Universal Belt

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1991

303 N.L.R.B. 999 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

999
303 NLRB No. 156
UNIVERSAL BELT
1 On June 26, 1989, Universal filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of
the Bankruptcy Code. On July 28, 1989, the Genertal Counsel moved that the
hearing be continued indefinitely so that once the regular trustee is named, the
General Counsel could amend the complaint to include the trustee as a party.
The General Counsel’s Motion for Continuance was granted on August 1,
1989.
Universal Belt, Inc.; David Seror, Trustee in Bank-
ruptcy and Southwest District Council, Inter-
national Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union,
AFL–CIO. Case 21–CA–26688
July 31, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND OVIATT
Upon a charge filed by the Union, Southwest Dis-
trict Council, International Ladies’ Garment Workers’
Union, AFL–CIO, on March 14, 1989, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued
a complaint on April 20, 1989, against Universal Belt,
Inc. (Universal) alleging violations of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. Universal
filed a May 24, 1989 answer to the complaint, and on
June 2, 1989, filed an amended answer. Thereafter, the
General Counsel issued an amended complaint on
April 18, 1991, against Universal and David Seror,
Trustee in Bankruptcy.1 Although properly served cop-
ies of the charge and amended complaint, neither Uni-
versal nor Seror has filed an answer to the amended
complaint.
On May 23, 1991, the General Counsel filed a Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment. On May 31, 1991, the
Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to
the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion
should not be granted. No response was filed. The alle-
gations in the motion are therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the General
Counsel contends that no answer has been filed to the
April 18, 1991 amended complaint and that under Sec-
tion 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
Board should find that the allegations of the amended
complaint are deemed admitted and found to be true,
and should issue an order based on those findings.
We find summary judgment, as moved, is not proper
under the circumstances of this case. In so finding, we
note that the motion filed by the General Counsel is
based entirely on the amended complaint dated April
18, 1991. The General Counsel’s motion does not con-
tain any reference to Universal’s answer or amended
answer to the original complaint in this action.
The record shows that the Regional Director issued
a complaint in this matter April 20, 1989, alleging that
Universal changed the terms and conditions of employ-
ment of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by failing to remit trust fund con-
tributions to the various trust funds as required by the
terms of the expired 1986–1989 collective-bargaining
agreement with the Union. Universal filed a May 24,
1989 answer to the complaint in which it denied all
material allegations in the complaint, and specifically
denied allegations that it engaged in conduct consti-
tuting an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. On June 2, 1989,
Universal filed an amended answer to the complaint
which denies that Universal changed the terms and
conditions of employees, and which contends that Uni-
versal ‘‘offered to remit funds to the trust fund for
prior contributions, but such offer was unacceptable to
and rejected by the said Union.’’ By its denial in its
amended answer, Universal has raised a litigable issue.
Universal’s amended answer has never been with-
drawn.
On July 28, 1989, the General Counsel, having re-
ceived notice that Universal filed a petition in bank-
ruptcy and that an interim trustee had been appointed,
moved to continue the hearing indefinitely so that the
General Counsel could amend the complaint to include
the regular trustee in bankruptcy as a party once that
trustee was so named. The General Counsel’s motion
was granted, and on April 18, 1991, the Regional Di-
rector issued an amended complaint in this case which
differs from the original complaint only in that it addi-
tionally alleges that about June 26, 1989, Universal
filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bank-
ruptcy Code, that since on or about June 5, 1990,
David Seror had been designated the trustee in bank-
ruptcy of Universal, and that David Seror is the same
entity, or an alter ego of, Universal.
As the amended complaint differs from the original
complaint only by noting Universal’s changing status
in bankruptcy, Universal has denied in its amended an-
swer to the complaint all the violations alleged in the
amended complaint. The entrance of Seror as trustee in
bankruptcy has no effect on the identity of Universal,
the respondent originally charged in this proceeding,
and hence has no effect on the amended answer al-
ready filed by Universal. Therefore, because
Universal’s timely filed amended answer to the com-
plaint responds to all substantive issues raised by the
amended complaint, and in the absence of any expla-
nation that would warrant disregarding the amended
answer, we find it inappropriate to grant the General
Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. James Mi-
chael Shull, 291 NLRB 342 (1988).
1000 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
It is ordered that the General Counsel’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that these proceedings are
remanded to the Regional Director for Region 21 for
further appropriate action.