Dickens Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 2012

358 N.L.R.B. 1554 (N.L.R.B. 2012)

1554 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
358 NLRB No. 157
Dickens Inc. and Wenquing Lin. Cases 29–CA–
029080, 29–CA–029198, and 29–CA–029254
September 27, 2012
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS GRIFFIN
AND BLOCK
The Acting General Counsel seeks default judgment in
this case on the ground that the Respondent, Dickens
Inc., has failed to file an answer to the amended compli-
ance specification.
On May 26, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board
issued a Supplemental Decision and Order,1 that, among
other things, directed the Respondent to make whole
discriminatees Wenquing Lin and Miaona Wu for any
loss of earnings and other benefits they suffered as a re-
sult of the Respondent’s unlawful conduct in violation of
Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act. On September 30,
2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit entered its judgment enforcing, in full, the
Board’s Order.2
A controversy having arisen over the amount of mon-
eys due the discriminatees, on May 30, 2012, the Re-
gional Director issued a compliance specification and
notice of hearing alleging the amount of backpay due
under the Board’s Order. On June 15, 2012, the Re-
spondent filed a purported answer. By letter dated June
18, 2012, counsel for the Acting General Counsel ad-
vised the Respondent that the document filed on June 15,
2012, did not meet the answer requirements set forth in
Section 102.56(b) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
The Respondent was further advised that if it did not file
a sufficient answer by June 25, 2012, a motion for de-
fault judgment may be filed.
On June 21, 2012, the Respondent filed a purported
revised answer to the compliance specification.3 On July

1 356 NLRB 1298.
2 11-3352.
3 The Respondent’s purported revised answer, which does not appear
to have been served on the charging party, did not admit or deny any of
the allegations set forth in pars. I, II,B, III, and IV of the compliance
specification. The purported revised answer denied the allegations in
par. II,A, inasmuch as the Respondent argued that the discriminatees
should not be compensated for 10 holidays that fell during their back-
pay period. Notwithstanding the Respondent’s failure to furnish the
appropriate supporting figures for the amounts owed, on June 25, 2012,
counsel for the Acting General Counsel informed the Respondent that
she would amend the computation of gross backpay to reflect the re-
moval of nine paid holidays, because the Respondent’s payroll records
demonstrated that with the exception of one holiday, its employees did
not work or receive holiday pay during the backpay period. These
changes are reflected in the amended compliance specification issued
on July 9, 2012, to which no answer has been filed. Accordingly, we
9, 2012, the Regional Director issued an amended com-
pliance specification and notice of hearing. The Re-
spondent failed to file any answer to the amended com-
pliance specification.
By letter dated July 31, 2012, counsel for the Acting
General Counsel advised the Respondent that no answer
to the amended compliance specification had been filed,
and that if an answer was not received on or before Au-
gust 7, 2012, a motion for default judgment would be
filed. To date, the Respondent has failed to file an an-
swer.
On August 8, 2012, the Acting General Counsel filed
with the Board a Motion for Default Judgment, with ex-
hibits attached. On August 15, 2012, 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 in the amended compliance spec-
ification are therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on 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 compliance specification
within the time prescribed by this section, the Board
may, either with or without taking evidence in support of
the allegations of the compliance specification and with-
out further notice to the respondent, find the compliance
specification to be true and enter such order as may be
appropriate.
According to the uncontroverted allegations of the mo-
tion for default judgment, the Respondent, despite having
been advised of the filing requirements, has failed to file
an answer to the amended compliance specification. In
the absence of good cause for the Respondent’s failure to
file an answer, we deem the allegations in the amended
compliance specification to be admitted as true, and we
grant the Acting General Counsel’s Motion for Default
Judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the net back-
pay due the discriminatees is as stated in the amended
compliance specification, and we will order the Re-

find it unnecessary to determine whether the Respondent’s purported
revised answer was a legally sufficient answer under Sec. 102.56 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, because in any event, it does not raise a
genuine issue of material fact regarding the allegations in the amended
compliance specification. See, e.g., Nick & Bob Partners, 345 NLRB
1092, 1093 (2005) (“Summary judgment is appropriate when a re-
spondent does not raise a genuine issue of material fact.”).
DICKENS INC.

1555
spondent to pay those amounts to the discriminatees, plus
interest accrued to the date of payment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Dickens Inc., Commack, New York, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole
Wenquing Lin and Miaona Wu, by paying them the
amounts following their names, plus interest accrued to
the date of payment, as prescribed in New Horizons, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010),
minus tax withholdings required by Federal and State
laws:

Wenquing Lin $16,566
Miaona Wu 18,486
TOTAL BACKPAY DUE: $35,052