M.J. Metals Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 2002

337 N.L.R.B. 186 (N.L.R.B. 2002)

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the E x­
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.
M.J. Metal Products, Inc. and Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, Local Union No. 207.
Cases 27–CA–15523, 27–CA–15549, 27–CA–
15619, and 27–CA–16575
August 27, 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 August 10,
1999, the Board issued a Decision and Order,1 inter alia,
ordering the Respondent to make whole Jay Newcombe,
Brian Johnson, Shannon Leedall, and Kelly Martin for loss
of earnings and other benefits resulting from their dis­
charges in violation of the Act.2 On July 10, 2001, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit en­
tered its judgment enforcing the Board’s Orders.3
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay due the discriminatees, on October 31, 2001, the
Regional Director issued and properly served on the Re­
spondent a compliance specification and notice of hear­
ing alleging the amount due under the Board’s Order,
and notifying the Respondent that it should file a timely
answer complying with the Board’s Rules and Regula­
tions. On November 21, 2001, the Regional Director
advised the Respondent that its request for an extension
of time to file an answer had been granted and that an
answer was due on November 29, 2001. Although its
request for an extension of time was granted, the Re­
spondent failed to file an answer.
On December 21, 2001, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a Motion for Default Summary Judgment, with
exhibits attached. On January 2, 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. Thus, the
allegations in the motion and in the compliance specifi­
cation are undisputed.
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
1 328 NLRB 1184 (1999) (Board Cases 27–CA–15523, 27–CA–
15549, 27–CA–15619, and 27–RC–7813).
2 Thereafter, on January 12, 2000, the Board issued a Decision and
Order in Case 27–CA–16575, granting the General Counsel’s Motion
for Summary Judgment and finding that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union. 330
NLRB 502 (2000).
3 Nos. 99–9533, 99–9538, and 00–9507. Subsequently, by Order
dated October 31, 2001, the court granted the Board’s motion to pub­
lish the court’s order and judgment.
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 speci­
fication within the time prescribed by this section,
the Board may, either with or without taking evi­
dence in support of the allegations of the specifica­
tion and without further notice to the respondent, find
the specification to be true and enter such order as may
be appropriate.
According to the uncontroverted allegations of the Mo­
tion for Summary Judgment, the Respondent, despite
having been advised of the filing requirements, has not
filed 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 Ge n­
eral Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Accord­
ingly, we conclude that the net backpay due the discrimi­
natees 4 is as stated in the compliance specification and
we will order payment by the Respondent of those
amounts to the discriminatees, plus interest accrued on
the amounts to the date of payment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, M.J. Metal Products, Inc., Casper, Wyo­
ming, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
make whole the individuals named below, by paying
them the amounts following their names, plus interest to
be computed in accordance with New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), and minus tax with-
holdings required by Federal and State laws:
Jay Newcombe $11,104
Brian Johnson 29,257
Kelly Martin 9,319
TOTAL: $49,680
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 27, 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, no backpay is re-
quested for Shannon Leedall who suffered no losses as a result of the
Respondent’s unfair labor practices.
337 NLRB No. 186