Top Security Patrol, Inc.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Top Security Patrol, Inc. and Daniel Gray, Kenneth R. Puree, and Joseph Carroll. Cases 8-CA-9630, 8-CA-9641, and 8-CA-9685 January 30, 1978 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO AND MURPHY On September 20, 1976, the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued a Decision and Order1 in the above-entitled proceeding in which the Board, inter alia, ordered the Respondent to make whole certain employees for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them. On April 14, 1977, 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, as enforced by the court, the Regional Director for Region 8, on July 11, 1977, issued and duly served on the Respondent a backpay specification and notice of hearing, alleging the amount of backpay due the discriminatees under the Board's Order and notifying the Respondent that it should file a timely answer complying with the Board's Rules and Regulations. The Respondent failed to file such an answer. Thereafter, on September 15, 1977, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on September 29, 1977, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why 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. 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, Series 8, as amended, 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 pre- scribed 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 backpay specification, issued and served on the Respondent on or about July 12, 1977, specifical- ly states that the Respondent shall, within 15 days from the date of the specification, file with the Regional Director for Region 8 an answer to the specification and that, if the answer fails to deny the allegations of the specification in the manner re- quired under the Board's Rules and Regulations and the failure to do so is not adequately explained, such allegations shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and the Respondent shall be precluded from intro- ducing any evidence controverting them. On or about August 24, 1977, counsel for the General Counsel sent by registered mail a letter to the Respondent indicating that the Regional Office had not received the Respondent's answer to the backpay specification and that Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regulations requires said answer be received within 15 days of receipt of the specifica- tion. Counsel for the General Counsel gave the Respondent until September 6, 1977, to file its answer, and indicated that, if it was not received by that date, counsel for the General Counsel could only assume that the Respondent agreed with the specification and would therefore file a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board. As of September 15, 1977, the date of the Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent had filed no answer and to date has not indicated that it would file an answer. The Respondent also failed to file a response to the Notice To Show Cause and, therefore, the allegations of the Motion for Summary Judgment stand uncon- troverted. As the Respondent has not filed an answer to the specification and has not offered any explana- tion for its failure to do so, in accordance with the rules set forth above, the allegations of the specifica- tion are deemed to be admitted as true and are so found by the Board without the taking of evidence in support of the said allegations. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the net backpay due the discriminatees, Daniel Gray, Ken- neth R. Puree, and Joseph Carroll, is as stated in the computations of the specification, and orders the I 226 NLRB 46. 234 NLRB No. 108 576 payment thereof by the Respondent to the discrimi- natees. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Top Security Patrol, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole the discriminatees named below, by payment 2 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716(1962). 577 to them of the amount following their names, plus interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977),2 until payment of all backpay due is made, less tax withholdings required by Federal and state laws: Daniel Gray Kenneth R. Puree Joseph Carroll $3,222.61 3,479.35 560.54 TOP SECURITY PATROL, INC.