National Trecartin Electric, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 2000

331 N.L.R.B. 126 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

331 NLRN No. 126
1
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound 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.

National Trecartin Electric, Inc. and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 640,
AFL-CIO. Case 28–CA–15178
August 10, 2000
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX AND
BRAME
On April 21, 1999, the National Labor Relations Board
issued an unpublished Order, inter alia, adopting a deci-
sion1 of the Administrative Law Judge and ordering the
Respondent, National Trecartin Electric, Inc., to make
whole Larry Beougher, Gene Foret, Torrence Orr, and
Donald Smith for their losses resulting from the Respon-
dent’s unfair labor practices in violation of the National
Labor Relations Act.2
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay due discriminatees, on December 21, 1999, the Re-
gional Director for Region 28 issued a compliance speci-
fication and notice of hearing 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 Regulations. On March 7, 2000, the
Respondent filed an answer to the compliance specifica-
tion. The Respondent, however, withdrew its answer on
June 8, 2000. On June 13, 2000, the Region approved
the Respondent’s withdrawal of its answer. Based on the
Respondent’s withdrawal of its answer and the Region’s
approval of such withdrawal, the legal effect is the same
as if the Respondent had never filed an answer to the
compliance specification.
On June 19, 2000, the General Counsel filed with the
Board a Motion to Transfer Case to the Board and for
Summary Judgment, with exhibits attached. On June 20,
2000, the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing 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 com-
pliance specification are therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

1 On March 10, 1999, the administrative law judge issued a decision
finding that the Respondent had violated Sec. 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
by interrogating employees about their union activities and by discharg-
ing or otherwise discriminating against employees because of their
union activities. The judge ordered the Respondent to cease and desist
from interrogating, discharging, or otherwise discriminating against
employees because of their union activities and offer to reinstate and
make whole certain employees, with backpay.
2 On September 17, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit entered its judgment enforcing in full the Board’s Order.
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 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 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 Ge n-
eral Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Accord-
ingly, we conclude that the net backpay due the discrimi-
natees is as stated in the compliance specification and we
will order payment by the Respondent of said amounts to
the discriminatees, plus interest accrued on said amounts
to the date of payment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, National Trecartin Electric, Inc., Phoenix,
Arizona, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall make whole the individuals named below, by pay-
ing them the amounts following their names, plus inter-
est3 and minus tax withholdings required by Federal and
state laws:

Larry Beougher $5,971.29
Gene Foret 1,026.61
Torrence Orr 1,758.65
Donald L. Smith 1,328.44
Total: $10,084.99

Dated, Washington, D.C. August 10, 2000

John C. Truesdale, Chairman

Sarah M. Fox, Member

J. Robert Brame III, Member

(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

3 See New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).