Spectrum Glass Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 17, 1997

323 N.L.R.B. 75 (N.L.R.B. 1997)

1
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.
John M. Licursi, a Sole Proprietor, and John M.
Licursi d/b/a Spectrum Glass & Mirror Com­
pany and Glaziers, Architectural Metal and
Glass Workers Local Union 636, IBP & Allied
Trades, AFL–CIO, CLC and David Hoffman
and Lynn J. Gross and Rexo Rogers and Juan
Becerra and R. J. Vandling. Cases 31–CA–
21081, 31–CA–21087, 31–CA–21090, 31–CA–
21111, 31–CA–21164, 31–CA–21325, 31–CA–
21337, 31–CA–21396, 31–CA–21082, 31–CA–
21083, 31–CA–21084, 31–CA–21085, and 31–
CA–21086
April 17, 1997
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND
HIGGINS
On August 6, 1996, the National Labor Relations
Board issued an unpublished Decision and Order, inter
alia, directing John M. Licursi, a Sole Proprietor, and
John M. Licursi d/b/a Spectrum Glass & Mirror Com­
pany, to consider job applicants for hire on a non-
discriminatory basis and establish a preferential hiring
list, giving first preference in hire to their former jobs,
or substantially equivalent jobs, to Wayne Hustead,
Donald Sullivan, and Robert Jordan, in that order; to
make whole Wayne Hustead, Donald Sullivan, and
Robert Jordan in an amount to be determined at sup­
plemental compliance proceedings; and to make whole
individuals who are established during supplemental
compliance proceedings to have had the right to an
offer of employment from the group of job applicants
consisting of David Hoffman, Lynn J. Gross, Rexo
Rogers, Juan Becerra, R. J. Vandling, Glenn Scalf, and
Nema Jayroe, in an amount to be determined at the
proceedings. On September 30, 1996, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered its judgment
enforcing in full the Board’s Order.
A controversy having arisen over the amount of
backpay due the discriminatees, on January 14, 1997,
the Regional Director for Region 31 issued a compli­
ance specification and notice of hearing alleging the
amounts 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 compli­
ance specification, the Respondent failed to file an an­
swer.
By letter dated February 5, 1997, counsel for the
General Counsel advised the Respondent that no an­
swer to the compliance specification had been received
and that unless an appropriate answer was filed by
February 12, 1997, summary judgment would be
sought. The Respondent filed no answer.
On February 25, 1997, the General Counsel filed
with the Board a Motion to Transfer Case to the Board
and for Summary Judgment, with exhibits attached. On
February 26, 1997, the Board issued an order transfer-
ring 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.
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.
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 back-
pay due the discriminatees for the period covered by
the compliance specification is as stated therein and we
will order payment by the Respondent of the amounts
to the discriminatees, plus interest accrued on the
amounts to the date of payment.1
1 As set forth in the compliance specification, the Respondent’s
obligations under the Board’s Order continue. The Regional Director
has reserved for future determination any backpay amounts owed by
the Respondent for periods subsequent to September 30, 1996.
323 NLRB No. 75
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, John M. Licursi, a Sole Proprietor, and
John M. Licursi d/b/a Spectrum Glass & Mirror Com­
pany, Glendale, California, its officers, agents, succes­
sors, and assigns, shall make whole the individuals
named below, by paying them the amounts following
their names, with interest thereon to be computed in
the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Re­
tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), minus tax with-
holdings required by Federal and state laws:
NAME AMOUNT
Wayne Hustead $ 543.40
Robert L. Jordan 23,849.55
Donald T. Sullivan 21,149.00
Juan Becerra 28,769.00
Lynn Gross 27,690.00
Rexo Rogers 23,966.40
Glenn E. Scalf 27,040.00
Russell J. Vandling 1,516.80
�������
TOTAL: $198,691.35
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 17, 1997
������������������
William B. Gould IV, Chairman
������������������
Sarah M. Fox, Member
������������������
John E. Higgins, Jr., Member
David Hoffman 17,127.20 (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nema Jayroe 27,040.00