Pittsburgh Athletic Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 6, 2016

363 NLRB No. 76 (N.L.R.B. 2016)

363 NLRB No. 76
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.
Pittsburgh Athletic Association and UNITE HERE
Local 57. Cases 06–CA–105460 and 06–CA–
105461
January 6, 2016
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HIROZAWA
AND MCFERRAN
The General Counsel seeks default judgment in this
case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file
an answer to the compliance specification.
On December 24, 2013, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order1 finding that Pitts-
burgh Athletic Association, the Respondent, violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and ordering the Re-
spondent, among other things, to remit to UNITE HERE
Local 57, the Union, all dues and fees as required by the
parties’ 2012–2015 collective-bargaining agreement that
had been deducted from unit employees’ wages and that
had not been remitted to the Union since about Novem-
ber 2012, with interest.
A controversy having arisen over the amount due un-
der the Board’s Order, on April 29, 2014, the Acting
Regional Director for Region 6 issued a compliance
specification and notice of hearing alleging the amount
due under the Board’s Order, and notifying the Respond-
ent 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.
By letter dated June 18, 2014, the Region advised the
Respondent that no answer to the compliance specifica-
tion had been received and that if no answer was filed by
June 25, 2014, a Motion for Default Judgment would be
filed. To date, the Respondent has not filed an answer.
On July 1, 2014, the General Counsel filed with the
Board a motion for default judgment, with exhibits at-
tached. On July 2, 2014, the Board issued an order trans-
ferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show
Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Re-
spondent again filed no response. The allegations in the
motion 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.

1 360 NLRB No. 18.
Ruling on the Motion for Default Judgment
Section 102.56(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions provides that a respondent shall file an answer
within 21 days from service of a compliance specifica-
tion. Section 102.56(c) provides that if the respondent
fails to file an 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 re-
spondent, find the specification to be true and enter such
order as may be appropriate.
According to the uncontroverted allegations of the mo-
tion for default judgment, the Respondent, despite having
been advised of the filing requirements, has failed to file
an answer to the compliance specification. In the ab-
sence 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 we grant in part
the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment.
The Board’s Order requires the Respondent to
Remit to the Union all dues and fees as required by ar-
ticle I, section 2 of the 2012–2015 collective-
bargaining agreement that have been deducted from
unit employees’ wages and that have not been remitted
since about November 2012, with interest, in the man-
ner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.2
Paragraphs 3–5 of the compliance specification pro-
vide as follows:
3. During the time period from October 2012 to the
present date [April 29, 2014], Respondent withheld
from Unit employees’ pay some, but not all, of the dues
and fees required to be withheld by Article I, Section 2
of the 2012–2015 collective-bargaining agreement.
4. With the exception of March 2013, since November
2012 Respondent has failed to remit to the Union dues
deducted since October 2012.
5. The amount of dues and fees reportedly withheld by
Respondent from unit employees’ pay, but not remitted
to the Union from November 2012 to December 2013
[ ] are reported in Appendix A.
The total of the amounts listed in appendix A is
$23,835.15. As the Board’s Order requires only that the
Respondent remit to the Union those dues and fees that
were deducted from employee wages and have not been
remitted, we find that appendix A properly reflects the

2 Id., slip op. at 3. (Emphasis added.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
amount to be remitted by the Respondent to the Union
for the period of November 2012 through December
2013, and we grant the General Counsel’s motion in this
respect.
The compliance specification further states in para-
graphs 6 through 8 that the amounts set forth in appen-
dices B through D reflect the amounts due to the Union
from November 2012 through May 2014. However, the
compliance specification fails to set out any amounts as
“reportedly withheld by Respondent from unit employ-
ees’ pay, but not remitted to the Union” for the period
from January 2014 through May 2014. Accordingly, we
deny the motion with respect to this time period, without
prejudice to the General Counsel issuing a supplemental
compliance specification setting forth the amounts, if
any, withheld by the Respondent from unit employees’
pay, but not remitted to the Union, since January 2014.
Nothing herein will require a hearing if, in the event of
the issuance of a supplemental compliance specification,
the Respondent again fails to answer, thereby admitting
the allegations. In such circumstances, the General
Counsel may renew the motion for default judgment with
respect to the supplemental compliance specification.
See, e.g., Cray Construction Group LLC, 341 NLRB 944
(2004).
Accordingly, we conclude that the net amount of dues
and fees due UNITE HERE Local 57 for the period of
November 2012 through December 2013 are as stated in
appendix A of the compliance specification, and we will
order that the Respondent remit that amount, plus interest
accrued to the date of payment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Pittsburgh Athletic Association, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall make whole UNITE HERE Local 57 by
payment of the amount of $23,835.15, plus interest ac-
crued to the date of payment, as prescribed in New Hori-
zons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as pre-
scribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB
No. 8 (2010).
Amount Due to the Union $23,835.15
Dated, Washington, D.C. January 6, 2016
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD