D.J. Electrical Contracting

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 9, 2002

337 N.L.R.B. 123 (N.L.R.B. 2002)

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the E x­
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.
D.J. Electrical Contracting, Inc. and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union
141. Case 8–CA–21970
July 9, 2002
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, COWEN, AND BARTLETT
The General Counsel seeks summary judgment in this
case on the ground that the Respondent has withdrawn its
answer to the amended compliance specification.
On July 22, 1991, the Board issued a Decision and Or­
der,1 which directed the Respondent to make whole cer­
tain of its unit employees for loss of earnings and other
benefits resulting from their discharges and denial of
steady employment in violation of the Act. A contro­
versy having arisen over the amount of backpay due the
discriminatees, on February 2, 2001, the Regional Direc­
tor issued an amended compliance specification2 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. The Respondent filed an answer
to the amended compliance specification on February 26,
2001. Subsequently, however, on October 19, 2001, the
Respondent withdrew its answer and stipulated that it
owes the individuals named in the specification the
amounts set forth therein.
On February 5, 2002, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment, with exhib­
its attached. On February 7, 2002, 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 filed no response. Accord­
ingly, the allegations in the motion and in the amended
compliance specification are 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-
1 303 NLRB 820. On January 8, 1993, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered its judgment enforcing the
Board’s Order.
2 The original compliance specification in this matter issued on May
9, 1997.
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 has with-
drawn its answer to the amended compliance specifica­
tion. The legal effect of this withdrawal is the same as if
the Respondent had never filed an answer to the
amended compliance specification. In the absence of an
answer, we deem the allegations in the amended compli­
ance specification to be admitted as true, and grant the
General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Ac­
cordingly, we conclude that the net backpay due the dis­
criminatees is as stated in the compliance specification
and we will order payment by the Respondent of those
amounts to the discriminatees, plus interest accrued on
the amounts to the date of payment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, D. J. Electrical Contracting, Inc., Neffs,
Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
make whole the individuals named below, by paying
them the amounts following their names, plus interest
and minus tax withholdings required by Federal and
State laws:
John Welshans $52,971
Dana Bonar 30,584
Jay C. LaRoche 57,046
John Blacker 23,226
Paul Kartman 72,654
TOTAL: $236,481
Dated, Washington, D.C. July 9, 2002
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
William B. Cowen, Member
Michael J. Bartlett, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
337 NLRB No. 123