Mine Works Local 1575 (Peabody Coal Co.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1989

295 N.L.R.B. 873 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

MINE WORKERS LOCAL 1575 (PEABODY COAL CO.) 873
United Mine Workers of America, Local 1575 (Pea-
body Coal Company) and Richard L. Allard and
Gerald C. Wolfe and Gregory A. Larson. Cases
19-CB-6134, 19-CB-6137, and 19-CB-6147
June 27, 1989
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS
On October 13, 1988 , the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a Decision and Order in this
proceeding' ordering the Respondent , inter alia, to
make whole Richard Allard , Gregory Larson, Dale
Miller , and Gerald Wolfe for any losses they may
have suffered in defending themselves against the
unlawful charges the Respondent preferred against
them . Thereafter , on February 6, 1989 , the Re-
spondent entered into a stipulation agreeing that it
would not seek court review of the Board 's deci-
sion and that the Regional Director could issue a
backpay specification.
On February 7, 1989 , the Regional Director for
Region 19 issued a backpay specification and notice
of hearing alleging , inter alia, that a controversy
had arisen over the amount of money due under
the terms of the Board 's Order and notifying the
Respondent that it must file a timely answer which
must comply with the Board 's Rules and Regula-
tions . On February 28, 1989 , the Respondent filed
an answer generally denying the allegations con-
tained in the backpay specification.
On March 10, 1989 , the General Counsel filed
directly with the Board a Motion to Strike Answer
of Respondent and for Summary Judgment . Subse-
quently , on March 15 , 1989, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and
a Notice to Show Cause why the General Coun-
sel's Motion to Strike and for Summary Judgment
should not be granted . On March 29 , 1989 , the Re-
spondent filed a response to the Notice to Show
Cause with attached affidavit . The General Coun-
sel has not filed any reply to the Respondent's re-
sponse.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
On the entire record in this case , the Board
makes the following
1 291 NLRB 361
Ruling on Motion to Strike and for Summary
Judgment
Section 102 . 56(b) and (c)2 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations states:
(b) Contents of answer to specification.-The
answer shall specifically admit , deny, or ex-
plain each and every allegation of the specifi-
cation , unless the respondent is without knowl-
edge, in which case the respondent shall so
state, such statement operating as a denial. De-
nials shall fairly meet the the substance of the
allegations of the specification at issue. When a
respondent intends to deny only a part of an
allegation , the respondent shall specify so
much of it as is true and shall deny only the
remainder . As to all matters within the knowl-
edge of the respondent , including but not lim-
ited 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
figures in the specification or the premises on
which they are based , the answer shall specifi-
cally state the basis for such disagreement, set-
ting forth in detail the respondent's position as
to the applicable premises and furnishing the
appropriate supporting 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
prescribed by this section , the Board may,
either with or without taking evidence in sup-
port 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 . If the respondent
files an answer to the specification but fails to
deny any allegation of the specification in the
manner required by paragraph (b) of this sec-
tion , and the failure so to deny is not adequate-
ly 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 respondent
shall be precluded from introducing any evi-
dence controverting the allegation.
In the Motion to Strike and for Summary Judg-
ment , the General Counsel alleges that the Re-
spondent's answer fails to conform to the require-
2 Formerly Sec. 102 . 54(b) and (c). The Board amended its rules gov-
erning compliance proceedings effective November 13, 1988 The sub-
stance of former Sec . 102.54 has been incorporated into Sec . 102.56 as
revised.
295 NLRB No. 85
874 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ments of the Board 's Rules and Regulations be-
cause it fails specifically to admit , deny, or explain
the allegations of the specification. Therefore, the
General Counsel requests that the Board deem the
allegations of the backpay specification to be ad-
mitted to be true.
A copy of the Respondent 's answer is attached
to the General Counsel' s motion as an exhibit. This
answer simply denies all the allegations contained
in the backpay specification.
In its response to the General Counsel 's motion,
the Respondent claims that both before and after
the backpay specification issued it requested copies
of any documentation the Regional Director pos-
sessed which it could use to assess the accuracy of
the amounts it allegedly owed under the terms of
the Board's Order. The Respondent further claims
that, in a telephone conversation with counsel for
the General Counsel on February 17, 1989, its
counsel stated she could not prepare an appropriate
answer to the backpay specification without re-
viewing the requested documentation and that, in
another telephone conservation with counsel for
the. General Counsel on February 28, 1989, its
counsel stated she could only file an answer gener-
ally denying the allegations of the backpay specifi-
cation because she had not yet received the re-
quested documentation she needed to assess the ac-
curacy of the amounts listed in the backpay specifi-
cation . The Respondent also claims that on March
8, 1989 , almost 2 weeks after it had filed an answer
generally denying the allegations of the backpay
specification, it received the General Counsel's
Motion to Strike and for Summary Judgment at
about the same time as it received a letter from
counsel for the General Counsel providing docu-
mentation for fewer than half of the allegations in
the backpay specification.
The Respondent contends that it was unable to
specifically deny the allegations of the backpay
specification in its answer because, in the absence
of the requested supporting documentation, it was
without knowledge as to the accuracy of the
amounts claimed for wages , mileage, lodging,
meals, telephone calls, and attorneys' fees on behalf
of the four named discriminatees . The Respondent
also contends that, by reviewing the documentation
it has now received and taking into account the ab-
sence of any documentation to support various alle-
gations, it would now be able to specifically deny
all the allegations of the backpay specification as
set forth in its response. Therefore , the Respondent
requests that the Board deny the General Counsel's
motion and allow it sufficient opportunity to
amend its answer.
We agree with the General Counsel that the Re-
spondent's answer states merely a general denial of
the allegations in the backpay specification. How-
ever, a general denial is sufficient under Section
102.56 to defeat a motion for summary judgment as
to those issues not within the knowledge of the re-
spondent.3 The General Counsel has not alleged,
nor does it appear likely, that any of the matters in
this backpay specification are within the knowl-
edge of the Respondent. Thus, the actual amounts
of expenses incurred by an individual discriminatee
for mileage , lodging , meals, telephone calls, and at-
torney's fees would not normally be within the
knowledge of a respondent. Further, the Respond-
ent here is a union , not an employer, and there is
no evidence in the record to indicate it is in any
position to know the actual wages earned by the
four named discriminatees in this case .4 Moreover,
in its response to the General Counsel 's motion, the
Respondent has stated that it was without knowl-
edge as to the accuracy of the amounts claimed for
wages, mileage, lodging , meals, telephone calls, and
attorneys' fees on behalf of the four named discri-
minatees until it received the supporting documen-
tation it had requested from the General Counsel.
The General Counsel does not dispute the Re-
spondent's claim of lack of knowledge. Therefore,
we find that the General Counsel has not shown
that the Respondent's denial of the allegations of
the backpay specification is insufficient to require a
hearing.
Accordingly, we shall deny the General Coun-
sel's Motion to Strike and for Summary Judgment,
and we shall order a hearing on the issues raised by
the backpay specification.
ORDER
It is ordered that the General Counsel's Motion
to Strike and for Summary Judgment is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is
remanded to the Regional Director for Region 19
for the purpose of arranging a hearing before an
administrative law judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative
law judge shall prepare and serve on the parties a
decision containing findings , conclusions, and rec-
ommendations based on all the record evidence.
Following the service of the administrative law
judge's decision on the parties, the provisions of
Section 102 .46 of the Board 's Rules and Regula-
tions shall apply.
9 See, e g., Dews Construction Corp., 246 NLRB 945 (1979), and Marine
Machine Works , 256 NLRB 15,17 (1981)
4 For example , there is no evidence that the Respondent referred indi-
viduals for employment through a union hiring hall or was otherwise
aware of the actual wages earned by particular employees on specific
days under its collective -bargaining agreement with their employer.