Triple A Fire Protection

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 2009

353 N.L.R.B. 838 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

353 NLRB No. 88
Triple A Fire Protection, Inc. and United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No.
669, AFL–CIO. Case 15–CA–11498
January 30, 2009
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER
On October 31, 1994, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order1 that, inter alia, or-
dered the Respondent, Triple A Fire Protection, Inc., to
bargain with the Union, resume contributions to em-
ployee benefit funds, rescind if requested unilateral
changes in wage rates for new employees, and make em-
ployees and the benefit funds whole. On March 3, 1998,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Cir-
cuit entered its judgment enforcing the Board’s Order.2
A controversy having arisen regarding the amounts of
backpay and benefit fund payments due under the Order,
the Regional Director for Region 15 issued a third com-
pliance specification and notice of hearing on July 1,
2008, alleging the amount due under the Board’s Order,
and notifying the Respondent that it should file a timely
answer complying with the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions.
On August 18, 2008, the Respondent filed its answer
to the third amended compliance specification, admitting
in part and denying in part the allegations in the specifi-
cation, and asserting certain affirmative defenses.
On November 12, 2008, the Charging Party Union
filed a motion to strike portions of the Respondent’s an-
swer to the third amended compliance specification and
motion for partial summary judgment. On November 21,
2008, the General Counsel filed a motion in support of
the Union’s motions. On December 5, 2008, the Board
issued an Order granting in part the motion to strike and
granting in full the motion for partial summary judgment.
On December 11, 2008, the Respondent filed a Motion
to file an out of time response to the Union’s motions.
On December 17, 2008, the Board issued an Order re-
scinding the December 5, 2008 Order, and a Notice to
Show Cause why the Union’s motions should not be
granted. Further, the Order stated that in light of these
rulings, the Respondent’s motion to file a response out of
time was moot.3

1 315 NLRB 409 (1994).
2 136 F.3d 727 (1998), cert. den. sub nom. Triple A Fire Protection
v. NLRB, 525 U.S. 1067 (1999).
3 Accordingly, the General Counsel’s opposition to the motion to file
a response out of time, and the Respondent’s reply to the General
Counsel’s opposition, are also moot. Further, although the Respon-
On December 19, 2008, the Respondent filed a re-
sponse to the Union’s motion for partial summary judg-
ment, which we shall treat as a response to the Notice to
Show Cause. The Union filed a brief in reply. In addi-
tion, on January 5, 2009, the Respondent filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment. The General Counsel and the
Union filed briefs in opposition.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
Rulings on Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and
to Strike Portions of Respondent’s Answer and Motion
for Summary Judgment4
1. The Union’s motion for partial summary judgment.
Section 102.56(a) of the National Labor Relations
Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that a respon-
dent shall file an answer within 21 days from service of a
compliance specification. Section 102.56(b) and (c) of
the Board’s Rules and Regulations states:
(b) Contents of answer to specification. The answer
shall specifically admit, deny, or explain each and
every allegation of the specification, unless the respon-
dent is without knowledge, in which case the respon-
dent shall so state, such statement operating as a denial.
Denials shall fairly meet the substance of the allega-
tions of the specification at issue. When a respondent
intends to deny only a part of an allegation, the respon-
dent 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 limited to the
various factors entering into the computation of gross
backpay, 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, the answer shall specifically state
the basis for such disagreement, setting forth in detail
the respondent’s position as to the applicable premises
and furnishing the appropriate supporting figures.
(c) Effect of failure to answer or to plead specifi-
cally and in detail to backpay allegations of specifi-
cation. If the respondent fails to file any answer to

dent’s reply is directed to “Local 669’s and the General Counsel’s
oppositions” to its motion to file out of time, there is no indication that
the Union filed an opposition to this motion.
4 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
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 specifi-
cation and without further notice to the respondent,
find the specification to be true and enter such order
as may be appropriate. If the respondent files an an-
swer to the specification but fails to deny any allega-
tion of the specification in the manner required by
paragraph (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 evi-
dence supporting such allegation, and the respondent
shall be precluded from introducing any evidence
controverting the allegation.
In its motion, the Union argues that the Respondent’s
answers to paragraphs 7–10 of the third compliance
specification, which concern the calculation of backpay
and payments to the fringe benefit funds, fail to meet the
specificity requirements of the Board’s Rules and Regu-
lations. Paragraphs 7–10 of the Respondent’s answer
each state as follows: “Triple A denies the averments of
paragraph __ of the Third Amended Compliance Specifi-
cation.”5
A general denial is not sufficient to refute allegations
pertaining to gross backpay calculations. See Carnival
Carting, Inc., 345 NLRB 910, 911 (2005). Here, the
Respondent’s answer failed to provide alternative figures
or calculations, or to specify the basis for its disagree-
ment with the General Counsel’s calculations. Further,
the Respondent failed to deny that the data at issue is
within its knowledge and control. Thus, the Respon-
dent’s answer, taken alone, fails to meet the specificity
requirements of Section 102.56(b) and (c).
However, the Board has long held that “a respondent
in a compliance proceeding may properly cure defects in
its answer before a hearing by an amended answer or a
response to a Notice to Show Cause.” Consolidated De-
livery & Logistics, Inc., 334 NLRB 544, 545 (2005),
citing Daufuskie Island Club & Resort, Inc., 341 NLRB
595, 596 (2004). Thus, we assess the Respondent’s addi-
tional arguments raised in its response to the Union’s
motion (which we consider as its response to the Notice
to Show Cause).
First, the Respondent maintains that paragraph 9 of the
specification is inaccurate because it incorrectly assumes

5 In addition to the above denial, par. 9 contains an argument that
the Board lacks the authority to remedy an employer’s unlawful failure
to make payments to employee benefit funds. This argument is unre-
sponsive to the allegations in the compliance specification, and it is
insufficient to defeat the Union’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
this paragraph.
that all of the “incumbent” and “replacement” employees
have the same interest in each of the funds. The Respon-
dent argues that there are actually three classes of incum-
bent employees, based on their status as apprentices or
journeymen, and the number of hours worked under a
union contract, and that there are two classes of “re-
placement” employees. It then claims that the best evi-
dence to categorize each employees’ status is the records
of the benefit funds.
The Respondent also argues that the General Counsel
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evi-
dence the reasonableness of the gross backpay amount
claimed under the specification, citing Oil Capitol Sheet
Metal, Inc., 349 NLRB 1348 (2007). The Respondent
then asserts that none of the compliance specification
paragraphs state a cause of action for payments to fringe
benefit funds, because the specification does not aver that
any employee has a “nonspeculative economic interest”
in any of the funds; the specification does not allege that
the funds are mandatory subjects of bargaining; and the
specification does not state when any employee obtained
an economic interest in any of the funds.
In addition, the Respondent contends that it is not re-
quired to make payments to fringe benefit funds for “re-
placement” employees, and that the remedial order with
respect to “replacement” employees is punitive and will
result in a windfall to each employee named in Exhibit A
of the specification. The Respondent further argues in
this regard that the union-security provisions of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement did not survive its expira-
tion, and since none of the “replacement” employees
were hired until after the contract’s expiration, the union-
security clause does not apply to them. The Respondent
also argues that union-security clauses are unlawful un-
der Alabama State law.
Finally, the Respondent argues that Rule 102.56 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations is not applicable in this
case; that the Respondent does not owe any backpay or
fringe benefit payments; that the specification does not
set forth the terms of the fringe benefit agreements and
therefore it cannot ascertain whether a particular em-
ployee has a “nonspeculative future economic interest in
those funds.”
We find that these arguments do not raise any matter
that cures the defects in the Respondent’s answer to the
compliance specification. The Respondent’s general
denials of the appropriate figures and formulas in its an-
swer have been expanded, but this expansion primarily
relies on arguments that have been litigated and rejected
in the underlying unfair labor practice proceedings or are
TRIPLE A FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 3
not relevant to this proceeding.6 As the Board stated in
Convergence Communications, Inc., 342 NLRB 918, 919
(2004):
Issues litigated and decided in an unfair labor practice
proceeding may not be relitigated in the ensuing back-
pay proceeding. Paolicelli, 335 NLRB 881, 883 (2001)
(citing Aroostook County Regional Ophthalmology
Center, 332 NLRB 1616, 1617 (2001); Arctic Framing,
313 NLRB 798, 799 (1994)). Moreover, even assum-
ing no relitigation bar, we are powerless in any event to
revisit the merits and alter our Order accordingly. That
Order has been enforced by the court of appeals. Un-
der Section 10(e) of the Act, we are without jurisdiction
to modify a court-enforced Board Order. Scepter Ingot
Castings, Inc., 341 NLRB 997 (2004)(citing Grinnell
Fire Protection Systems Co., 337 NLRB 141, 142
(2001); Regional Import & Export Trucking, 323
NLRB 1206, 1207 (1997); Haddon House Food Prod-
ucts, 260 NLRB 1060 (1982)).
Thus, to the extent that the Respondent characterizes
some employees as “replacement employees,” this argu-
ment is misplaced, because the Board has found that the
Union did not engage in a strike against the Respondent,
and therefore there are no replacement employees in-
volved in this proceeding. The later-hired employees are
simply unit employees. In addition, the Respondent’s
argument appears to rely in part on the assumption that
the Respondent is only required to make fringe benefit
payments for employees who have a vested interest in
receiving the benefits that the funds provide. However,
the Board has never made such a distinction in awarding
a make-whole remedy to benefit funds. Rather, if a re-
spondent unilaterally stops making required payments to
benefit funds on behalf of any employee, the standard
remedy is to require that the funds be made whole for the
missed payments, without regard to the “eligibility
status” of the employees to actually receive benefits from
the funds.

6 In the course of the underlying proceedings, the Board found, inter
alia, that (1) the Union was the 9(a) representative of the employees in
the unit; (2) the Union did not engage in a strike of the Respondent on
April 1, 1991; (3) in bargaining for a new contract in April 1991, the
parties did not reach legal impasse; and (4) there was no merit in the
Respondent’s arguments that the Union bargained in bad faith either
through piecemeal bargaining or by negotiating without intent to agree-
ing to any contract other than its national agreement with a multi-
employer bargaining group. All of these findings were affirmed by the
Eleventh Circuit. The Respondent’s expanded arguments against the
Union’s motions, set out in its response to the Notice to Show Cause,
are dependent on the theory that the above findings are erroneous as a
matter of fact and law. Thus, these arguments fail to bolster the Re-
spondent’s original answers to the compliance specification.
In addition, although we agree with the Respondent
that General Counsel bears the burden of proof in a com-
pliance proceeding, the Respondent’s citation to Oil
Capitol is inapposite, because that case addresses the
specific burden of proof in a compliance proceeding in-
volving union salts. Further, the Respondent’s argument
avoids the matter at issue, which is whether the Respon-
dent’s answer or response specifically admits, denies, or
explains the allegations of the specification at issue here,
as required by Rule 102.56(b). We find that with respect
to paragraphs 7–10, it does not.
Accordingly, we grant the motion for partial summary
judgment with respect to the calculations set forth in
paragraphs 7–10 of the third amended compliance speci-
fication, and find these allegations to be substantiated.
2. The Union’s motion to strike
In its answer to the third amended compliance specifi-
cation, the Respondent sets forth numerous affirmative
defenses, several of which the Union asserts are efforts to
relitigate issues previously litigated and decided in the
proceedings below. The Union moves that the Board
strike the following affirmative defenses:
First defense: The Regional Director had no au-
thority to include paragraphs in the underlying com-
plaint that alleged that the Union was the Section
9(a) representative of an appropriate unit and that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
Second defense: The Union terminated the par-
ties’ contract at midnight, March 31, 1991, and
struck the Respondent.
Fourth defense: The union-security clause of the
parties’ contract expired on March 31, 1991. That
clause provides, inter alia, that nonmember employ-
ees shall be paid at the contractual journeyman’s rate
with contributions to the benefit plans. The fourth
defense alleges that the journeyman’s rate provision
cited in the third defense “became inoperable” on
April 1, 1991, when the employees engaged in a
strike of the Respondent.
Eighth Defense: The Union lost its majority
status on or before January 17, 1992; none of the
employees hired after April 1, 1991 paid dues; no
grievances were filed after April 8, 1991; and on
November 15, 1999, a decertification petition was
filed on behalf of 25 of 28 bargaining unit employ-
ees.
Twelfth Defense: The Union attempted to force
or require the Respondent to select National Fire
Sprinkler Association as its representative for collec-
tive bargaining in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B);
and the Union engaged in piecemeal bargaining.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
The Union further moves to strike paragraph 4 of the
answer, in which the Respondent asserts that the Union
“commenced a strike against Triple A .. . .”7
The Union’s motion to strike is granted in part and de-
nied in part. The motion is granted with respect to the
first, second, and fourth defenses; paragraph 4 of the
Respondent’s answer insofar as it denies that the Re-
spondent unilaterally reduced wages or asserts that the
Union commenced a strike against the Respondent at
midnight on March 31, 1991; and with respect to the
12th defense insofar as it depends on the contentions that
the Union unlawfully engaged in piecemeal bargaining
or that the Union bargained in bad faith with no intention
to agree to a contract other than one which mirrored the
national collective-bargaining agreement between the
Union and the National Fire Sprinkler Association.
These defenses raise issues litigated and decided in the
underlying unfair labor practice proceeding.8 As noted
above, it is well settled that a respondent in a compliance
proceeding may not relitigate issues previously decided
in an underlying unfair labor practice proceeding.
Paolicelli, supra, 335 NLRB at 883. Therefore, the
Respondent is barred from raising these defenses in this
proceeding.
Finally, we find that the Union’s motion to strike the
eighth affirmative defense is denied without prejudice to
its raising these arguments before the administrative law
judge.
3. The Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Respondent’s motion primarily relies on the fol-
lowing arguments. First, the Respondent maintains that
the third amended compliance specification does not aver
that any incumbent or replacement employee has any
economic interest in the fringe benefit funds; does not
allege that the funds are a mandatory subject of bargain-
ing; and does not state when any employee obtained an
economic interest in any fund.
Second, the Respondent argues that the specification
does not state a cause of action for backpay for replace-
ment employees because the only basis for such claim is
contained in the union security provisions of the expired
national agreement, which did not survive the expiration
of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement, and that
the union-security provision is null and void under Ala-
bama State law.
Third, the Respondent maintains that backpay and
fringe benefit payments should be tolled during the time

7 The General Counsel joins the Union in arguing that the Board
should strike the first, second, fourth, thirteenth, and fourteenth de-
fenses. The General Counsel does not join in the Union’s motion to
strike the eighth defense or to strike par. 4 of the answer.
8 See 315 NLRB 409, supra.
that the union was committing unfair labor practices by
failing to bargain in good faith.
The Respondent’s first argument was included as an
affirmative defense to the compliance specification, and
itself raises issues of material fact. The Respondent’s
second and third arguments raise issues litigated and
rejected in the underlying unfair labor practice
proceeding,9 and, as noted above, such issues cannot be
relitigated in this compliance proceeding. Paolicelli,
supra, 335 NLRB at 883. Thus, the Respondent has
failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of ma-
terial fact in dispute with respect to the remaining para-
graphs of the third amended compliance specification,
and that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of
law. Accordingly, its Motion for Summary Judgment is
denied.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Union’s motion for partial
summary judgment with respect to the calculations set
forth in paragraphs 7–10 of the third amended compli-
ance Specification is granted, and that those allegations
are deemed to be true.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Union’s motion to
strike portions of the Respondent’s answer to the third
amended compliance specification is granted with re-
spect to the first, second, and fourth defenses; paragraph
4 of the Respondent’s answer insofar as these defenses
deny that the Respondent unilaterally reduced wages or
asserts that the Union commenced a strike against the
Respondent at midnight on March 31, 1991; and with
respect to the 12th defense insofar as it depends on the
contentions that the Union unlawfully engaged in piece-
meal bargaining or the Union bargained in bad faith with
no intention of entering into a contract other than one
which mirrored the national collective-bargaining agree-
ment between the Union and the National Fire Sprinkler
Association.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Union’s motion to
strike the Eighth Affirmative Defense is denied without
prejudice to raising these arguments before the
administrative law judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDER that the Respondent’s Motion
for Summary Judgment is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is re-
manded to the Regional Director for Region 15 for the
purpose of proceeding to a hearing on the remaining is-
sues in the third amended compliance specification.

9 See 315 NLRB 409, supra.