Comcraft, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 19, 1996

321 N.L.R.B. 814 (N.L.R.B. 1996)

814
321 NLRB No. 113
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 317 NLRB 550 (1995).
Comcraft, Inc. and Communications Workers of
America, Local 9503, AFL–CIO. Case 31–CA–
20519
July 19, 1996
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING
AND FOX
On May 22, 1995, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order,1 inter alia, order-
ing the Respondent, Comcraft, Inc., to make whole
certain of its unit employees for loss of earnings and
other benefits resulting from the discrimination against
them in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act. On March 4, 1996, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
entered its judgment enforcing the Board’s Order in
full.
A controversy having arisen over the amount of
backpay due the discriminatees, on April 11, 1996, the
Regional Director for Region 31 issued a compliance
specification and notice of hearing alleging the amount
due under the Board’s Order, and notifying the Re-
spondent 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 10, 1996, the Region advised
the Respondent that no answer to the compliance spec-
ification had been received and that unless an appro-
priate answer was filed by May 17, 1996, summary
judgment would be sought. The Respondent filed no
answer.
On June 17, 1996, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment, with ex-
hibits attached. On June 20, 1996, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a
Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be
granted. The Respondent again filed no response. The
allegations in the motion and in the compliance speci-
fication 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 Summary Judgment
Section 102.56(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions provides that the Respondent shall file an answer
within 21 days from service of a compliance specifica-
tion. Section 102.56(c) of the Board’s Rules and Regu-
lations states:
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 allegations 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, de-
spite having been advised of the filing requirements,
has failed to file an answer to the compliance speci-
fication. In the absence of good cause for the Respond-
ent’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 back-
pay due the discriminatees is as stated in the compli-
ance specification and we will order payment by the
Respondent of the amounts to the discriminatees, plus
interest accrued on the amounts to the date of pay-
ment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Comcraft, Inc., Los Angeles and North-
ridge, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall make whole the individuals named below
by paying them the amounts following their names,
plus interest to be computed in the manner prescribed
in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987), minus tax withholdings required by Federal
and state laws:
Herndon Greene $16,945.10
Johnny Pitts 13,818.85
lllll
TOTAL $30,763.95