Plating Co., Inc.

SECURITY PLATING, CO., INC. 735 security Plating Company , Inc. and Local 67, Metal Polishers , Buffers, Platers & Helpers International Union , AFL-CIO. Case 21-CA-5484 June 21, 1967 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On June 29, 1964, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in the above- entitled proceeding,' finding, inter alia, that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Minnie Badillo and Mickey Palmer in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and ordering that the discriminatees be offered reinstatement and made whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them. On December 30, 1966, the Regional Director for Region 21 issued a backpay specification and notice of hearing which were duly served upon the parties. Respondent filed an alleged answer to the backpay specification. Pursuant to a motion to strike the answer for failure to conform to the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, Trial Examiner Louis S. Penfield issued a telegraphic order directing Respondent to show cause why the motion to strike its answer should not be granted. A response, containing a proposed second answer, was filed by Respondent. After duly considering the premises, the Trial Examiner, on February 21, 1967, issued a formal order, pursuant to Section 102.54(c) of the Rules and Regulations of the Board, granting the motion to strike the answer to the backpay specification.2 On April 6, 1967, Trial Examiner Louis S. Penfield issued a Supplemental Decision in this proceeding, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he found, in agreement with the backpay specification, that the discriminatees were entitled to the following payments: Minnie Badillo, $3,666.58, and Mickey Palmer, $2,939.21. The Respondent filed exceptions to the Supplemental Decision. Counsel for the Regional Director filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision, Respondent's exceptions thereto, and answering brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and on the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Security Plating Company, Inc., Pico Rivera, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make Minnie Badillo and Mickey Palmer whole by payment to each of them of the respective amounts set forth in the Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision. 1 147 NLRB 877 2 See Ohio Scientific Products Corporation, 151 NLRB 460, 461-463 TRIAL EXAMINER'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This matter came before me following the initiation of a backpay proceeding by the Regional Director for Region 21 pursuant to the provisions of Sections 102.52 and 102.53 of the Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. A backpay specification and notice of hearing in conformity with such rules was issued on December 30, 1966, and thereafter duly served upon the parties. Subsequent thereto, an answer to the backpay specification was filed by Respondent. On February 3, 1967, counsel for the Regional Director filed a motion to strike such answer alleging that the purported answer did not conform to the requirements of the Board Rules in certain particulars. Such motion was referred to me for ruling. Thereafter, I issued a telegraphic order to show cause why such motion should not be granted. A response thereto was duly received from Respondent. After having duly considered such response, and the items above noted which comprise the so-called backpay specification record, I issued an order granting the motion to strike the answer to the backpay specification and finding the allegations of the backpay specification to be true. My order of February 21, 1967, sets forth fully the reasons which I found to support it and such are expressly incorporated in and made part of this Supplemental Decision. In summary, I ruled that the original purported answer filed by Respondent failed to meet the requirements of the Board Rules and Regulations, that no adequate answer was filed within the time limit as extended by the Regional Director, that the response to the order to show cause showed no excuse for Respondent's earlier failure to file an appropriate answer, and that the purported answer which it sought to file with such response showed continuing disregard for the requirements of the Rules since it was not properly verified. Under the circumstances, I deemed it appropriate to grant the motion to strike the answer, to order that the allegations of the backpay specification be deemed admitted as true without taking evidence in support of such allegations, and that Respondent be precluded from introducing any evidence controverting such allegations . Such order had the necessary effect of cancelling the hearing theretofore scheduled upon the backpay specification. 165 NLRB No. 138 736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon consideration of the foregoing, and upon the basis of the ruling heretofore made by me in my order of February 21, 1967, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The allegations of the backpay specification and notice of hearing issued by the Regional Director on December 30, 1966, conform fully with the requirements of Sections 102.52 and 102.53 of the Rules. 2. I have heretofore found in my order above described that Respondent has not filed an answer to the specification which meets the requirements of Section 102.54 of the Rules, and that the effect of such failure is that allegations of the specification are to be deemed true, and Respondent precluded from adducing evidence to controvert such allegations . Accordingly, I hereby find that the allegations contained in numbered paragraphs 1 through 21 of the backpay specification show specifically and in detail for each employee involved the appropriate backpay periods broken down by calendar quarters, the specific figures and basis for computation as to gross backpay, and the interim earnings and the expenses for each quarter. 3. I further find that upon the basis of the foregoing findings relating to backpay periods, gross backpay, interim earnings and expenses, the sums set forth after the names of each employee as listed below plus interest at 6 percent per annum, but minus any tax withholding required by Federal or State laws, constitute the net backpay due. Minnie Badillo $3,666.58 Mickey Palmer 2,939.21 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record as made in this proceeding, it is recommended that the Board adopt the findings of fact herein and issue such decision and order as may be appropriate requiring and directing that the Respondent, Security Plating Company, Inc., pay Minnie Badillo and Mickey Palmer the amounts of backpay due them together with interest as set forth above.