Golden Ladle

GOLDEN LADLE 521 A. E. Alexander, R. R. Silver, D. Jacknow, a Co- Partnership d/b/a Golden Ladle and Susan Mc- Swiggen and Shirley Alderman and Hotel and Res- taurant Employees' and Bartenders' International Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-10342(l), 7- CA-10342(2), and 7-CA-10480 July 25, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY be deemed to be admitted to be true. The Board on May 19, 1975, issued an order transferring the pro- ceeding to the Board and notice to show cause why the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment should not be granted. Respondent did not file a re- sponse to the Notice to Show Cause. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority 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 On January 2, 1974, the National Labor Relations Board, in the absence of exceptions, issued an order in the above-captioned proceeding in which it adopt- ed the Decision of an Administrative Law Judge di- recting, inter alia, that Respondent make whole em- ployees Susan McSwiggen, Lorraine Halasinski, and Shirley Alderman for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of Respondent's discrimination against them. Thereafter, on September 19, 1974, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered its decree enforcing in full the backpay pro- visions of the Board's order. A controversy having arisen over the amount of backpay due under the terms of the Board's order as enforced by the court, the Regional Director for Region 7, on January 7, 1975, issued and duly served on the Respondent by registered mail a backpay specification and notice of hearing setting forth the amount due the discrimina- tees under the Board's order and notifying Respon- dent that it must file a timely answer which must comply with the Board's Rules and Regulations. Re- spondent did not file an answer to the backpay spec- ification. Thereafter, the Regional Director on March 19, 1975, approved a stipulation entered into by the par- ties which provided, inter alia, for the payment of specified sums of backpay to each of the discrimina- tees within 15 days, the waiver of an answer to the backpay specification, and the filing of a motion for summary judgment, which the Respondent agreed not to oppose, if backpay were not paid within 15 days from the date of the Regional Director's ap- proval of the stipulation. Despite requests upon Re- spondent to do so, the agreed-upon amounts of back- pay had not been paid as of May 5, 1975, and the failure to do so has not been explained. Accordingly, on May 8, 1975, counsel for the Gen- eral Counsel filed a motion for summary judgment based on Respondent's failure to pay the backpay agreed upon in the settlement and asked the Board to find that the allegations of the backpay specification Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions 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 prescribed by this section, the Board may, either with or without taking evidence in support of the allega- tions 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 January 7, 1975, specifically states that the Respondent shall, within 15 days from the date of the specification, file an answer to the specification with the Regional Director for Region 7 and that, if the answer fails to deny the allegations of the specification in the manner required 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 Respon- dent shall be precluded from introducing any evi- dence controverting them. Respondent has neither filed an answer to the specification nor adequately explained its failure to do so. Further, according to the uncontroverted copy of the stipulation attached to the motion for summary judgment, the Respon- dent, as a part of the backpay settlement, waived the filing of an answer to the specification and agreed not to oppose the motion for summary judgment if it failed, as it did, to make the payments as required by the stipulation. In all these circumstances therefore, the allegations of the specification must be deemed admitted as true and the Board so finds. Accordingly, on the basis of the allegations of the specification which are accepted as true, the Board finds the facts as set forth therein, concludes that the 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD net backpay due each of the discriminatees , Shirley Alderman, Susan McSwiggen, and Lorraine Halasin- ski is as stated in the computations of the specifica- tion, and orders that payment thereof be made by the Respondent to each discriminatee. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, A. E. Alexander, R. R. Silver, D. Jacknow, a co- partnership d/b/a Golden Ladle, Muskegon, Michi- gan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole each of the discriminatees, Shirley Ald- erman, Susan McSwiggen, and Lorraine Halasinski, by payment to them of the amounts set forth adja- cent to their names below , plus interest accrued at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner specified in Isis Plumbing and Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), until payment of all backpay due, less tax withholdings required by Fed- eral and state laws: Shirley Alderman $2,898.53 Susan McSwiggen 621.70 Lorraine Halasinski 1,269.82