Koehn Painting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 2001

333 N.L.R.B. 22 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

333 NLRB No. 22
1
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.
Koehn Painting Company and International Brother-
hood of Painters and Allied Trades Local Union
76. Cases 17–CA–19923, 17–CA–19998
January 31, 2001
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND HURTGEN
On April 28, 2000, the National Labor Relations Board
issued a Decision and Order,1 inter alia, ordering Koehn
Painting Company to make employee Michael Ramsey
whole for loss of earnings and other benefits resulting
from the discriminatory actions taken against him in vio-
lation of the National Labor Relations Act. On July 17,
2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit entered a judgment enforcing in full the Board’s
Order.2
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay due to Ramsey, on November 16, 2000, the Regional
Director for Region 17 issued a compliance 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 properly served with a
copy of the compliance specification, the Respondent
failed to file an answer.
On December 27, 2000, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a motion for summary judgment, with exhibits
attached. On December 29, 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
specification 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:

1 330 NLRB No. 192 (not reported in Board volumes).
2 Case No. 00-9519.
If the respondent fails to file any answer to the speci-
fication 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 mo-
tion for summary judgment, the Respondent, despite hav-
ing 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 Ge n-
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 said amount to
the discriminatee, plus interest accrued on said amount to
the date of payment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Koehn Painting Company, Newton, Kansas,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make
whole the individual named below, by paying him the
amount following his name, plus interest and minus tax
withholdings required by Federal and State laws:3
Michael Ramsey $11,162.00
Dated, Washington, D.C. January 31, 2001

John C. Truesdale, Chairman

Wilma B. Liebman, Member

Peter J. Hurtgen, Member

(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

3 The General Counsel’s compliance specification requests that the
Board order the Respondent to “reimburse Ramsey for any extra Fed-
eral and/or State income taxes that would or may result from the lump
sum payment of this backpay award.” Because the General Counsel’s
proposed Order would involve a change in Board law, we believe that
the question should be resolved after a full briefing by affected parties.
See Kloepfers Floor Covering, Inc., 330 NLRB No. 126, fn. 1 (2000).
Because there has been no such briefing in this no-answer case, we
decline to include this additional relief in this Order.