Canteen Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1989

293 N.L.R.B. 295 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

CANTEEN CORP
Canteen Corporation , a Subsidiary of Trans World
Corporation and General Teamsters , Chauffeurs
and Helpers Local 249, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-
CIO Case 6-CA-18863
March 15, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY
On December 8, 1987, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued an Order' in this proceeding in
which it ordered the Respondent, inter alia, to
make certain employees whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered by reason of cer-
tain unilateral changes in rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment 2 On May 11, 1988, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered its judg-
ment enforcing the Board's Order 3
On September 9, 1988, the Acting Regional Di-
rector for Region 6 issued a backpay specification
and notice of hearing alleging , inter alia, that a
controversy had arisen over the amounts due the
employees under the terms of the Board's Order,
and notifying the Respondent that it should file a
timely answer complying with the Board's Rules
and Regulations The Respondent filed an answer
on October 13, 1988, admitting in part and general-
ly denying in part the allegations of the backpay
specification
On December 5, 1988, the General Counsel filed
with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment,
with exhibits attached The General Counsel al-
leges that the Respondent's answer to the backpay
specification fails to meet the specificity require-
ments of the Board's Rules and Regulations Subse
quently, on December 22, 1988, the Board issued
an order transferring the proceeding to the Board
and Notice to Show Cause why the General Coun-
sel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be
granted The Respondent did not file a response
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel
On the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following
' Not reported in Board volumes
2 In that earlier decision the Board adopted the judges findings of
8(a)(1) and (5) violations in the absence of any exceptions filed
3 No 88-3206 unpublished
295
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102 56(b) and (c)4 of the Board 's Rules
and Regulations , in pertinent part , states
(b) Contents of answer to specification -The
answer shall specifically admit , deny, or ex-
plain each and every allegation of the specifi
cation , unless the respondent is without know'
edge , in which case the respondent shall so
state , such statement operating as a denial De
vials shall fairly meet the substance of the alle
gations of the specification at issue When a re
spondent intends to deny only a part of an al
legation , the respondent shall specify so much
of it as true and shall deny only the remainder
As to all matters within the knowledge of the
respondent , including but not limited to the
various factors entering into the computation
of gross backpay , a general denial shall not
suffice
(c) Effect offailure to answer or to plead spe-
cifically and in detail to backpay allegations of
specification - 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 sec-
tion , and the failure so to deny is not adequate
ly 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 evi-
dence controverting the allegation
In its answer to the backpay specification, the
Respondent admits that Interstate United Vending
Company, which it has purchased , and the Union
were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement
that was effective from September 10, 1982,
through March 10, 1986 The Respondent, howev
er, has offered a general denial to each of the other
allegations in the backpay specification Thus, the
Respondent has generally denied that, pursuant to
article XIII , Insurance and Pension , of the contract
described above, the Company agreed to provide
without cost to the employees and their eligible de-
pendents an insurance program , including a Blue
Cross/Blue Shield major medical and dental plan,
during the life of the agreement , that beginning in
March 1986 and continuing until the end of that
4 Formerly Sec 102 54 (b) and (c) The Board amended its rules gov
erning proceedings concerning compliance with Agency orders effective
November 13 1988 The substance of former Secs 102 54 and 102 55 has
been incorporated into Sec 102 56 as revised and former Sec 102 56
with some modification has become the new Sec 102 57 while the sub
stance of former Sec 102 57 has become par (c ) of the new Sec 102 55
in the revised rules
293 NLRB No 30
296 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
year, the Respondent, which by this time employed
Interstate United Vending employees, charged
each former Interstate employee on its payroll
$79 79 per month for medical insurance coverage,
that during this period the Respondent deducted
specified amounts for medical insurance coverage
from the former Interstate employees on its pay
roll, and that the Respondent is obligated to make
whole the discriminatees as specified in the Board's
Order and court judgment by paying each of them
a designated amount, plus interest
The General Counsel asserts that information re-
garding each of these matters is within the Re-
spondent's knowledge, and that the Respondent has
failed to state the basis for its disagreement with
any of the allegations in the backpay specification
Accordingly, the General Counsel contends that
the Respondent's general denials do not comply
with the requirements of Section 102 56(b), and
that, therefore, the allegations in the backpay speci-
fication should be deemed admitted as true and that
summary judgment should be granted on the entire
backpay specification 5
We agree It is clear that information regarding
the allegations that the Respondent has generally
denied is within the Respondent's knowledge and
control We therefore find that the Respondent's
failure to set forth fully its position as to these
issues or to furnish appropriate supporting figures
is contrary to the specificity requirements of Sec
5 The undisputed allegations in the Motion for Summary Judgment dis
close that on November 7 1988 counsel for the General Counsel spoke
by telephone with Harold J Taegel the Respondent s vice president of
labor relations and informed him that in accordance with the Board s
Rules and Regulations the Respondent s answer generally denying cer
tarn allegations in the backpay specification was insufficient Counsel for
the General Counsel further advised Taegel that unless an amended
answer was filed by the close of business on November 23 1988 that
complied with the specificity requirements set out in the Board s Rules
and Regulations she would file a Motion for Summary Judgment with
the Board No amended answer had been received by the Region as of
December 2 1988 the date the General Counsel submitted this motion
tion 102 56(b) Accordingly, we deem paragraphs 2
through 5 of the backpay specification, to which
the Respondent has offered only a general denial,
to be admitted to be true Because the Respondent
has admitted the remaining allegation in the specifi-
cation, we grant the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment as to the amounts due the 15
discnminatees identified below
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Canteen Corporation, a Subsidiary
of Trans World Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall make whole each of the employees named
below by payment to them of the amounts set forth
opposite their names, plus interest accrued to the
date of payment as prescribed in New Horizons for
the Retarded 6
Lloyd Bickerstaff $797 90
Louis Caputo 797 90
Paul Cella 478 74
Frank Cone 718 11
Herb Cornman 638 32
John Hayes 638 32
Michael Horvath 638 32
William Lesher 797 90
Gene Mercun 718 11
Peter Perla 797 90
James Ponitz 797 90
Tom Priestly 478 74
Edward Rowland 797 90
Marty Welsh 797 90
Joseph Zombek 718 11
6 283 NLRB 1173 ( 1987) Interest on and after January 1 1987 shall be
computed at the short term Federal rate for the underpayment of taxes
as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621 Interest on
amounts accrued prior to January 1 1987 (the effective date of the 1986
amendment to 26 U S C § 6621) shall be computed in accordance with
Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977)