M & V Painting, Inc.

1 322 NLRB No. 17 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Board volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal er- rors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. M & V Painting, Inc., Mike Piper Painting, Vic Piper, an individual, and Michael B. Piper, an individual, a single employer and International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Painters Local 1474, AFL–CIO. Cases 7–CA– 34567(1) and 7–CA–34567(2) September 5, 1996 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING AND FOX On June 27, 1994, the National Labor Relations Board issued an Order adopting, in the absence of ex- ceptions, the administrative law judge’s decision order- ing the Respondent, M & V Painting, Inc., Piper Paint- ing, Inc., and Vic Piper, an individual, a single em- ployer, to, inter alia, make whole certain unit employ- ees for loss of earnings and other benefits they may have suffered as a result of the Respondents’ unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. On February 3, 1995, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered its judgment enforcing in full the Board’s Order. A controversy having arisen over the amount of backpay due the discriminatees, on March 18, 1996, the Regional Director for Region 7 issued a compli- ance specification and notice of hearing alleging the amounts owed under the Board’s Order by the Re- spondent and additional alleged Respondents Mike Piper Painting and Michael B. Piper, and individual, a single employer, and notifying the Respondents that they should file a timely answer complying with the Board’s Rules and Regulations. Although the Respond- ents originally filed answers to the compliance speci- fication, by letter dated July 9, 1996, they withdrew their answers. On August 2, 1996, the General Counsel filed with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment, with ex- hibits attached. On August 6, 1996, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondents filed no response. The alle- gations in the motion and in the compliance specifica- tion are therefore undisputed. Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Section 102.56(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regula- tions provides that the Respondent shall file an answer within 21 days from service of a compliance specifica- tion. Section 102.56(c) of the Board’s Rules and Regu- lations states: 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 allegations of the specification and without further notice to the respondent, find the specification to be true and enter such order as may be appropriate. According to the uncontroverted allegations of the Motion for Summary Judgment, although the Respond- ents initially filed answers to the compliance specifica- tion, they subsequently withdrew those answers. Such a withdrawal has the same effect as the failure to file an answer, i.e., the allegations in the compliance speci- fication are deemed admitted. See Maislin Transport, 274 NLRB 529 (1985). Accordingly, we deem the allegations in the compli- ance specification to be admitted as true, and grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. We therefore conclude that the net backpay due the discriminatees is as stated in the compliance specifica- tion and we will order payment by the Respondents of the amounts to the discriminatees, plus interest accrued on the amounts to the date of payment. FINDINGS OF FACT About March 1993, Michael B. Piper, an individual, d/b/a Mike Piper Painting (Respondent Mike Piper), was established by the Respondent as a subordinate in- strument to and a disguised continuation of M & V Painting, Inc., Piper Painting, Inc., and Vic Piper, and individual, a single employer. Based on this conduct, Respondent Mike Piper and Respondent M & V Paint- ing, Inc., Piper Painting, Inc., and Vic Piper, an indi- vidual, a single employer, are, and have been at all material times, alter egos and a single employer within the meaning of the Act. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondents, M & V Painting, Inc., Piper Painting, Inc., Vic Piper, an individual, and Michael B. Piper, an individual, d/b/a Mike Piper Painting, a single em- ployer, Port Huron, Michigan, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole the individ- uals named below, by paying them the amounts fol- lowing their 2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD names, plus interest to be computed in the manner pre- scribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), minus tax withholdings required by Fed- eral and state laws: Robert D. Halliday, Sr. $ 77,851.72 Robert D. Halliday, Jr. 53,378.99 Howard Quant 56,531.32 Benjamin Ward 22,025.62 Robert Ward 49,907.66 Francis Frazer 95,089.00 TOTAL 354,784.31 Dated, Washington, D.C. September 5, 1996 llllllllllllllllll William B. Gould IV, Chairman llllllllllllllllll Margaret A. Browning, Member llllllllllllllllll Sarah M. Fox, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD