Marko Contractors

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 13, 1984

269 N.L.R.B. 990 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Marko Contractors, Inc. and Laborers' District
Council of West Virginia, affiliated with the La-
borers' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-19708-3
13 April 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
Upon a charge and amended charge filed by the
Union on 26 May 1983 and 14 July 1983,1 respec-
tively, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint on 15 July
against Marko Contractors, Inc., the Respondent,
alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
On 21 July the Respondent filed answer admit-
ting certain allegations, but denying in part the al-
legations of the complaint. Specifically, the Re-
spondent denied the 8(a)(l) and (3) allegations and
as an affirmative defense alleged that it has en-
gaged in no unfair labor practices.
On 19 September the General Counsel filed an
amended complaint alleging violations of Section
8(a)(1) in addition to those alleged in the 15 July
complaint. On 20 September the Regional Director
for Region 9 issued an order consolidating pro-
ceedings, backpay specifications, and notice of
hearing. Although properly served with both of
All dates are 1983 unless otherwise noted.
these documents the Respondent has failed to file
an answer. 2
In its answer the Respondent denied the 8(aX)(1)
and (3) allegations of the complaint and asserted
that it had committed no unfair labor practices.
Thus the Respondent has denied the allegation
which must be proved true prior to consideration
of the backpay specifications for which the Gener-
al Counsel now seeks summary judgment. Further-
more, the Respondent has generally and specifical-
ly denied the commission of acts violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1)-the same substantive basis on which
the amended complaint's additional allegations rely.
In so doing the Respondent has raised litigable
issues. We find that granting a Motion for Summa-
ry Judgment pursuant to Section 102.20 of the
Board's Rules in these circumstances is not appro-
priate.3 We shall therefore deny the motion.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment in the above-cap-
tioned proceeding be denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled
proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 9 for further appropriate action.
The General Counsel sent a telegram to the Respondent's attorney
on 5 October to confirm their phone conversation of that same date
during which the Respondent's attorney informed the General Counsel
that it did not intend to file an answer to the amended complaint or back-
pay specification.
3 WUSS Radio, 236 NLRB 1529 (1978).
269 NLRB No. 175
990