Modem Carpet Industries

International Workem America, 102.54(b) (c)$ AFGCIO. Re- 47 allega- backpay speci- above- Inc., 8(a)(l) 1980,2 backpay Order.3 backpay backpay backpay 102.54@) regulation^.^ grant- ed.5 236 1014. 1980, .V. R.B. r Inc., 1 1 F.2d 1 1. ' 102.5qb) In follow$: [ T h e spec~fically admlt, each the specificat~on, respondent Denrals lf e~ther In qec~fically basis gttlng In posltion furnlrh~ng ligures. ;In the Admin~strative Judge In h ~ s sn backpay specification Res~ondent backpay orders discri- 1qc) Relatons Sec. 102.5qc) 8. In ~llegat~on subsect~on (b) sectlon, IS adm~tted w~thout such ev~dence sald allegat~on. ' the allegat~on bet tn 4 backpry spec~fication. 929 MODERN CARPET INDUSTRIES, INC. Modem Carpet Industries, Inc. and Union, Allied Industrial of Case 16-CA-7459, February 20, 198 1 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On June 16, 1978, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in the entitled proceeding1 in which it directed, inter alia, that Respondent, Modem Carpet Industries, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns make whole J. B. Clough, Donald T. Dickson, and Frank Ball for any loss of pay or benefits they may have suffered as a result of Respondent's unfair labor practices in violation of Section of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. On April 9, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit enforced in full the provisions of the Board's A controversy having arisen over the amounts of due under the terms of the Order, the Regional Direc- tor for Region 16 issued, on June 23, specifications and notice of hearing setting forth al- legations with respect to the amountsof due. Respondent filed its answer to the backpayspecifications on June 26. On July 11, counsel for the General Counsel filed a "Motion To Strike Respondent's Answer, and Alternative Motion To Strike Portions of Respondent's Answer and For More Definite Statement," alleg- ing that Respondent's answer was insufficient and failed to comply with the requirements for specific- ity set forth in Section of the Board's Rules and Respondent failed to re- spond to the July 11 motions of the General Coun- sel, and, on October 1, Administrative Law Judge James T. Barker issued an Order To Show Cause, in writing, on or before October 15, why the Gen- eral counsel's motion to strike should not be No response having been filed to the Order To Show Cause, the Administrative Law Judge, on December 16, issued an "Order Granting Motion NLRB All dates hereinafter are in unless specified to the contrary. L. . Modern Carper Industries, 6 8 Src. of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8. as amended, provides, pertinent part, as (b) . . . respondent shall deny, or explain and every allegation of unless the is without knowledge . . . shall fairly meet the substance of the allegations of the specification denied . . . . the respondent disputes the accuracy of the figures the specification or the premises on which rhey are based, he shall state the for his disagreement, forth detail his as to the ap- plicable premises and the appropriate supporting We herein correct inadvertent error made by Law Order T o Show Cruse. In the Order, the date which the ibaued should read June 23, not July 23. 254 NLRB No. 114 To Strike Answer" in which it was ordered, pursu- ant to Section and of the Board's Rules and Regulations, that all paragraphs of spondent's answer except paragraph be stricken in their entirety. It was further ordered that tions 1 through 12, inclusive, of the fication and notice of hearing be admitted to be true. On December 1, counsel for the General Coun- sel filed directly with the Board a Motion To Transfer to and Continue Proceeding Before the Board and for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on December 9, the Board issued an order transfer- ring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause, in writing, on or before December 23, why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent has not filed a response to the Notice To Show Cause and therefore the allegations of the Motion for Summary Judgment stand uncontroverted. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following: Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment As set forth above, Respondent has not respond- ed to the Board's Notice To Show Cause. In addi- tion. has failed to file a valid answer to the specifications and has not offered an explana- tion for its failure to do so. Accordingly, on the basis of the allegations of the specifications herein found to be true. the Board finds the facts as set forth therein and concludes that the net amounts due the discriminatees, J. B. Clough, Frank Ball, and Donald T. Dickson, are as stated in the computations of the specifications and the payment thereof by Respondent to the minatees. ORDER Pursuant to Section of the National Labor Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Modem Carpet Industries, Inc., make whole the discriminatees named below, by payment to them of the amounts following their names, plus interest accrued and paid in the manner prescribed in Flor- a of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Series as amended, provides, pertinent part, as follows: (c) If the respondent filer an answer to the specification hut fails to deny any of the specification in the manner required by of this and the failure so to deny not ade- quately explained, such allegation shall be deemed to be to be true, and may be so found by the Board the taking of evidence supporting allegation. and the respondent shall be pre- cluded from introducing any controverting In its answer. Respondent admitted forth par of the (1977),8 backpay I. $5.999.93 a See, Isis & Co., 138 ~ a l i 930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD until payment of all due, less tax withholdings required by Federal and state laws: ida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 B. Clounh Frank generally. Plumbing Hearing NLRB 716 (1962). Donald T. Dickson