L.S.F. Trucking, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 2002

338 N.L.R.B. 9 (N.L.R.B. 2002)

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Board 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.
L.S.F. Transportation, Inc. a/k/a L.S.F. Trucking,
Inc. and International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Local 142, AFL–CIO. Cases 13–CA–
33256, 13–CA–33289, 13–CA–33374–2, 13–CA–
33385, 13–CA–33417, 13–CA–33511, and 13–
CA–33359.
September 26, 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 failed to file
an answer to the compliance specification.
On March 27, 2000, the Board issued a Decision and
Order1 that, among other things, ordered the Respondent
to make whole seven of its unit employees for any loss of
earnings and other benefits resulting from the Respon-
dent’s unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. On March 11, 2002, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
entered its judgment enforcing the Board’s Order in full.2
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay due the discriminatees, on April 18, 2002, the Re-
gional Director issued a compliance specification and
notice of hearing alleging the amounts 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.3
On May 29, 2002, the General Counsel filed with the
Board a Motion for Summary Judgment, with exhibits
attached. On June 6, 2002, 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 allegations in the
motion and in the compliance specification are therefore
undisputed.

1 330 NLRB 1054 (2000).
2 282 F.3d 972.
3 By letter to the Region dated May 6, 2002, the Respondent’s coun-
sel advised that he had been directed by the Respondent’s trustee in
bankruptcy not to make any response or defense to the compliance
specification. Although the Respondent is in bankruptcy, it is well
established that the institution of bankruptcy proceedings does not
deprive the Board of jurisdiction or authority to entertain and process
an unfair labor practice case to its final disposition. See, e.g., Cardinal
Services, 295 NLRB 933 fn. 2 (1989), and cases cited there. Board
proceedings fall within the exception to the automatic stay provisions
for proceedings by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regula-
tory powers. See id., and cases cited therein.
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:
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, despite
having 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 Gen-
eral Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Accord-
ingly, we conclude that the net backpay and interest due
the discriminatees is as stated in the compliance specifi-
cation and we will order payment by the Respondent of
those amounts to the discriminatees, plus additional in-
terest accrued on the amounts to the date of payment.4
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, L.S.F. Transportation, Inc. a/k/a L.S.F.
Trucking, Inc., Hammond, Indiana, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall make whole the individuals
named below by paying them the amounts following
their names, plus interest as prescribed in New Horizons
for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), and minus tax
withholdings required by Federal and state laws:

Michael Dooley $ 1,406.00
Mark Hasse 20,303.00
Dennis Hill 67,206.00
Ronald Holland 9,132.00
John Kawa 22,736.00
Walter Michaels 67,042.00
William Owens 32,431.00
TOTAL: 220,256.00

Dated, Washington, D.C. September 26, 2002

Wilma B. Liebman, Member

William B. Cowen, Member

Michael J. Bartlett, Member

(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 As set forth in the compliance specification, the Respondent’s ob-
ligations under the Board’s Order continue.
338 NLRB No. 9