Pro-Tech Security Network

Pro/Tech Security Network and International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America (UPGWA). Case 11-CA-14209 May 31, 1994 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, DEVANEY, AND COHEN On August 31, 1992, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision, Order and Direction of Second Election,¹ inter alia, ordering Pro/Tech Security Network to make whole employees Hassie Reynolds and Edwin Desiderio for their losses resulting from the Respondent's unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. On June 8, 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit entered its order enforcing the Board's decision. A controversy having arisen over the amount of backpay due discriminatees, on December 30, 1993, the Regional Director for Region 11 issued a compliance specification and notice of hearing alleging the amount due under the Board's Order, and notifying the Respondent that it should file a timely answer complying with the Board's Rules and Regulations. Although properly served with a copy of the compliance specification, the Respondent failed to file an answer. By letter dated March 15, 1994, the Regional Office advised the Respondent that an extension of time to file an answer had been granted and that if an answer to the compliance specification was not received on or before the close of business April 1, 1994, a Motion for Summary Judgment would be sought. The Respondent filed no answer. On April 25, 1994, the General Counsel filed with the Board a Motion to Transfer Case to the Board and for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support, with exhibits attached. On April 29, 1994, 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 Respondent filed no response. The allegations in the motion and in the compliance specification are therefore undisputed. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Section 102.56(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations provides that the Respondent shall file an answer within 21 days from service of a compliance specification. Section 102.56(c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations 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, the Respondent, despite having been advised of the filing requirements, has failed to file an answer to the compliance specification. In the absence of good cause for the Respondent's failure to file an answer, we deem the allegations in the compliance specification to be admitted as true, and grant the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the net backpay due is that alleged in the specification and we will order payment by the Respondent of those amounts to the discriminatees, plus interest accrued on those amounts to the date of payment. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Pro/Tech Security Network, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole the individuals named below, by paying them the amounts following their names, with interest to be computed in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), minus tax withholdings required by Federal and state laws: Hassie Reynolds $50,541.67 Edwin Desiderio 358.67 Dated, Washington, D.C. May 31, 1994 James M. Stephens, Member Dennis M. Devaney, Member Charles I. Cohen, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ¹ 308 NLRB 655. 313 NLRB No. 244