Triton Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 6, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 452 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Triton Construction Company and James E. Crosby
and Kenneth E. Ratts. Cases 12-CA-4728 and
12-CA-4942
December 6, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On September 4, 1970, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued an Order adopting, in the absence
of the exceptions, the Decision of the Trial Examiner
in Case 12-CA-4728, directing the Respondent, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns , inter alia, to
offer reinstatement to and to make whole James E.
Crosby for loss of pay suffered by reason of the
Respondent's discrimination against him. On July 6,
1971, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit entered a judgment summarily enforcing the
Board's Order. On June 21, 1971, the National Labor
Relations Board issued a Decision and Order' in Case
12-CA-4942 directing the Respondent, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, inter alia, to offer
reinstatement to and make whole Kenneth E. Ratts
for his losses resulting from Respondent's unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. A
controversy having arisen over the amounts of
backpay due the two discriminatees named above, the
Regional Director for Region 12, on September 23,
1971, issued a Consolidated Backpay Specification
and Notice of Hearing setting forth certain allegations
with respect to the amounts of backpay due said
discriminatees. The Respondent failed to file an
answer to the Specification.
On October 18, 1971, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board in Washington,
D.C., a Motion for Summary Judgment. Subsequent-
ly, on October 22, 1971, the Board issued an order
transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice
To Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion
for Summary Judgment should not be granted. The
Respondent failed also to file a response to the Notice
To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
1 191 NLRB No. 76.
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board
makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regulations
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) The respondent shall, within 15 days from
the service of the specification, if any, file an
answer thereto; .. .
(c) 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 notice to the respondent,
find the specification to be true and enter such
order as maybe appropriate... .
The Consolidated Backpay Specification, issued
and served on the Respondent on September 23, 1971,
specifically states that the Respondent shall, within 15
days from the date of the Specification, file an answer
to the Specification with the Regional Director for
Region 12 and that, if the answer fails, to deny the
allegations of the Specification in the manner re-
quired under the Board's Rules and Regulations and
the failure to do so is not adequately explained, such
allegations shall be deemed to be admitted to be true
and the Respondent shall be precluded from intro-
ducing any evidence controverting them. According
to the Motion for Summary Judgment, on October 12,
1971, the due date for filing an answer to the
Specification counsel for the General Counsel tele-
phoned the Respondent's president and its attorney
notifying each of them that an answer was due on that
date. As of October 18, 1971, the date of the Motion
for Summary Judgment, the Respondent has not filed
an answer to the Specification, nor has it requested an
extension of time with which to file an answer, nor has
the said time been extended. The Respondent failed
also to file a response to the Notice To Show Cause
and, therefore, the allegations of the Motion for
Summary Judgment stand uncontroverted. As the
Respondent has not filed an answer to the Specifica-
tion and has not offered any explanation for its failure
to do so, in accordance with the rules set forth above,
the allegations of the Specification are deemed to be
admitted as true and so found by the Board without
the taking of evidence in support of the said
allegations.
194 NLRB No. 72
TRITON CONSTRUCTION CO.
Accordingly, on the basis of the allegations of the
Specification which are accepted as true, the Board
finds the facts as set forth therein, concludes that the
net backpay due each discriminatee, James E. Crosby
and Kenneth E. Ratts, is as stated in the computations
of the Specification, and hereinafter orders the
payment thereof by the Respondent to each discrimi-
natee.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
452A
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Triton Construction Company, Brooksville, Florida,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make
whole each of the discriminatees, James E. Crosby
and Kenneth E. Ratts, the employees named below,
by payment to them of the amount set forth adjacent
to their names, plus interest accrued at the rate of 6
percent per annum to be computed in the matter
specified in Isis Plumbing and Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716, until payment of all backpay due, less the tax
withholdings required by the Federal and state laws:
James E. Crosby $2,913.58
Kenneth E. Ratts 2,119.51