Camblin Steel Service Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 1230 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Camblin Steel Service Company and International
Union of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron
Workers, Local 118, AFL-CIO. Case 20-CA
12703
May 1, 1979
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENEI.I.(), AND MURPHY
On November 18, 1977, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued its Decision and Order' in the
above-entitled proceeding in which it granted the
General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment
and ordered, inter alia, that Respondent make whole
Louis W. White for any loss of pay he may have
suffered as a result of Respondent's discrimination
against him. Thereafter, on October 10, 1978, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
entered its judgment enforcing the Board's Order.2 A
controversy having arisen as to the amount of back-
pay due under the Board's Order, as enforced by the
court, the Regional Director for Region 20, on Octo-
ber 20, 1978, issued and duly served on the parties a
backpay specification and notice of hearing, alleging
the amount due the discriminatee under the Board's
Order and notifying Respondent that it shall file a
timely answer which must comply with the Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Re-
spondent received the backpay specification on Octo-
ber 23, 1978, and failed to file a formal answer. How-
ever, in a letter dated November 15, 1978,
Respondent generally denied the allegations in the
specification.
On December 1, 1978, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on December 18,
1978, the Board issued an Order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause,
on or before January 2, 1979, why the General Coun-
sel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be
granted. To date there has been no response to the
Notice To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides, in pertinent
part, as follows:
1233 NLRB 624 (1977).
2 N. R R v. (amblin Steel Service (wmpanv, No. 78 2766.
(a) . .. The respondent shall, within 15 days
from the service of the specification, if any, file
an answer thereto ....
(b) . . . The respondent shall specifically ad-
mit, deny, or explain each and every allegation
of the specification, unless the respondent is
without knowledge, in which case the respondent
shall so state, such statement operating as a de-
nial. Denials shall fairly meet the substance of
the allegations of the specification denied..... As
to all matters within the knowledge of the re-
spondent, including but not limited to the var-
ious factors entering into the computation of
gross backpay, a general denial shall not suffice.
(c) ... If the respondent files an answer to the
specification but fails to deny any allegation of
the specification in the manner required by sub-
section (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 controverting said allegation.
The backpay specification duly issued, served, and
received by Respondent states that an answer shall be
filed within 15 days after service of the specification
and that to the extent that the answer denies gener-
ally, without adequate explanations, the allegations of
the specification in the manner required by the
Board's Rules and Regulations, such allegations shall
be deemed to be admitted to be true, and Respondent
shall be precluded from introducing any evidence
controverting them.
According to the Motion for Summary Judgment,
counsel for the General Counsel, by letter dated No-
vember 14, 1978, and received the next day by Re-
spondent, advised Respondent that it had not yet re-
ceived its answer. Counsel for the General Counsel
further informed Respondent that the time for filing
an answer was extended to November 21, 1978, and
that the failure to file by that date would result in the
filing of a Motion for Summary Judgment with the
Board. On November 15, 1978, Respondent's pres-
ident sent a letter to the Regional Director which
stated, in pertinent part, that "for the record, we do
not agree that Louis White is entitled to any back-
pay.
Respondent's letter responding to the backpay
specification clearly does not conform to the require-
ments of Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, set out above. The letter merely contains
a general denial of the allegations of the backpay
specification and does not specifically deny the allega-
tions as required by the Board's Rules and Regula-
241 NLRB No. 193
1230
CAMBLIN STEEL SERVICE CO.
tions. Further, the failure to so deny is not explained.
Therefore, as Respondent's letter in response to the
backpay specification fails to comply with the provi-
sions of Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations and pursuant to such provisions, the alle-
gations of the specification are deemed to be admitted
to be true and are so found by the Board without
taking evidence in support of said allegation.3
Accordingly, on the basis of the allegations of the
specification herein found to be true, the Board finds
the facts as set forth therein and concludes that the
net backpay due the discriminatee, Louis W. White,
is as stated in the computations of the specification
and orders the payment thereof by Respondent to the
discriminatee and to the contractual pension and
health benefit funds.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
3 Member Murphy finds that Respondent's letter is ambiguous as to its
intent and purpose and does not qualify as a general denial. nasmuch as it
does not den) the allegations of the backpay specification but only the valid-
ity of the Board's finding that White was unlawfully discharged. Accord-
ingly. Member Murphy agrees that the allegations of the specification are
properly deemed to be admitted.
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Cam-
blin Steel Service Company, Sacramento, California,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make
whole the discriminatee named below by payment to
him of the amount following his name and by pay-
ment into the International Union of Bridge, Struc-
tural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 118, AFL-
CIO, pension fund and health benefit fund the
amounts following their names plus interest accrued
and paid in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).4 until payment of
all backpay due, less tax withholdings required by
Federal and state laws.
Louis W. White $1,145.55
International Union of Bridge,
Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local
118,
AFL-CIO pension fund $193.94
International Union of Bridge,
Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local
118.
AFL-CIO, health benefits fund $108.33
I See, generally. Isis Plumhing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 11962).
1231