Creative Plumbing & Construction

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 29, 2000

330 N.L.R.B. 765 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

CREATIVE PLUMBING & CONSTRUCTION 765

Creative Plumbing and Construction, Inc. and United
Associaiton of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada Local Union 525,
AFL–CIO, CLC and Greg G. Silva. Cases 28–
CA–14143 and 28–CA–14268
February 29, 2000
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX
AND BRAME
On February 4, 1998, the National Labor Relations
Board issued an unpublished Order, inter alia, adopting
the administrative law judge’s findings and conclusions
and ordering Creative Plumbing and Construction, Inc.,
to make whole employee Greg G. Silva for loss of earn-
ings and other benefits resulting from his discharge in
violation of the National Labor Relations Act.1
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay due discriminatee Greg G. Silva, on August 11,
1999, the Regional Director for Region 28 issued a com-
pliance specification and notice of hearing alleging the
amount due under the Board’s Order, and notifying the
Respondent that it should file a timely answer complying
with the Board’s Rules and Regulations. Although prop-
erly served with a copy of the compliance specification,
the Respondent failed to file an answer.
By letter dated October 7, 1999, the Deputy Regional
Attorney advised the Respondent that no answer to the
compliance specification had been received and that un-
less an appropriate answer was filed by October 14,
1999, summary judgment would be sought. The Re-
spondent filed no answer.2

1 This Order was enforced by the Ninth Circuit in an unpublished
judgment dated March 19, 1999 (Case 98–71339).
2 By letter to the Regional Office dated January 6, 2000, the Re-
spondent’s president, Peggy Polinski, stated that “[o]n November 24,
1999, Mr. Overstreet [the Regional Director for Region 28] was noti-
fied that Creative Plumbing Inc. is no longer in business. That it is a
sole proprietorship at this time. And also that both myself and Ronald
Polinski are going to a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. There is no money or
assets from the corporation and never was.” This letter does not pur-
port to be an answer to the compliance specification, nor can it be con-
sidered as such under Sec. 102.56(b) of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, which requires that an answer to a compliance specification
“shall specifically admit, 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 denial.”
In addition, although the Respondent claims to be in bankruptcy, it is
well established that the institution of bankruptcy proceedings does not
deprive the Board of jurisdiction or authority to entertain and process
an unfair labor practice case to its final disposition. Phoenix Co., 274
NLRB 995 (1985). Board proceedings fall within the exception to the
automatic stay provisions for proceedings by a governmental unit to
enforce its police or regulatory powers. See id., and cases cited therein.
On January 27, 2000, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment, with exhib-
its attached. On February 1, 2000, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a No-
tice 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 specifi-
cation 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 Regula-
tions states:

If the respondent fails to file any answer to the specifi-
cation 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 with-
out further notice to the respondent, find the specifica-
tion to be true and enter such order as may be appropri-
ate.

According to the uncontroverted allegations of the Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment, the Respondent, despite
having been advised of the filing requirements, has failed
to file an answer to the compliance specification. In the
absence 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 grant the Gen-
eral Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Accord-
ingly, we conclude that the net backpay due the discrimi-
natee is as stated in the compliance specification and we
will order payment by the Respondent of the amounts to
the discriminatee, plus interest accrued on the amounts to
the date of payment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Creative Plumbing and Construction, Inc.,
Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall make whole the individual named below,
by paying him the amount following his name, plus in-
terest and minus tax withholdings required by Federal
and state laws:

Greg G. Silva $5,073.14

330 NLRB No. 122