0. R. Cooper and Son

O R. COOPER AND SON 207 0. R. Cooper and Son and Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 26, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Case 38-CA-2098 June 25, 1976 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On September 15, 1975, the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued a Decision and Order I in the above-captioned proceeding, adopting, as modified, the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge dated March 14, 1975, and directing the Respondent, inter alia, to make whole Donald D. Schaffer, Sr., Hugh Walker, Tommy R. Hall, Daniel R. Berry, Jonathan D. Haynes, and Steven W. Clem for their losses re- sulting from the Respondent's unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. A controversy having arisen over the amount of back- pay due under the terms of the Board's Order, the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 38 on April 2, 1976, issued and duly served on the Respondent by regis- tered mail on or about April 2, 1976, a backpay spec- ification and notice of hearing setting forth the amount due the discriminatees under the Board's Or- der and notifying the Respondent that it must file a timely answer pursuant to Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. The Respondent failed to file an answer. On May 3, 1976, counsel for the General Counsel filed with the Board in Washington, D.C., a Motion for Summary Judgment based on Respondent's fail- ure to file an answer in compliance with Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. The Board on May 12, 1976, issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent did not file a response to the Notice To Show Cause. Pursuant to the provisions -)f 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: '220 NLRB 287 Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment 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 an- swer 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 appro- priate... . The backpay specification, issued by the Officer- in-Charge for Subregion 38 and served on Respon- dent by registered mail on or about April 2, 1976, specifically states that, pursuant to Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Respondent shall file an answer to the specification and that, if such answer fails to deny allegations of the backpay 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. The Respondent failed to respond to the Notice To Show Cause and, therefore, the allegations of the General Counsel's motion that the Respondent has not filed an answer to the spec- ification stand uncontroverted. As the Respondent has not filed an answer to the specification nor of- fered any explanation for its failure to do so, in ac- cordance with the rules set forth above, the allega- tions of the specification are deemed to be admitted as true and are so found by the Board. Accordingly, the Board finds, on the basis of the allegations of the backpay specification, which are accepted as true, the facts are as set forth therein; concludes that the net backpay due the discrimina- tees, Donald D. Schaffer, Sr., Hugh Walker, Tommy R. Hall, Daniel R. Berry, Jonathan D. Haynes, and Steven W. Clem, is as stated in the computations of the specification; and hereinafter orders that pay- ment be made by the Respondent to each discrimina- tee listed below. 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, O. R. Cooper and Son, Urbana, Illinois, its officers, 225 NLRB No. 29 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole each of the discriminatees named below by payment to each of them of the amount set forth adjacent to his name, plus interest accrued at the rate of 6 per- cent per annum, to be computed in the manner speci- fied in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), until payment of all backpay due, less tax withholding required by Federal and state laws: Donald D. Schaffer, Sr. $7,406.892 Hugh Walker 3,923.45 Tommy R. Hall 1,695.01 Daniel R. Berry 6,452.16 Jonathan D. Haynes 133.47 Steven W. Clem 156.21 2 This amount reflects the correction of an inadvertent mathematical er- ror in computation