Advance Electrical

330 NLRB No. 16 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. Vantron, Inc., d/b/a Advance Electrical Services and its Alter Ego and Single Employer Advance Contracting, a Sole Proprietorship and Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 716. Case 16–CA–18840 November 18, 1999 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN On September 10, 1998, the National Labor Relations Board issued an unpublished Order, inter alia, directing Vantron, Inc., d/b/a Advance Electrical Services, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns to, among other things, make whole John Gafford for any loss of earnings and other benefits he suffered resulting from the dis- crimination against him, in violation of the National La- bor Relations Act. On March 23, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a Mandate enforcing in full the Board’s Order. A controversy having arisen over the amount of back- pay due John Gafford, on August 27, 1999,1 the Acting Regional Director for Region 16 issued a compliance specification and notice of hearing alleging the amount due under the Board’s Order, and notifying the Respon- dent 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 September 22, 1999, counsel for the General Counsel advised the Respondent, by facsimile transmission and by first class mail, that no answer to the 1 Although the reminder letter and the General Counsel’s motion state that issuance and service of the compliance specification were performed on August 6, 1999, the compliance specification is dated August 27, 1999 (see Exh. A). Furthermore, the affidavit of service reflects that the specification was served on the parties on August 27, 1999. The inadvertent errors in the letter and motion do not affect the result in this proceeding. compliance specification had been received and that unless an appropriate answer was filed by October 4, 1999, default summary judgment would be sought. The Respondent filed no answer. On October 18, 1999, the General Counsel filed with the Board a Motion to Transfer and Continue Case Be- fore the Board and Motion for Default Summary Judg- ment, with exhibits attached. On October 21, 1999, 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 again filed no response. The allegations in the motion and in the com- pliance 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 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 specifi- cation 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 with- out further notice to the respondent, find the specifica- tion to be true and enter such order as may be appropri- ate. According to the Motion for Default Summary Judgment, the Respondent, despite having been advised of the filing requirements, a- 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 Default Summary Judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the net back DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 pay due John Gafford is as stated in the compliance specifi- cation and we will order payment by the Respondent of that amount to Gafford, plus interest accrued on that amount to the date of payment.2 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Vantron, Inc., d/b/a Advance Electrical Services and its Alter Ego and single employer Advance 2 The compliance specification alleges, inter alia, that on or about June 24, 1998, Respondent Advance Contracting, a sole proprietorship, was established by Respondent Vantron, Inc., d/b/a Advance Electrical Services, as a disguised continuance. The specification also alleges that, at all material times, the two entities have been affiliated business enterprises with common officers, ownership, directors, management, and supervision; have administered a common labor policy; have shared common premises, facilities, and telephones; have provided services for, and made sales to, each other; have interchanged personnel with each other; and have held themselves out to the public as a single- integrated business enterprise. The specification further alleges that, based on their conduct and operations, Respondent Advance Contract- ing, a sole proprietorship, and Respondent Vantron, Inc., d/b/a Advance Electrical Services are, and have been at all material times, alter egos and a single employer within the meaning of the Act. In the absence of an answer to the specification, we find these allegations to be true. Contracting, a Sole Proprietorship, Deer Park, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole John Gafford, by paying him the amount follow- ing his name, plus interest accrued to date of payment and minus tax withholdings required by Federal and state laws: John Gafford Total: $5,640 Dated, Washington, D.C. November 18, 1999 Sarah M. Fox, Member Wilma B. Liebman, Member Peter J. Hurtgen, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD