount of backpay due the Charging Party.
The General Counsel contends that such general denials
do not comply with the requirements of section
102.56(b) and (c). We agree.
It is established Board law that a general denial of al-
legations regarding the backpay period and gross back-
pay calculations is insufficient to comply with the speci-
ficity requirements of section 102.56(b) and (c). United
States Service Industries, 325 NLRB 485 (1998). Be-
cause the Respondent failed to furnish supporting figures
or fully set forth its position regarding the applicable
premises as required by section 102.56(b) and (c), we
find the Respondent’s answer to be inadequate under that
section. Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel’s
motion and deem that the allegations in paragraphs 2, 6,
and the summary paragraph of the compliance specifica-
tion are admitted as true, and the Respondent is pre-
cluded from introducing any evidence challenging them.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
ORDER
It is ordered that the General Counsel’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment is granted as to paragraphs 2,
6, and the summary paragraph, and that those allegations
are deemed to be true.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is re-
manded to the Regional Director for Region 25 for the
purpose of arranging a hearing before an administrative
law judge limited to the issues of interim earnings and
expenses, vacation benefits, medical benefits, 401(k)
benefits, and the Respondent’s affirmative defenses.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 6, 2001

Peter J. Hurtgen, Chairman

Wilma B. Liebman, Member

John C. Truesdale, Member

(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD