Osborn Electric, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1998

325 N.L.R.B. 176 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

1
325 NLRB No. 176
1 On December 17, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit issued its Decision and Order in Case 97–6341 en-
forcing the Board’s Order.
2 See New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
3 See Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213 (1979).
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication
in the Board volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to
notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal er-
rors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.
Osborn Electric, Inc. and Local Union #131, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL–CIO and Roger Clark, Party of Interest.
Case 7–CA–37273
June 30, 1998
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, HURTGEN, AND BRAME
On October 15, 1996, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order,1 inter alia, order-
ing Osborn Electric, Inc., to make whole certain of its
employees for loss of earnings and other benefits re-
sulting from the Respondent’s unfair labor practices in
violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
A controversy having arisen over the amount of
backpay due, on April 14, 1998, the Regional Director
for Region 7 issued a compliance specification and no-
tice 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. Although properly
served with a copy of the compliance specification, the
Respondent failed to file an answer.
On May 18, 1998, the Regional Office received a
letter from the Respondent asserting that it would not
file an answer to the compliance specification inas-
much as the Respondent is currently in bankruptcy
proceedings.
On June 1, 1998, the Acting General Counsel filed
with the Board a Motion to Transfer Case to the Board
and for Summary Judgment, with exhibits attached. On
June 2, 1998, 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 Re-
spondent filed no response. The allegations in the mo-
tion and in the compliance specification are therefore
undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
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 Regu-
lations states:
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 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.
Although the Respondent is in bankruptcy, it is well
established that the institution of bankruptcy proceed-
ings does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction or au-
thority to entertain and process an unfair labor practice
case to its final disposition. Phoenix Co., 274 NLRB
995 (1985). Board proceedings fall within the excep-
tion to the automatic stay provisions for proceedings
by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regu-
latory powers. See id., and cases cited therein.
According to the uncontroverted allegations of the
Motion for Summary Judgment, the Respondent, de-
spite having been advised of the filing requirements,
has failed to file an answer to the compliance speci-
fication. In the absence of good cause for the Respond-
ent’s failure to file an answer, we deem the allegations
in the compliance specification to be admitted as true,
and grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the net
amounts due the employees and the Charging Party
Union’s fringe benefit funds is as stated in the compli-
ance specification, and we will order payment by the
Respondent of those amounts, plus interest accrued on
those amounts to the date of payment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Osborn Electric, Inc., Portage, Michigan,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make
whole the individuals and entities named below, by
paying them the amounts following their names, plus
interest on the backpay due the employees2 and any
additional amounts due the funds,3 and minus tax with-
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 Local Union No. 131, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL–CIO Health Plan fund.
5 Local Union No. 131, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL–CIO Pension Plan.
6 Local Union No. 131, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL–CIO National Electrical Benefit Fund.
7 Local Union No. 131, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL–CIO Kalamazoo Labor-Management Cooperative
Fund.
8 Local Union No. 131, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL–CIO Joint Apprenticeship and Training Trust Fund.
9 The compliance specification erroneously stated that the sum
owed the fringe benefit funds is $110,765.26 rather than
$110,754.26.
holdings on the backpay due the employees required
by Federal and state laws:
Baker, Pat $71.76
Campbell, Andy 1,331.80
Casanto, Todd 127.29
Clark, Roger 1,942.66
Koutny, Ken 3,361.42
Oberthaler, Kevin 3,087.82
Spreitzer, Joe 129.68
Timmerman, Steve 2,339.01
Total Backpay Due Employees $12,391.44
Health Plan4 $67,530.54
Local Pension5 30,071.63
NEBF6 12,245.36
LMCF7 691.21
JATC8 215.52
Total Due the Funds: $110,754.269
Grand Total Due: $123,145.70
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 30, 1998
llllllllllllllllll
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
llllllllllllllllll
Peter J. Hurtgen, Member
llllllllllllllllll
J. Robert Brame III, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD