Landmark Installations

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 2004

343 N.L.R.B. 120 (N.L.R.B. 2004)

343 NLRB No. 120
Landmark Installations, Inc. and Local Union No. 272
and Shopmen’s Local Union No. 698 of the In-
ternational Association of Bridge, Structural,
Ornamental, and Reinforcing Ironworkers.
Cases 12-CA-21376 and 12-CA-21441
December 16, 2004
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file
an answer to the compliance specification.
On June 30, 2003, the National Labor Relations Board
issued a Decision and Order1 that, among other things,
ordered the Respondent to make whole certain discrimi-
natees 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 November 5, 2003, the Respondent entered into
a stipulation waiving its rights under Section 10(e) and
(f) of the Act to contest either the propriety of the
Board’s Decision and Order, or findings of fact and con-
clusions of law underlying that Order before the United
States Court of Appeals, and providing for a compliance
hearing to resolve any disputes concerning the amount of
backpay due under the terms of the Board’s Order. The
Regional Director approved the stipulation on December
2, 2003.
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay due the discriminatees, on August 19, 2004, the Re-
gional Director issued a compliance specification and
notice of hearing alleging the amounts due under the
Board’s Order. The compliance specification notified
the Respondent that it should file an answer by Septem-
ber 9, 2004, complying with the Board’s Rules and
Regulations. The Respondent failed to file an answer.
By letter dated September 15, 2004, the Acting Com-
pliance Officer for Region 12 advised the Respondent
that no answer to the compliance specification had been
received and that unless an answer was filed by Septem-
ber 27, 2004, a motion for default judgment would be
filed.
By letter dated September 29, 2004, the Respondent
filed a request for a 1-week extension of time to file an
answer to the compliance specification. On that same
date, the Regional Director granted the requested exten-
sion of time to October 6, 2004. Despite this extension,
however, the Respondent did not file an answer.

1 339 NLRB 422.
On October 8, 2004, the Acting Compliance Officer
for Region 12, by letter, advised the Respondent that if it
failed to file an answer to the compliance specification
by October 15, 2004, a motion for default judgment
would be filed. To date, the Respondent has not filed an
answer.
On November 12, 2004, the General Counsel filed
with the Board a motion for summary judgment, with
exhibits attached. On November 19, 2004, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board
and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not
be granted. The Respondent filed no response. The alle-
gations 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 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 Default Judgment, the Respondent, despite hav-
ing been advised of the filing requirements and granted
three extensions of time, 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 General Counsel’s Mo-
tion for Default Judgment. Accordingly, we conclude
that the net backpay due the discriminatees is as stated in
the compliance specification and we will order the Re-
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, Landmark Installations, Inc., Pompano
Beach, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall make whole the discriminatees2 named below
by paying them the amounts following their names, plus

2 As set forth in the compliance specification, no back-
pay remedy is being sought for discriminatees Luis Gon-
zalez and Raidel Rivero.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
2
interest as set forth in New Horizons for the Retarded,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987), and minus tax withholdings
required by Federal and State laws:
DISCRIMINATEE NET BACKPAY FICA MATCH SUM TOTAL
Adolfo Gonzalez $ 2,918.88 $ 223.29 $3,142.17
Lawrence Hodgson $11,482.46 $ 878.41 $12,360.87
Bertie Gottshaw $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Jose Zapata $32,038.65 $2,450.96 $34,489.61
TOTAL $46,439.99 $3,552.66 $49,992.65