H H 3 Trucking Inc.

345 NLRB No. 59 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. H H 3 Trucking, Inc. and Gretchen Hudson, Alter- Ego/Joint Employer, and William Hudson, Al- ter-Ego/Joint Employer and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 325. Cases 33– CA–14571, 33–CA–14616, 33–CA–14650, 33– CA–14671, 33–CA–14737 September 15, 2005 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND SCHAUMBER The Acting General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this case on the ground that the Respondents have failed to file an answer to the compliance specification. On May 11, 2005, the Board issued an Order1 that, among other things, ordered H H 3 Trucking, Inc., Gretchen Hudson, and William Hudson (the Respon- dents), to make whole (1) Arthur Johnson, Jr. and Dennis Tenner for any loss of earnings and benefits they suf- fered as a result of their discharges in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act; (2) unit employees for any loss of earnings and benefits resulting from the Re- spondents’ subcontracting of unit work in violation of Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the Act; and (3) unit em- ployees for any loss of earnings and benefits resulting from the Respondents’ entering into fraudulent equip- ment lease agreements with unit employees and its fail- ure to adhere to and apply the terms of its collective- bargaining agreement with the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. A controversy having arisen over the amount of back- pay and benefits due the employees, the Regional Direc- tor issued a compliance specification and notice of hear- ing on May 31, 2005, alleging the amounts due under the Board’s Order. The compliance specification notified the Respondents that they should file an answer comply- ing with the Board’s Rules and Regulations within 21 days from the date of service of the compliance specifi- cation. Although properly served with a copy of the compliance specification, the Respondents failed to file an answer. By letter dated June 22, 2005, counsel for the Acting General Counsel advised the Respondents that no answer to the compliance specification had been received and that unless an answer was filed by June 27, 2005, a mo- 1 Unpublished Order adopting, in the absence of exceptions, the de- cision of Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued on Feb- ruary 25, 2005 (JD (ATL)–07–05). tion for default judgment would be filed. To date, the Respondents have not filed an answer. On July 12, 2005, the Acting General Counsel filed with the Board a motion for default judgment, with ex- hibits attached. On July 28, 2005, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a No- tice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondents did not file a response. The allegations in the motion and in the compliance specifi- cation are therefore undisputed. Ruling on the Motion for Default Judgment Section 102.56(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regula- tions provides that a respondent shall file an answer within 21 days from service of a compliance specifica- tion. Section 102.56(c) provides that if the respondent fails to file an 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 further notice to the re- spondent, find the specification to be true and enter such order as may be appropriate. According to the uncontroverted allegations of the mo- tion for default judgment, the Respondents, despite hav- ing been advised of the filing requirements, have failed to file an answer to the compliance specification. In the absence of good cause for the Respondents’ 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 default judgment. Accord- ingly, we conclude that the net backpay due Arthur John- son Jr., Dennis Tenner, Darnell McLin, and Todd Walker, is as stated in the compliance specification, and we will order the Respondents to pay those amounts of backpay to the employees, plus interest accrued to the date of payment. In addition, we find that the amounts to be paid to the Union’s fringe benefit funds on behalf of the four employees are as stated in the compliance speci- fication, and we will order the Respondents to pay those amounts. The backpay and loss of benefits continue to accrue for and on behalf of Arthur Johnson, Jr. and Den- nis Tenner until the Respondents make a valid offer of reinstatement to them. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondents, H H 3 Trucking Inc., and Gretchen Hud- son, Alter Ego/Joint Employer, and William Hudson, Alter Ego/Joint Employer, Rockford, Illinois, their offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall, jointly and severally, make whole the individuals named below, by paying them the amounts of backpay opposite their names, plus interest as set forth in New Horizons for the DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), minus tax withhold- ings required by Federal and State laws. The Respon- dents also shall make whole those individuals for pay- ments due the contractual Health and Welfare and Pen- sion funds by paying to the funds the amounts set forth below, plus the interest specified in the collective- bargaining agreement for delinquent contributions. In summary, the amounts owed by the Respondents are as follows: EMPLOYEE BACKPAY FRINGE BENEFITS Arthur Johnson, Jr. $17,156.77 $25,949.36 Dennis Tenner 37,112.10 28,756.88 Darnell McLin 6,865.60 6,612.84 Todd Walker 13,068.00 14,979.48 TOTAL: $74,202.47 $76,298.56 GRAND TOTAL: $150,501.03 Dated, Washington, D.C. September 15, 2005 Robert J. Battista, Chairman Wilma B. Liebman, Member Peter C. Schaumber, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD