Ward Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 5, 1979

239 N.L.R.B. 1214 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ward Products Corporation and Local 56, Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFLCIO. Cases 22-CA-7589 and
22-CA-7616
January 5, 1979
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
On January 9, 1978, the National Labor Relations
Board issued an Order adopting, in the absence of
exceptions, the Decision of the Administrative Law
Judge in Cases 22-CA-7589 and 22-CA-7616, di-
recting Respondent, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, inter alia, to offer reinstatement to and
make whole 26 employees for loss of pay suffered by
reason of Respondent's discrimination against them.
A controversy having arisen over the amounts of
backpay due the discriminatees under the terms of
the Board's Order, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 22, on July 14, 1978, issued and duly served
on Respondent a backpay specification and notice of
hearing, alleging the amount of backpay due the dis-
criminatees under the Board's Order and notifying
Respondent that it shall file a timely answer which
must comply with the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions. On July 25, 1978, Respondent requested that
the time for filing its answer be extended to Septem-
ber 15, 1978. The Regional Director, on July 27,
1978, issued an order extending the time for Respon-
dent to file its answer to September 1, 1978. Respon-
dent did not file an answer before that date.
On September 18, 1978, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board in Washington,
D.C., a Motion for Summary Judgment based upon
Respondent's failure to file an answer to the spec-
ifi-ation. On September 15, 1978, Respondent filed a
special appeal to the Board opposing the filing of the
Motion for Summary Judgment. The Board, on Sep-
tember 22, 1978, issued an order transferring pro-
ceeding to the Board and Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's motion should not be
granted. On September 29, 1978, Respondent filed its
answer to the backpay specification and on October
5, 1978, it filed a response to 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:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions 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 ....
(b) . .. If the respondent fails to file any an-
swer to the specification within the time pre-
scribed 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 may be appro-
priate. ...
Respondent asserts, as an explanation for the late-
ness of the answer, that its representative inadver-
tently recorded the extension date as October I,
1978. It also contends that a further extension of time
to allow its answer would not prejudice any of the
parties.
We deny Respondent's special appeal opposing
the filing of the Motion for Summary Judgment. Re-
spondent was offered ample time in which to answer
the allegations of the backpay specification, but
failed to do so. The answer filed on September 29,
1978, was well beyond the extended due date estab-
lished by the Regional Director in response to Re-
spondent's request for additional time and even well
beyond the time requested. Respondent has failed to
show sufficient cause justifying late filing of its an-
swer. Therefore, the motion to find the backpay
specification true is granted, and the allegations of
the backpay specification are deemed to be admitted
and we so find, pursuant to Section 102.54(c) of the
Board's Rules and Regulations.
Accordingly, the Board finds, on the basis of the
allegations of the backpay specification, the facts as
set forth therein, concludes that the net backpay due
each of the discriminatees is as stated in the spec-
ification, and orders that payment thereof be made
by Respondent to each discriminatee named below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that Respondent Ward
Products Corporation, South Amboy, New Jersey, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make
whole each of the discriminatees named below by
payment to each of them the amounts set forth adja-
cent to their names, plus interest to be computed in
the manner specified in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
1214
WARD PRODUCTS CORPORATION
NLRB 651 (1977), until payment of all backpay due,
less tax withholding required by Federal and state
laws:
Betty Anderson
Doris Bacsoka
George Bongiorno
Janet Bilderbeck
Laurie Christensen
Elaine Collins
Eileen Coman
Caroline Demler
Karen Demler
Sandra DiGiovanni
Ruth Grenier
$761.08
1,337.80
1,676.99
$737.64
718.61
1,430.08
1.306.56
815.92
1,642.36
1,590.36
1,223.97
Frances Keegan
June Luiz
Theadora Luiz
Jean Mancini
Michael Masterson
Rose Paladino
Smita Patel
Natalie Rabucha
Barbara Reynolds
Angela Sabatino
Julie Sandor
Judith Smiles
Shari Spada
Mary Verchick
Helen Wyszynski
1215
1,525.88
1,439.63
1,134.31
1,469.97
2,170.08
1,326.47
1,453.45
1,1515.41
134.14
1,396.43
755.30
559.26
608.62
1,424.58
1,574.40