Michigan Expediting Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1990

300 N.L.R.B. 1063 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

1063
300 NLRB No. 147
MICHIGAN EXPEDITING SERVICE
1 282 NLRB 210.
2 Enfd. mem. sub nom. NLRB v. Shabazz, 869 F.2d 1492.
3 Formerly Sec. 102.54(b) and (c). The Board amended its rules governing
compliance proceedings effective November 13, 1988. The substance of
former Sec. 102.54 has been incorporated into Sec. 102.56 as revised.
Abdul Samad Ra’oof Shabazz and Jacqueline
Craig, a Co-Partnership d/b/a Michigan Expe-
diting Service; Michigan Expediting Services,
Inc.; Action Express, Inc.; and Vincent Ex-
press, Inc. and Ewan Greig and Local 299,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, AFL–CIO. Cases 7–CA–25514 and 7–
CA–25533
December 28, 1990
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND OVIATT
On November 20, 1986, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a Decision and Order in this pro-
ceeding,1 directing the Respondents, inter alia, to make
whole employees for losses resulting from its unfair
labor practices. The United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit enforced the Board’s Order in full on
February 17, 1989.2 On March 19, 1990, the Regional
Director for Region 7 issued a compliance specifica-
tion and notice of hearing, alleging that a controversy
had arisen over the amount of backpay due the
discriminatees under the terms of the Board’s Order,
and notifying the Respondents that they must file a
timely answer complying with the Board’s Rules and
Regulations.
On September 6, 1990, the Regional Attorney
served the compliance specification and notice of hear-
ing again by certified mail because it was not clear
that proper service had been made on all the necessary
parties. The accompanying letter advised the Respond-
ents that they had until September 27, 1990, to file an
answer that complied with the Board’s Rules and Reg-
ulations. The letter also advised that if the Respondents
failed to submit a timely answer, the General Counsel
would file a Motion for Default Judgment that, if
granted, would result in all the allegations in the com-
pliance specification being deemed admitted as true.
The Respondents filed for bankruptcy on December
13, 1988, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.
On September 17, 1990, the attorney for the Respond-
ents’ trustee in bankruptcy mailed the Regional Attor-
ney a letter in response to the September 6, 1990 serv-
ice of the compliance specification. The letter stated
that the trustee had no objection to any of the plead-
ings, provided that interest was not charged after the
filing of the Respondents’ bankruptcy petition. Despite
proper service of the compliance specification and no-
tice of hearing, no answer to the compliance specifica-
tion, other than the letter from the trustee’s attorney,
has been filed.
On November 19, 1990, the General Counsel filed
with the Board in Washington, D.C., a Motion to
Transfer Case to the Board and for Judgment on the
Pleadings. On November 21, 1990, the Board issued
an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and
a Notice to Show Cause why the General Counsel’s
motion should not be granted. The Respondents have
filed no response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
On the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following
Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Section 102.56(b) and (c)3 of the National Labor
Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations states:
(b) Contents of answer to specification.—The
answer shall specifically admit, deny, or explain
each and every allegation of the specification, un-
less the respondent is without knowledge, in
which case the respondent shall so state, such
statement operating as a denial. Denials shall fair-
ly meet the substance of the allegations of the
specification at issue. When a respondent intends
to deny only a part of an allegation, the respond-
ent shall specify so much of it as is true and shall
deny only the remainder. As to all matters within
the knowledge of the respondent, including but
not limited to the various factors entering into the
computation of gross backpay, a general denial
shall not suffice. As to such matters, if the re-
spondent disputes either the accuracy of the fig-
ures in the specification or the premises on which
they are based, the answer shall specifically state
the basis for such disagreement, setting forth in
detail the respondent’s position as to the applica-
ble premises and furnishing the appropriate sup-
porting figures.
(c) Effect of failure to answer or to plead spe-
cifically and in detail to backpay allegations of
specification.—If the respondent fails to file any
answer to the specification within the time pre-
scribed by this section, the Board may, either with
or without taking evidence in support of the alle-
gations of the specification and without further
notice to the respondent, find the specification to
be true and enter such order as may be appro-
priate. If the respondent files an answer to the
specification but fails to deny any allegation of
the specification in the manner required by para-
1064 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 Any subsequent controversy regarding interest payments for the period
after December 13, 1988, may be addressed in further compliance proceedings
in this matter.
graph (b) of this section, and the failure so to
deny is not adequately explained, such allegation
shall be deemed to be admitted to be true, and
may be so found by the Board without the taking
of evidence supporting such allegation, and the re-
spondent shall be precluded from introducing any
evidence controverting the allegation.
The cover letter for the second service of the com-
pliance specification on the Respondents states
[A]ny party wishing to submit an answer to the
Compliance Specification and Notice of hearing
must do so within 21 days of the September 6,
1990 date of this letter, that is, no later than Sep-
tember 27, 1990. . . . [T]o the extent that such
Answer fails to deny allegations of the Specifica-
tion in the manner, [sic] required under the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, and the failure to
do so is not adequately explained, such allegations
shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and the
respondent shall be precluded from introducing
any evidence controverting them.
The letter filed by the attorney for the Respondents’
trustee in bankruptcy raises no objection to any of the
pleadings contained in the compliance specification,
except to the extent that the compliance specification
may seek interest for any time subsequent to the filing
of the Respondents’ bankruptcy petition. The compli-
ance specification, however, appears to provide for in-
terest payments only through December 12, 1988. The
Respondents filed their petition for bankruptcy on De-
cember 13, 1988. We therefore find that the letter filed
by the attorney for the trustee does not contest any of
the facts regarding the payments sought by the compli-
ance specification.4
As the Respondents have not filed an answer con-
testing the allegations in the compliance specification
and have not offered any explanation for their failure
to do so, in accordance with the rules set forth above,
the allegations of the specification are deemed to be
true and we so find without taking evidence in support
of the allegations. Accordingly, we grant the General
Counsel’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, con-
clude that the net backpay due the discriminatees is as
stated in the computations of the specification, and
order that payment be made by the Respondents as set
forth below.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondents, Abdul Samad Ra’oof Shabazz and Jac-
queline Craig, a co-Partnership d/b/a Michigan Expe-
diting Service; Michigan Expediting Services, Inc.; Ac-
tion Express, Inc.; and Vincent Express, Inc., Detroit,
Michigan, their officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall make whole each of the employees named
below by payment to them of the amounts set forth ad-
jacent to their names, less all tax withholding as re-
quired by Federal, state, and municipal laws.
Ewan Greig $11,696.94
William Moss 11,696.94