I.C.E. Electric, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 2005

345 N.L.R.B. 61 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

345 NLRB No. 61
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
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.
I.C.E. Electric, Inc., Early Warning Security, Inc. and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local Union 317, AFL–CIO
East Coast Services, Inc. and International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local 575, AFL–
CIO and Christopher Lee Hutchinson and Erin
Thomas Hutchinson. Cases 9–CA–38707 and 9–
CA–40399
September 16, 2005
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
The General Counsel seeks a partial default judgment
in this case on the ground that Respondent single em-
ployer, I.C.E. Electric, Inc. and Early Warning Security,
Inc. (Respondent I.C.E.), and Respondent East Coast
Services, Inc. (Respondent East Coast) have failed to file
an answer to the compliance specification.
On June 11, 2003, the National Labor Relations Board
issued a Decision and Order in Case 9–CA–38707,1 that,
among other things, ordered Respondent I.C.E., its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, to make whole
Ronald D. Cole, Warren G. Spry, and Charles N. Taylor,
for any loss of earnings and benefits they may have suf-
fered as a result of Respondent I.C.E.’s unfair labor prac-
tices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
On November 10, 2003, the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Sixth Circuit entered its judgment enforcing
in full the provisions of the Board’s Order. The Court
issued its Mandate on January 5, 2004.
On January 15, 2004, the Board issued a Decision and
Order in Case 9–CA–40399,2 that, among other things,
ordered Respondent East Coast, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, to make whole James Shope and
Becky Reffitt for any loss of earnings and benefits they
may have suffered as a result of the Respondent’s unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act. On April 22, 2004, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its judgment en-
forcing the Board’s Order. The Court concurrently is-
sued its mandate on that same date.
A controversy having arisen over the amounts of
backpay due the discriminatees, on November 12, 2004,
the Regional Director issued a compliance specification

1 339 NLRB 247.
2 341 NLRB No. 2.
and notice of hearing alleging the amounts due under the
Board’s Orders.3 The compliance specification notified
the Respondents that they should file a timely answer
complying with the Board’s Rules and Regulations. The
compliance specification alleges that, at all material
times, Respondent I.C.E. and Respondent East Coast
have been affiliated business enterprises with common
officers, ownership, directors, management, supervision,
and employees; have formulated and administered a
common labor policy; have shared common premises
and facilities; have interchanged personnel with each
other; have commingled finances with each other; have
interrelated operations in areas of purchasing, sales, ac-
counting, insurance, training, banking, and bookkeeping;
and have held themselves out to the public as a single
integrated business enterprise. Accordingly, the compli-
ance specification alleges that Respondents I.C.E. and
East Coast constitute a single integrated business enter-
prise and a single employer within the meaning of the
Act, and are jointly and severally liable for remedying
the unfair labor practices described in the Board’s Deci-
sions and Orders.
The compliance specification also alleges that, at all
material times, Respondent Christopher Lee Hutchinson
and Respondent Erin Thomas Hutchinson, individuals,
have been doing business as Respondents I.C.E. and East
Coast, as well as other business entities, including but
not limited to, CAC Enterprises, Inc., Hutchinson Secu-
rity Systems, Pro Lock and Key, Ohio Valley Security,
AC Electrical Contractors, Early Warning Security, Ad-
vanced Sound and Communication, Peck Security Sys-
tems, Multi-Purpose Construction, R & C Enterprises of
Ashland, Inc., East Coast Electric and Security, Inc., East
Coast Security, East Coast, Inc., EC Electric, Mr. Elec-
tric, Manhattan Properties, Inc., and Pawnmart Incorpo-
rated. The compliance specification further alleges that
Respondent Christopher Lee Hutchinson and Respondent
Erin Thomas Hutchinson have failed to maintain distinct
corporate and individual identities with Respondents
I.C.E. and East Coast, as well as the other business enti-
ties described above.
Although properly served with a copy of the compli-
ance specification, Respondent I.C.E. and Respondent
East Coast have failed to file an answer. Respondent
Christopher Lee Hutchinson and Respondent Erin Tho-
mas Hutchinson filed an answer in their capacities as
individuals.
In their answer to the compliance specification, Re-
spondent Christopher Lee Hutchinson and Respondent
Erin Thomas Hutchinson disputed the allegations against

3 An Order consolidating cases issued on November 15, 2004.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
them to the extent that the compliance specification al-
leges that they are personally and individually liable for
remedying the unfair labor practices described in the
Board’s Decisions and Orders. They did not dispute the
accuracy of the backpay amounts set forth in the compli-
ance specification or the premises on which they are
based.
On December 10, 2004, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a motion for partial default judgment against
Respondent I.C.E. and Respondent East Coast, and
memorandum in support, with exhibits attached. On
December 20, 2004, the Board issued an order transfer-
ring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show
Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Re-
spondents filed no response. The allegations in the mo-
tion and in the compliance specification are therefore
undisputed with respect to Respondent I.C.E. and Re-
spondent East Coast.
Ruling on the Motion for Partial 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 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 re-
spondent, find the specification to be true and enter such
order as may be appropriate.
According to the uncontroverted allegations of the Mo-
tion for Partial Default Judgment, Respondent I.C.E. and
Respondent East Coast, despite having been advised of
the filing requirements, have failed to file an answer to
the compliance specification. In the absence of good
cause for Respondent I.C.E.’s and Respondent East
Coast’s failure to file an answer, we deem the allegations
in the compliance specification to be admitted as true
with respect to the allegations against them, and grant the
General Counsel’s Motion for Partial Default Judgment.
Accordingly, we conclude that the net backpay due the
discriminatees is as stated in the compliance specifica-
tion as modified below, and we will order payment by
the Respondent, I.C.E. Electric, Inc., Early Warning Se-
curity, Inc., and East Coast Services, Inc., a single em-
ployer, of those amounts to the discriminatees, plus in-
terest accrued to the date of payment.4

4 The Order the Board issued in Case 9–CA–38707 required Re-
spondent I.C.E. to pay $816.12 to Ronald D. Cole and $2,565.50 to
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, I.C.E. Electric, Inc., Early Warning Secu-
rity, Inc., and East Coast Services, Inc., a single em-
ployer, Ashland, Kentucky, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall make whole the individuals
named below, by paying them the amounts following
their names, plus interest accrued to the date of payment,
as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), minus tax withholdings required by
Federal and State laws:
Ronald D. Cole $ 4,672
Warren G. Spry $ 6,240
Charles N. Taylor $ 5,344
Becky Reffitt $14,516
James Shope $13,200
TOTAL BACKPAY: $43,972
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 16, 2005
______________________________________
Robert J. Battista, Chairman
______________________________________
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
______________________________________
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Warren G. Spry. See 339 NLRB at 249. As stated above, the Board’s
Order was enforced by the court of appeals. Nevertheless, in the final
numbered paragraph of the compliance specification, these amounts
were added to the backpay owed to Cole and Spry. Given that the
Board’s court-enforced Order already requires Respondent I.C.E. to
pay these sums to Cole and Spry, it would not be appropriate to order
payment a second time, and we have excluded these amounts from the
backpay due the two employees.
As set forth in the compliance specification, although requested to
do so, Respondent I.C.E. and Respondent East Coast have failed and
refused to provide payroll records as required by the Board’s Orders.
Accordingly, the General Counsel reserves the right to amend the com-
pliance specification, if necessary.
Respondents Christopher Lee Hutchinson and Erin Thomas Hut-
chinson may litigate in a separate proceeding whether they are person-
ally liable for the backpay amounts owed.