Womac Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 827 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

WOMAC INDUSTRIES, INC.
Womac Industries, Inc. and Dorothy McKinney and
Reginald Beasley and Westside Local No. 174,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW). Cases 7-
CA-13787, 7-CA-14187, and 7-CA-14288
February 5, 1980
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On September 8, 1978, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued its Decision and Order' in the
above-entitled proceeding in which it adopted in part
and modified in part the recommended Order of the
Administrative Law Judge, and directed the Respon-
dent to take certain actions, including that of making
whole the 28 employees named below for any losses
suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination
against them.2 On May 2, 1979, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered its
judgment enforcing the Board's Order.' A controversy
having arisen over the amount of backpay due under
the Board's Order, the Regional Director for Region
7, on June 13, 1979, issued and duly served on the
Respondent a backpay specification and notice of
hearing, alleging the amount of backpay due under the
Board's Order and notifying the Respondent that it
was required to file a timely answer pursuant to
Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regulations.
Thereafter, on October 24, 1979, the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 7 issued and duly served on the
Respondent an amendment to the backpay specifica-
tion with the same notification regarding the filing of
an answer. The Respondent failed to file an answer to
either the original or the amended backpay specifica-
tion.
Thereafter, on November 23, 1979, counsel for the
General Counsel filed directly with the Board a
Motion for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on
December 5, 1979, the Board issued an order transfer-
ring the proceeding to the Board and Notice To Show
Cause why counsel for the General Counsel's motion
should not be granted. The Respondent failed 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
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
'238 NLRB 43.
: In its backpay specification of June 13. 1979. attached as Exh. A to the
General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. the Regional Director
inadvertently included Cedric Hill as the 29th discriminatee entitled to
backpay. Based on the record in this case. in response to exceptions filed by
247 NLRB No. 113
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 ....
* * . * .
(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 may be appropriate ...
The original and amended backpay specifications
were duly issued on June 13 and October 24, 1979,
respectively, and were served on the Respondent by
registered mail. Each 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 7 and that, to the
extent an answer is not filed, the allegations of the
specification shall be deemed to be admitted by the
Respondent to be true and it may be so found by the
Board.
According to counsel for the General Counsel's
motion, on or about November 2, 1979, Respondent's
counsel informed counsel for the General Counsel that
the Respondent had received both the original and
amended backpay specifications, and that it did not
intend to file an answer to either. In response to this,
on November 8, 1979, counsel for the General
Counsel sent a letter of that same date to Respondent's
counsel confirming Respondent's stated intention not
to file such answers. The Respondent failed to file
answers to the specifications due 15 days from June 13
and October 24, 1979, respectively, and as of Novem-
ber 15, 1979, the date of the Motion for Summary
Judgment, the Respondent had not filed any answers
and had taken no action to controvert its intent,
expressed to the General Counsel on November 2,
1979, not to do so. The Respondent also failed to file a
response to the Notice To Show Cause and, therefore,
the allegations of the General Counsel's motion stand
uncontroverted. As the Respondent has not filed
answers to the specifications and has not offered any
the General Counsel and the Charging Party, this individual was found by the
Board in its Decision (238 NLRB 43 at fn. 6) not o have been unlawfully laid
off, and therefore not to be entitled to a backpay remedy. We have therefore
deleted his name from the list of employees belou.
N. L. R. B. v. Wornac Indusrirs. Inc.. Docket 79-1152
827
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
explanation for its failure to do so, in accordance with
the rules set forth above, the allegations of the
specifications are deemed to be admitted as true4 and
so found by the Board without the taking of evidence
in support of the said allegations.
Accordingly, on the basis of the allegations of the
backpay specifications, which are accepted as true, the
Board finds the facts as set forth therein, concludes
that the net backpay due each of the 28 discriminatees,
named below, is as stated in the computations of the
specifications, and orders the payment thereof by the
Respondent to the discriminatees.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Womac Industries, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole
each of the discriminatees named below, by payment
to each of them of the amount set forth adjacent to his
or her name, plus interest thereon to be computed in
the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation,
231 NLRB 651 (1977),5 until payment of all backpay
due is made, less tax withholdings required by Federal
and state laws:
Frazier Abston $183.45
The only modification to the backpay specifications is that set out in fn. 2.
supra.
Reginald Beasley
Alma Beauford
Roy Leo Dawkins
Michael Erickson
Jaclyn Gibson
Therman Glover
Walter Hayes
Tony Henry
Robert Johnson
Dorothy Mckinney
Pearl Moore
Edwin Murrell
Valerie Murrell
Calvin Propst
Robert Ridges
William Sanders
Raymond Sawyer
Doris Scott
Theresa Siminich
Marie Sims
Willie Faye Spibey
Wendell Stoutemire
Angela Sullivan
Carleton Vaughn
Larry Walker
Valeria White
Leslie Wright
'See, generally. Iis Plunbing d Heting Co.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
$8,675.85
9,830.96
1,109.56
2,859.34
9,582.91
9,830.96
7,327.38
9,830.96
9,830.96
4,172.87
26.79
9,191.21
7,661.23
7,424.02
9,830.96
9,830.96
9,830.96
5,281.71
8,664.10
2,542.38
553.59
7,009.15
9,830.96
53.59
183.45
53.59
7,543.15
828