Sencca Tire & Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1980

253 N.L.R.B. 986 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

986
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Seneca Tire & Rubber Co. and International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousmen
and Helpers of America, General Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local Union 538. Case 6-CA-10353
December 29, 1980
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENEI.I.O, TRUESDALE, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On December 18, 1978, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued an Order and Direction in the
above-entitled proceeding' in which the Board
adopted the Administrative Law Judge's Deci-
sion.2 In that Decision, the Administrative Law
Judge, inter alia, had ordered Respondent to make
whole certain employees for any loss of pay suf-
fered by reason of Respondent's discrimination
against them. Thereafter, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered its judg-
ment enforcing the Board's Order. A controversy
having arisen over the amount of backpay due
under the Board's Order, the Regional Director for
Region 6, on July 7, 1980, issued and duly served
on Respondent a backpay specification and notice
of hearing, alleging the amount of backpay due the
discriminatees under the Board's Order and notify-
ing Respondent that it should file a timely answer
complying with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
Respondent failed to file such an answer.
Thereafter, on September 29, 1980, counsel for
the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a
Motion for Summary Judgment upon the backpay
specification and notice of hearing, with appen-
dixes. Subsequently, on October 6, 1980, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the Gen-
eral Counsel's motion should not be granted. Re-
spondent failed to file a response to the Notice To
Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
' Not reported in volunieC of Board )Decisions
2 Respondent had tiled no exceptions to the Adrninistralise l.a
Judge's Decision.
253 NLRB No. 136
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides, in pertinent
part, as follows:
(a) ... The respondent shall, within 15 days
from the service of the specification, if any,
file an answer thereto....
(c) . . . 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 notice to the respondent, find the
specification to be true and enter such order as
may be appropriate.
The backpay specification, issued and served on
Respondent on or about July 7, 1980, specifically
states that Respondent shall, within 15 days from
the date of the specification, file with the Regional
Director for Region 6 an answer to the specifica-
tion and that, if the answer fails to deny the allega-
tions of the specification in the manner required
under the Board's Rules and Regulations and the
failure to do so is not adequately explained, such
allegations shall bce deemed to be admitted to be
true and Respondent shall be precluded from intro-
ducing any evidence controverting them. Accord-
ing to the appendixes attached to the Motion for
Summary Judgment, by letter dated August 1,
1980, Respondent notified Region 6 of its intent to
file its answer to the backpay specification "in the
very near future." On September 8, 1980, having
not yet received Respondent's answer, the Acting
Regional Attorney for Region 6 sent a letter to Re-
spondent, indicating that the Regional Office had
not received Respondent's answer to the backpay
specification in accordance with Section 102.54 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations, and that, unless
an answer was received immediately, counsel for
the General Counsel would file a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment with the Board. As of September
26, 1980, the date of the Motion for Summary
Judgment, Respondent had filed no answer and has
to this date filed no answer. Respondent has also
failed to file a response to the Notice To Show
Cause and, therefore, the allegations of the Motion
for Summary Judgment stand uncontroverted. As
Respondent has not filed an answer to the specifi-
cation and has not offered any explanation for its
failure to do so, in accordance with the rules set
forth above, the allegations of the specification are
deemed to be admitted as true and are so found by
SENECA TIRE & RUBBER CO.
the Board without the taking of evidence in sup-
port of the said allegations.
Accordingly, the Board concludes that the net
backpay due the discriminatees, Wayne Sauer,
Thomas Gerlinger, and Donald Higley, is as stated
in the computations of the specification, and orders
the payment thereof by Respondent to the discri-
minatees.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Seneca Tire & Rubber Co., Harmony, Pennsylva-
nia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall make whole the discriminatees named below
by payment to them of the amount following their
names, plus interest thereon to be computed in the
manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977),3 until payment of all backpay
due is made, less tax withholding required by Fed-
eral and state laws:
Wayne Sauer $11,433.04
Thomas Gerlinger 6,058.38
Estate of Donald Higley 9,069.15
Estate of Donald Higley 200.004
: Sec. gcnerll,. A I' Plumnbing ng Co. I 8 NI R '76 (10h2)
987