Rubber Workers Local 250 (Mack-Wayne Closures)

764 305 NLRB No. 102 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 290 NLRB 817. 2 The make-whole order was conditioned on the forum in which the Respondent chose to argue the merits of the grievance under- lying the unfair labor practice at issue. 3 All subsequent dates refer to 1991 unless specified otherwise. 4 We find this case distinguishable from Mine Workers Local 1575 (Peabody Coal Co.), 295 NLRB 873 (1989), in which the Board found that the respondent union’s answer containing a general denial of the allegations in the backpay specification was sufficient to re- quire a hearing. Here, the adequacy of the Respondent’s answer need not be addressed because, after filing it, the Respondent admitted all the allegations contained in the compliance specification. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Work- ers of America, Local 250, AFL–CIO (Mack- Wayne Closures) and International Union of Tool, Die and Mold Makers. Case 22–CB–4927 November 29, 1991 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS DEVANEY AND OVIATT On July 29, 1988, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order in this proceeding,1 directing the Respondent, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of Amer- ica, Local 250, AFL–CIO, inter alia, to make whole the discriminatee, David O’Neill, for any loss of earn- ings suffered by reason of the Respondent’s failure to represent him fairly.2 On May 23, 1991,3 the Regional Director for Region 22 issued a compliance specifica- tion and notice of hearing alleging that a controversy had arisen over the amount of the backpay due to the discriminatee under the terms of the Board’s Order, and notifying the Respondent that it must file a timely answer in compliance with the Board’s Rules and Reg- ulations. On June 13, the Respondent filed an answer gen- erally denying the allegations of the specification. On June 18, the Regional Director sent the Respondent a letter stating that the answer was deficient under the Board’s Rules and notifying the Respondent that if a proper answer was not filed by June 27, the Regional Office would file for summary judgment. In a subsequent telephone conversation, the Re- spondent asserted that it admitted all the allegations of the compliance specification and did not wish to liti- gate this matter further. The Respondent also noted that it would not oppose the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Regional Office con- firmed this telephone conversation in a letter dated July 3. On August 28, the General Counsel filed with the Board in Washington, D.C., a Motion for Summary Judgment. On September 3, 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 has not filed a response. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. On the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment Because no response to the Notice to Show Cause was filed, the representations in the Motion for Sum- mary Judgment are undisputed. One of those undis- puted representations is that the Respondent does not wish to litigate this matter and has admitted all the al- legations contained in the compliance specification. Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment, conclude that the net backpay due the discriminatee is as stated in the computations of the specification, and order that payment be made by the Respondent as set forth below.4 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plas- tic Workers of America, Local 250, AFL–CIO, its offi- cers, agents, and representatives, shall pay David O’Neill the amount set forth in the compliance speci- fication, plus interest computed in accordance with New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), and accrued to the date of payment, and shall pay the Pension Fund the amount set forth in the com- pliance specification, plus any additional amounts com- puted in accordance with Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213, 1216 fn. 7 (1979).