Transportation Management Corp. Commonwealth Coach, Inc.; Security Transportation, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1985

277 N.L.R.B. 474 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Transportation Management Corporation Common-
wealth Coach, Inc.; Security Transportation,
Inc. and General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers , Building Material,
Heavy and Highway Construction Employees
Local Union 404, a/w International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers of America and Drivers , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No. 829 , a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America and Betty Johnson and
Rose Mary Bassett and Jean C. Cahill and
Jean M. Nelson . Cases 1-CA-15846, 1-CA-
15902, 1-CA-17394, 1-CA-16026, 1-CA-
16322(1), 1-CA-16322(2), and 1-CA-17534
15 November 1985
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
On 20 May 1981 the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order' in Case 1-
CA-15846 in which it directed, inter alia, that Re-
spondent Transportation Management Corporation
make whole an employee for losses resulting from
the Respondent's unfair labor practices violating
Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act. On 15 August 1983 the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, at the direction of the
United States Supreme Court, entered its judgment
enforcing the backpay provisions of the Board's
Order.2
On 2 August 1984 the Regional Director for
Region 1 issued a backpay specification and notice
of hearing alleging, inter alia, that a controversy
had arisen over the amount of backpay due under
the terms of the Board's Order and notified the Re-
spondent that it must comply with the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations. On
31 August 1984 the Respondent filed an answer to
the backpay specification admitting the backpay
period and generally denying the allegations of the
remaining paragraphs without explaining the basis
therefor. The General Counsel thereupon tele-
phonically advised the Respondent that its answer
was not in conformity with applicable Board Rules
and Regulations.
On 14 August 1981 the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order3 in Cases I-
1256 NLRB 101 (1981)
2 462 U S 393 (1983)
3 257 NLRB 760 (1981)
CA-17394 and 1-CA-17534 in which it directed,
inter alia, that the Respondent make whole certain
employees for losses resulting from the Respond-
ent's unfair labor practices violating Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act. On 13 August 1982 the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit grant-
ed enforcement of the Board's Order.4
On 28 February 1985 the Acting Regional Direc-
tor issued a backpay specification and notice of
hearing alleging, inter alia, that a controversy had
arisen over the amount of backpay due under the
terms of the Board's Order. On 15 March 1985 the
Respondent filed an answer to the backpay specifi-
cation generally denying the allegations contained
therein.
On 29 September 1981 the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a Decision and Order in Cases
1-CA-15902, 1-CA-16026, and 1-CA-16322(1-2)5
in which it directed, inter alia, that the Respondent
make whole certain employees for losses resulting
from the Respondent's unfair labor practices violat-
ing Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National
Labor Relations Act. On 16 September 1982 the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Cir-
cuit granted enforcement of the Board's Order.6
On 30 August 1984 the Regional Director issued
a backpay specification and notice of hearing alleg-
ing, inter alia, that a controversy had arisen over
the amount of backpay due under the terms of the
Board's Order. On 11 September 1984 the Re-
spondent filed an answer to the backpay specifica-
tion generally denying the Region's pleadings, for-
mulas, and figures relating to gross backpay calcu-
lations.
On 10 April 1985 the compliance officer for
Region 1 sent the Respondent a letter which cited
Section 102.54(b) and (c) of the Board's Rules and
Regulations. The letter stated that the Respond-
ent's answers to the gross backpay portions in all
three of the backpay specifications were deficient
and gave the Respondent until 19 April 1985 to file
amended answers which conformed to the Board's
Rules and Regulations. The letter further stated
that if the amended answers were not received, the
General Counsel would file a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.' To date, no amended an-
swers have been received.
4 686 F 2d 63 (1st Cir. 1982)
5 258 NLRB 363 (1981)
6 Mem . 692 F.2d 746 (lst Cir. 1982)
7 On 16 April 1985 the Respondent's attorney telephoned the Region's
compliance officer and told him that he had received the letter and
would be checking with the Respondent to ascertain whether it wanted
to file amended answers The Respondent's attorney further informed the
Region's compliance officer that he would not be able to file any amend-
ed answers by the 19 April 1985 deadline in the letter. The Respondent's
attorney did not, however, request an extension of time for filing amend-
ed answers
277 NLRB No. 46
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT CORP. 475
On 23 April 1985 the Regional Director issued
an order consolidating cases with regard to the
three backpay specifications.
On 26 April 1985 the General Counsel filed di-
rectly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judg-
ment in Part with exhibits attached. The General
Counsel submits that the Respondent's answers to
the gross backpay portions of all three of the back-
pay specifications failed to comply with the re-
quirements of Section 102.54(b) and (c) of the
Board 's Rules and Regulations in that the Respond-
ent failed to provide any alternative formula or to
furnish appropriate supporting figures for comput-
ing the amounts owed , even though the Respond-
ent was notified that its answers were deficient and
was given an additional extension of time to file
amended answers. Subsequently , on 1 May 1985,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judg-
ment in Part should not be granted. The Respond-
ent failed to file a response 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 in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
in Part
Section 102.54(b) and (c) of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations states:
(b) Contents of the answer to specification.
The answer to the specification shall be in
writing, the original being signed and sworn to
by the respondent or by a duly authorized
agent with appropriate power of attorney af-
fixed, and shall contain the post office address
of the respondent. The respondent shall specif-
ically admit, deny, or explain each and every
allegation of specification, unless the respond-
ent is without knowledge, in which case the
respondent shall so state, such statement oper-
ating 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 knowledge of the respondent, in-
cluding but not limited to the various factors
entering into the computation of gross back-
pay, a general denial shall not suffice. As to
such matters, if the respondent 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 dis-
agreement , setting forth in detail his position as
to- the applicable premises and furnishing the ap-
propriate supporting figures. [Emphasis added.]
(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 the be true
and enter such order as may be appropriate. If
the repsondent files an answer to the specifica-
tion but fails to deny any allegation of the
specification in the manner required by subsec-
tion (b) of this section , and the failure so to
deny is not adequately explained , such allega-
tion 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 in-
troducing any evidence controverting said al-
legation.
Each of the backpay specifications duly served on
Respondent states that , pursuant to Section 102.54
of the Board 's Rules and Regulations , "Respondent
shall, within fifteen ( 15) days from the service of
this specification , file with the undersigned Region-
al Director ,8 acting in this matter as agent of the
National Labor Relations Board, an original and
four (4) copies of an answer to this specification.
The backpay specifications state further that `to the
extent that such answer fails to deny allegations 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 be deemed to be true, and Respondent shall
be precluded from introducing any evidence con-
troverting them."'
We agree with the General Counsel that the Re-
spondent's answers to the three backpay specifica-
tions do not conform to the above requirements as
to those matters within its knowledge . The answers
do not specifically dispute the accuracy of the
gross backpay figures contained in the specifica-
tions or provide any specific alternative formula
for computing the amounts of gross backpay due.
The answers merely deny the allegations of the
backpay specifications or state that the Respondent
lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny
8 The backpay specification for Cases 1-CA-17394 and 1-CA-17534
states that the Respondent "shall file with the Acting Regional Director
11
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the allegations . These matters are clearly within
the knowledge of the Respondent and its failure to
deny the specifications in the manner required by
Section 102 . 54(b) or to explain adequately its- fail-
ure to do so requires that such allegations be
deemed admitted to be true in accord with Section
102.54(c). Accordingly, we find the alleged
amounts of gross backpay to be true.
However, the General Counsel does not claim
that the Respondent 's answers with respect to the
amounts of interim earnings and single employer
issues contained in the specifications are inadequate
or seek summary judgment with respect thereto.
Therefore , we shall , remand this proceeding to the
Regional Director for Region 1 for the purpose of
arranging a hearing on the remaining issues appro-
priately raised by the pleadings.
ORDER
It is ordered that the General Counsel's Motion
for Summary Judgment in part is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is
remanded to the Regional Director for Region I
for the purpose of arranging a hearing before an
administrative law judge on the remaining issues
appropriately raised by the pleadings and that the
Regional Director is authorized to issue notice
thereof.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative
law judge shall prepare and serve on the parties a
decision containing findings , conclusions , and rec-
ommendations based on all the record evidence.
Following the service of the administrative law
judge's decision on the parties, the provisions of
Section 102 .46 of the Board 's Rules and Regula-
tions shall apply.