Womack Bros.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 2001

333 N.L.R.B. 85 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

333 NLRB No. 85
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Stephen Womack, Kenneth Womack and James
Womack, d/b/a Womack Brothers and Chauf-
feurs, Teamsters , Warehousemen and Helpers,
Local Union No. 525, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , AFL–CIO.
Case 14–CA–25027
March 29, 2001
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
On June 22, 2000, the National Labor Relations Board
issued a Decision and Order,1 inter alia, ordering the
Respondent, Stephen Womack, Kenneth Womack, and
James Womack d/b/a Womack Brothers, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, to comply with the terms
of its 1995–1998 collective-bargaining agreement with
the Union and to make whole applicants who would have
been referred for employment by the Union pursuant to
article 4 of the agreement for any loss of earnings and
benefits suffered as a result of the Respondent’s unlawful
failure to comply with the agreement. On November 16,
2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit entered its judgment enforcing the Board’s Or-
der.2
A controversy having arisen over the amounts of
backpay, health and welfare benefits, and pension bene-
fits due the discriminatees, on January 11, 2001, the Re-
gional Director for Region 14 issued a compliance speci-
fication and notice of hearing 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 Regulations. Although properly
served with copies of the compliance specification,3 the
Respondent failed to file an answer.
On February 16, 2001, the Acting General Counsel
filed with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment,

1 331 NLRB No. 61.
2 Case 00–3358.
3 On January 11, 2001 and February 5, 2001, copies of the compli-
ance specification were served on the Respondent by certified mail, and
were returned to the Regional Office with “refused” marked on the
envelope. Additional copies of the compliance specification were
served on the Respondent by regular mail. The documents served by
regular mail have not been returned. On February 9, 2001, counsel for
the Acting General Counsel attempted to contact the Respondent by
telephone, and left a recorded voice message that if an answer to the
compliance specification was not received by February 11, 2001, the
Region would seek summary judgment. On February 12, 2001, counsel
for the Acting General Counsel received a call from James Womack
stating the Respondent would not be filing an answer to the compliance
specification. The Respondent’s failure or refusal to accept cert ified
mail cannot defeat the purposes of the Act. See, e.g., Michigan Expe-
diting Service, 282 NLRB 210 fn. 6 (1986).
with exhibits attached. On February 21, 2001, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board
and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not
be granted. The Respondent again filed no response.
The allegations in the motion and in the compliance
specification are therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.56(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions provides that the Respondent shall file an answer
within 21 days from service of a compliance specifica-
tion. Section 102.56(c) of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions states:

If the respondent fails to file any answer to the specifi-
cation 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 with-
out further notice to the respondent, find the specifica-
tion to be true and enter such order as may be appropri-
ate.

According to the uncontroverted allegations of the Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment, the Respondent, despite
having been advised of the filing requirements, has failed
to file an answer to the compliance specification. In the
absence of good cause for the Respondent’s failure to file
an answer, we deem the allegations in the compliance
specification to be admitted as true, and grant the Acting
General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Ac-
cordingly, we conclude that the net backpay, health and
welfare contributions and pension contributions due the
discriminatees and the Funds is as stated in the compli-
ance specification, and we will order payment by the
Respondent of said amounts, plus interest accrued to the
date of payment, as set forth in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Stephen Womack, Kenneth Womack, and
James Womack d/b/a Womack Brothers, Lenzburg, Illi-
nois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
make whole the individuals and entities named below, by
paying them the amounts following their names, plus
interest and minus tax withholdings required by Federal
and state laws:

Floyd Jay $323.36
George Cannon 323.36
Mike Hamilton 323.36
Bill Bellm 323.36

Total Backpay
due Employees: $1,293.44

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
Health and Welfare Fund:4 $279.04
Pension Fund:5 142.40

Total due the Funds: $421.44

Grand Total Due: $1,714.88

4 Illinois Conference of Teamsters and Employers Welfare Fund.
5 Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 29, 2001

John C. Truesdale, Chairman

Wilma B. Liebman, Member

Dennis P. Walsh, Member

(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD