298 N.L.R.B. 1016 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

Solvay Iron Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 29, 1990

298 N.L.R.B. 1016 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

1016 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Solvay Iron Works, Inc. and Iron Workers District Council of Western New York and Vicinity Welfare and Pension Fund . Case 3-CA-14864 June 29, 1990 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND OVIATT On October 17, 1989, the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued an Order 1 against the Respond- ent, Solvay Iron Works, Inc., in which the Board adopted, in the absence of exceptions, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order of the ad- ministrative law judge. The Order directed the Re- spondent to make whole the employees covered by the collective-bargaining agreement for any losses they suffered as a result of the Respondent's failure to adhere to the contract.2 A controversy having arisen over the amounts due,under the terms of the Board's Order, the Re- gional Director for Region 3 issued a compliance specification and notice of hearing on January 10, 1990. The Respondent 3 acknowledged the compli- ance specification and notice of hearing. On February 12, 1990, the General Counsel filed with, the Board a motion to transfer case to and continue proceeding before the Board, to strike the Respondent's answer to compliance specifications, and for summary judgment. The General Counsel argues that the Board should strike the Respond- ent's answer and grant summary judgment because the answer failed to specifically admit, deny, ex- plain, or fairly meet the substance of any of the al- legations set forth in the compliance specification pursuant to the requirements of Section 102.56(b). On February 16, 1990, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the General Counsel's motion should not be granted. The Respondent failed to file a response. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. On the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following ' Not included in bound volumes 2 On January 3, 1990, the Regional Director for Region 3 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board approved the Respondent's stipulation waiving its right under Sec. 10(e) and (f) of the Act to contest either the propriety of the Board's Order or the findings of fact and conclusions of law underlying that Order 3 On January 22, 1990, the Regional Director received a letter from the Respondent's counsel giving notice that the Respondent had instruct- ed counsel to discontinue performing legal services on the Respondent's behalf Ruling on the Motion to Strike Respondent's Answer to Compliance Specifications and for Summary Judgment Section 102 . 56(b) and (c)4 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations states, in pertinent part: (b) Contents of answer to specification.-The answer shall specifically admit , deny, or ex- plain each and every allegation of the specifi- cation , unless the respondent is without knowl- edge, in which case the respondent shall so state, such statement operating as a denial. De- nials shall fairly meet the substance of the alle- gations of the specification at issue.. . . (c) Effect offailure to answer or to plead spe- cifically and in detail to backpay allegations of specification-.. . If the respondent files an answer to the specification but fails to deny any allegation of the specification' in the manner required by paragraph (b) of this sec- tion, and the failure so to deny is not adequate- ly 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 introducing any evi- dence controverting the allegation. We agree with the General Counsel that the Re- spondent's answer to the compliance specification is substantively deficient . The only portion of the answer that appears in any way to address the alle- gations in the compliance specification is paragraph 6. The Respondent 's argument in paragraph 6 of its answer regarding a "one liner" it made with "Mr. Donny" has already been litigated in the underly- ing unpublished unfair labor practice case.5 The Respondent is barred from raising such a defense at the compliance stage of the case . See Overseas Motors, 277 NLRB 552, 554 (1985), remanded on other grounds 818 F.2d 517 (6th Cir. 1987). The re- mainder of the Respondent 's answer fails to specifi- cally admit , deny, explain, or meet the substance of any of the allegations set forth in the compliance specification and notice of hearing as required by Section 102 . 56(b). Accordingly, we shall strike the Respondent 's answer and deem all allegations of the compliance specification to be admitted as true 4 Formerly Sec 102.54 The Board amended its Rules governing pro- ceedings concerning compliance with Agency orders effective November 13, 1988 The substance of former Secs 102 54 and 102 55 has been incor- porated into Sec 102 56 as revised, and former Sec 102 56, with some modification, has become the new Sec 102 57, while the substance of former Sec. 102.57 has become par (c) of the new Sec. 102 55, in the revised Rules 5 Par 6 of the Respondent's answer stated, "I made a one liner with Mr[ ] Donny [sic] and he set me up with a snare " 298 NLRB No. 153 SOLVAY IRON WORKS pursuant to Section 102.56( c). We shall also grant the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judg- ment. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent , Solvay Iron Works, Inc., Syra- cuse, New York, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns , shall make whole the employees named below by paying them the gross wages indi- cated opposite their names , plus interest in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retard- ed,6 less tax withholdings required by Federal and state law , and by paying to Local Union 33, Inter- national Association of Bridge , Structural and Or- namental Iron Workers, the dues set forth opposite the employees ' names, plus interest in the manner prescribed in New Horizons. The Respondent shall also pay to the union welfare fund, pension fund, training fund, and delinquency the sums indicated, plus any necessary additional amount as prescribed in Merryweather Optical Co.'' 6 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). 7 240 NLRB 1213 (1979) 1017 Employees Gross Wages Dues Baker, W $2,263.20 $96.00 Batuk, J 711.36 28.00 Bighardi, P 387 20 16.00 Conzelman , E. 1,524.74 55.80 Cormier, J. 990.85 38,00 Gates, E 148.59 5 20 Ingerson, G. 2,137.59 70.20 Jacobs, G. 1 , 648.38 6640 Jacobs, J. 1,767.54 71.20 Johnson, J. 89.37 3.60 Jones, D. 312.79 12 60 Kessler, S. 2,708.91 94.80 Maestri, M. 1,442.76 52.80 Mika, L. 80.37 3.60 Ronmevaux, P. 2,564.94 118.20 Ruebsamen , K. 1,258.60 5800 Seidel, F. 2,492.43 100.00 Shortt, J 3,126.64 129.20 Souppes, S. 551.94 2020 Szakalski, R. 188.60 6.60 Yager, R 79.44 3.20 Young, W. 711.36 28.80 Total Wages & Dues $27,187.60 $1,079.60 Benefit contributions: Welfare fund Pension fund Training fund Delinquency $4,966.16 11,065.90 323.88 3,535.69