Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp, THCF, and Presto Quality Care Corporation, as

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 2018

366 NLRB No. 15 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

366 NLRB No. 15
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.
Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of
Hemp, THCF, and Presto Quality Care Corpo-
ration, as Single and/or Joint Employers and
Matthew Marino. Case 19–CA–143377
February 5, 2018
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN KAPLAN AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND EMANUEL
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case on the ground that Campaign for the Restoration
and Regulation of Hemp, THCF, and Presto Quality Care
Corporation, as Single Employer and/or Joint Employers
(collectively, the Respondent) has failed to file an answer
to the compliance specification.
On January 28, 2016, the National Labor Relations
Board issued an Order1 that, among other things, ordered
the Respondent to offer discriminatee Matthew Marino
instatement to the canvassing job for which he applied
with the Respondent, and to make him whole for any loss
of earnings and other benefits resulting from the Re-
spondent’s unlawful refusal to hire him in violation of
Section 8(a)(4), (3), and (1) of the Act. On February 27,
2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit issued a Judgment enforcing the Board’s Order.2
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay due Marino, on July 18, 2017, the Regional Director
for Region 19 issued a compliance specification and no-
tice of hearing setting forth backpay for a closed period
from August 25, 2014 (the date the Respondent refused
to hire Marino), to October 16, 2015 (the date the Re-
spondent was administratively dissolved and ceased op-
erations), and notifying the Respondent that an answer
must be filed by August 8, 2017, in conformity with the
Board’s Rules and Regulations. The Respondent failed
to file an answer. By Order extending time for filing
answer to compliance specification, dated August 23,
2017, the Region advised the Respondent that no answer
to the compliance specification had been received and
that unless an answer was received by September 6,
2017, the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for de-
fault judgment, that the allegations in the compliance
specification are true. Nevertheless, the Respondent has
failed to file an answer.

1 Unpublished Order adopting, in the absence of exceptions, the de-
cision of Administrative Law Judge Joel P. Biblowitz, issued on De-
cember 17, 2015 (JD(NY)–45-15).
2 No. 16-71753.
On September 7, 2017, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a Motion for Default Judgment, with exhibits
attached. On September 11, 2017, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a No-
tice to Show Cause why the motion should not be grant-
ed. The Respondent again filed no response. The allega-
tions in the motion and the compliance specification are
therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on the Motion for Default Judgment
Section 102.56(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions provides that a respondent shall file an answer
within 21 days from service of a compliance specifica-
tion. Section 102.56(c) provides that if the respondent
fails to file an answer to the specification within the time
prescribed by this section, the Board may, either with or
without taking evidence in support of the allegations of
the specification and without further notice to the re-
spondent, find the specification to be true and enter such
order as may be appropriate.
According to the uncontroverted allegations in the mo-
tion for default judgment, the Respondent, despite having
been advised of the filing requirements, has failed to file
an answer to the compliance specification. In the ab-
sence 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 we grant the
General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment. Ac-
cordingly, we conclude that the net backpay due to Ma-
rino is as stated in the compliance specification, and we
will order the Respondent to pay that amount, plus inter-
est accrued to the date of payment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Campaign for the Restoration and Regula-
tion of Hemp, THCF, and Presto Quality Care Corpora-
tion, as Single and/or Joint Employers, Portland, Oregon,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make
whole discriminatee Matthew Marino by paying him
$18,000, plus interest accrued to the date of payment, as
prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medi-
cal Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010), minus tax withholdings
required by Federal and State laws.3

3 This amount does not yet include any excess tax. As set forth in
the compliance specification, the Respondent is also liable for any
adverse tax consequences for Marino receiving a lump-sum backpay
award. Although the Compliance Specification calculated the adverse
tax consequences, that amount may be updated to reflect the actual date
of payment. Any adverse tax consequences shall be reported in accord-
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 5, 2018
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Chairman

ance with AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016);
Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014).
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD