Snveas Rent-A-CarDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 22, 1984270 N.L.R.B. 1316 (N.L.R.B. 1984) Copy Citation DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sneva's Rent-A-Car and Coronet Enterprises, Inc. and Paul Sheffield. Case 19-CA-12146 22 June 1984 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER On 23 November 1982 the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued its Order' in this proceeding in which it adopted, in the absence of exceptions, the administrative law judge's decision. The Order di- rected that Respondents Sneva's Rent-A-Car and Coronet Enterprises, Inc. make whole discrimina- tee Paul Sheffield for any losses he may have suf- fered as a result of the Respondents' unlawful con- duct. Thereafter on 2 November 1983 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit en- tered its judgment enforcing in full the Board's Order. 2 A controversy having arisen over the amount of backpay due under the terms of the Board's Order as enforced by the court, the Re- gional Director for Region 19 on 27 January 1984 issued and duly served on the parties a backpay specification and notice of hearing alleging the amount of backpay due to Paul Sheffield under the Board's Order and notifying the Respondents that they must file a timely answer which must comply with the Board's Rules and Regulations. On 5 March 1984 Respondent Coronet filed an answer to the backpay specification which chal- lenged generally the accuracy of the average daily earnings and the average number of working days as set forth in the backpay specification. Coronet also asserted that Paul Sheffield had accepted work elsewhere and refused to return to work when of- fered reinstatement and that it is not jointly and severally liable with Respondent Sneva for the backpay obligation. Region 19 then informed Coronet that its answer did not meet the requirements of the Board's Rules because (I) the allegation that Sheffield accepted employment elsewhere is not specific; (2) the alle- gation that the average daily earnings and working days used in the backpay specification are not cor- rect does not specify the correct figures and the re- sulting backpay computation; and (3) the issues of reinstatement and joint and several liability have al- ready been litigated. Region 19 also informed Cor- onet that if it did not receive an amended answer the General Counsel would file a Motion for Sum- mary Judgment. Not reported in Board volumes. s NLRB v. Sneva's Rent-A-Car, No. 83-7656. 270 NLRB No. 197 Respondent Coronet did not file an amended answer. Respondent Sneva did not file any answer to the backpay specification and was also informed by the Region of the General Counsel's intention to file a Motion for Summary Judgment. On 27 March 1984 the General Counsel filed di- rectly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judg- ment. Subsequently, on 12 April 1984 the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the Gen- eral Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. Neither Respondent filed a reply to the Notice to Show Cause. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. On the entire record, the Board makes the fol- lowing Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (b) Contents of the answer to specification- .... The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or explain each and every allegation of the specification, unless the respondent is with- out knowledge, in which case the respondent shall so state, such statement operating as a denial. Denials shall fairly meet the substance of the allegations of the specification denied. When a respondent intends to deny only a part of an allegation, the respondent shall specify so much of it as is true and shall deny only the remainder. As to all matters within the knowl- edge of the respondent, including but not lim- ited to the various factors entering into the computation of gross backpay, a general denial shall not suffice. As to such matters, if the re- spondent disputes either the accuracy of the figures in the specification or the premises on which they are based, he shall specifically state the basis for his disagreement, setting forth in detail his position as to the applicable premises and furnishing the appropriate sup- porting figures. (c) Effect of failure to answer or to plead spe- cifically and in detail to the specification-If the respondent fails to file any answer to the speci- fication within the time prescribed by this sec- tion, the Board may, either with or without taking evidence in support of the allegations of the specification and without notice to the re- spondent, find the specification to be true and enter such order as may be appropriate. If the respondent files an answer to the specification 1316 SNEVA'S RENT-A-CAR but fails to deny any allegation of the specifi- cation in the manner required by subsection (b) of this section, and the failure so to deny is not adequately explained, such allegation shall be deemed to be admitted to be true, and may be so found by the Board without the taking of evidence supporting such allegation, and the respondent shall be precluded from introduc- ing any evidence controverting said allegation. Since Respondent Sneva has failed to file any answer to the backpay specification the allegations as to Sneva's liability are deemed to be true in accord with Section 102.54(c). Accordingly the Board finds them to be true and grants the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Re- spondent Sneva. Respondent Coronet's answer to the backpay specification does not conform to the requirements of Section 102.54(b). In its answer Coronet disputes findings as to reinstatement and joint and several li- ability, made by the judge and adopted by the Board, which are no longer in issue. Further, Coronet's assertion that Sheffield "accepted work elsewhere" does not, standing alone, serve to place in issue the accuracy of the backpay specification's calculations as to interim earnings. In addition, Coronet asserts that certain other aspects of the backpay specification as to days worked and wages earned prior to his discharge are not correct while failing to set forth alternative premises or support- ing details. Certainly these latter matters are within the knowledge of Coronet and its failure to deny the specification in the manner required by Section 102.54(b) or to explain adequately its failure to do so requires that the allegations be deemed admitted to be true in accord with Section 102.54(c). Ac- cordingly, the Board finds them to be correct and grants the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Respondent Coronet. Therefore, on the basis of the allegations of the specification which are accepted as true, the Board finds the facts as set forth therein, concludes the backpay due Paul Sheffield is as stated in the com- putations of the specification, and orders that pay- ment thereof be made by the Respondents to Paul Sheffield as set forth in the backpay specification. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondents, Sneva's Rent-A-Car and Coronet Enterprises, Inc., Spokane, Washington, their re- spective officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall pay to employee Paul Sheffield the amount of $1656.29 plus interest accrued to the date of pay- ment pursuant to the Board's Order and the court judgment, minus the tax withholding required by Federal and state laws. 1317 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation