Teamsters, Local 17

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 753 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

TEAMSTERS. LOCAL 17
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Local No. 17 (Universal Studios
and Warner Brothers, Inc.) and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Local No.
146. Cases 27-CB-1277 and 27-CB-1277-2
September 30, 1981
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On August 27, 1980, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a Decision and Order' against
the Respondent in which the Board ordered the
Respondent, inter alia, to make whole George C.
King, Robert M. Menapace, and Gilbert G. Valdez
for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a
result of the Respondent's unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended. Thereaf-
ter, Local 17 and counsel for the General Counsel
executed a stipulation providing in pertinent part
that subsequent enforcement or review proceedings
of the Board's Order will be limited to the backpay
due under the terms of the Board's Order. On
March 9, 1981, the Regional Director for Region
27 issued a backpay specification and notice of
hearing regarding the amount of backpay owed by
the Respondent to King, Menapace, and Valdez.
On March 16, 1981, the Respondent served on the
Regional Director a document entitled "Dispute
Re Backpay Specification." In its "Dispute Re
Backpay Specification," the Respondent generally
denied the amounts of pay set forth in the backpay
specification setting forth no reasons for the denial,
but advising that supporting information and events
would be brought forth at the hearing on the
matter.
On July 6, 1981, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a "Motion To Transfer Case to the
Board, To Strike Respondent's Response to Back-
pay Specification and for Summary Judgment," in
which it submitted that the unsworn response filed
by the Respondent failed to comply with Section
102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, in that it fails to specifically deny
matters within the Respondent's knowledge or to
plead or assert a basis for lack of knowledge as to
any allegations of the backpay specification, and
the document filed puts no matters in issue requir-
ing an evidentiary hearing.
On July 17, 1981, the Board issued a Notice To
Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion
'251 NLRB 1248.
for Summary Judgment should not be granted.
Meanwhile, the Respondent had on July 14, 1981,
filed a "Reply to Motion To Transfer Case to the
Board, To Strike Respondent's Response to Back-
pay Specification and for Summary Judgment" and
attached a "Verified Statement Re Dispute Re
Backpay Specifications." On July 23, 1981, the Re-
spondent filed with the Board a response to the
Notice To Show Cause in which it requested the
Board to review the material it had submitted on
July 14. On July 31, 1981, the General Counsel
filed a response to the order of the Board transfer-
ring the proceedings to the Board and a 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 findings:
In the documents filed by the Respondent on
July 14 and resubmitted on July 23, the Respond-
ent notes that it filed a general denial to the back-
pay specification and that the denial was based on
the information and belief that King, Menapace,
and Valdez were working on other jobs, and that
the Respondent did not have, and could not obtain,
information about the employment of these men
prior to that time, but that it was endeavoring to
obtain such information prior to the scheduled
March 9, 1982, hearing.
In its response to the Notice To Show Cause,
the General Counsel submits that the documents
supplied by the Respondent admit that the Re-
spondent failed to comply with the Board's rules in
filing an answer to the backpay specification in that
it filed only a general denial. Further, the Respond-
ent has not stated a basis for its belief that the dis-
criminatees had obtained other employment during
the backpay period, nor has it indicated what steps
it has taken to obtain such information. Thus, the
General Counsel argues that the Respondent has
raised no factual issues requiring an evidentiary
hearing. In the alternative, the General Counsel
submits that the allegations of the backpay specifi-
cation, other than matters dealing with interim
earnings, have not been denied by the Respondent
with the required specificity, and that if summary
judgment is not granted, the Board should limit the
evidentiary hearing to matters concerning the inter-
im earnings of the discriminatees.
In its original answer to the backpay specifica-
tion, the Respondent offered only a general denial
concerning the allegations of the backpay specifica-
tion. Under Section 102.54(b) of the Board's Rules
and Regulations such general denials are insuffi-
258 NLRB No. 98
753
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cient. Moreover, Section 102.54(c) of the Board's
Rules and Regulations provides that when a re-
spondent fails to deny adequately any allegation in
the specification, such allegation shall be deemed to
have been admitted to be true. On the basis of
these requirements and the Respondent's insuffi-
cient answer, the General Counsel filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment.
In Standard Materials, Inc., 252 NLRB 679
(1980), the Board held that even in the absence of
an amended backpay specification, a respondent
may amend its answer prior to a hearing in the
matter. In this case, we construe the documents
submitted by the Respondent on July 14 and resub-
mitted on July 23 to be an amended answer. Fur-
ther, although the Respondent's original answer,
which amounted to a general denial of the entire
backpay specification, would not have been ade-
quate under the Board's rules, in the documents we
construe as an amended answer we find that the
Respondent has adequately raised an issue concern-
ing the portion of the backpay specification dealing
with interim earnings. As matters regarding interim
earnings are not generally within the knowledge of
a respondent, we have found that a general denial
on such matters is sufficient to place them in issue.2
In this case, we are of the opinion that the Re-
spondent's amended answer has sufficiently raised
this issue which can best be resolved by holding a
hearing. Therefore, we shall deny the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment with re-
2Standard Materia ls. upra: Dewv Construclion Corp., 4 Subsidiary of the
Aspin Group, Inc.. 246 NLRB 945 (1979).
spect to the allegations of the specification pertain-
ing to interim earnings. The Respondent has not,
however, raised any issues in its answer or in its
amended answer as to other matters in the backpay
specification pertaining to the backpay period or
the computation of gross backpay, and its general
denial is not sufficient to bring these matters into
issue.
Accordingly, we shall order a hearing limited to
the determination of the discriminatees' interim
earnings, including whether or not the discrimina-
tees enjoyed any interim employment during the
backpay period.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the General Counsel's
"Motion To Transfer Case to the Board, To Strike
Respondent's Answer to Backpay Specification" is
granted, except with regard to those allegations
concerning the discriminatees' interim earnings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the General Coun-
sel's Motion for Summary Judgment be, and it
hereby is, denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be,
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 27 for the purpose of arranging a
hearing before an administrative law judge, limiting
such proceeding to the determination of any inter-
im employment or interim earnings of the discri-
minatees King, Menapace, and Valdez, and that the
Regional Director be, and he hereby is, authorized
to issue notice thereof.
754