Alpha-X Corporation

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Alpha-X Corporation and Freight Drivers and Help- ers Local Union No. 557, affiliated with Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL- CIO. Case 5-CA-12661 26 August 1983 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND HUNTER On 27 January 1982 the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued an Order' in the above-entitled proceeding in which it directed, inter alia, that Re- spondent make whole Patricia Williamson for any loss of pay she may have suffered resulting from Respondent's unfair labor practices against her in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. A controversy having arisen over the amount due under the terms of the Order, the Regional Direc- tor for Region 5, on 24 August 1982, issued and served on Respondent a backpay specification and notice of hearing setting forth the backpay and re- imbursement due under the Board's Order. Re- spondent failed to file an answer to the specifica- tion. By letter dated 16 September 1982 the Regional Director informed Respondent that it had not filed an answer, and that failing receipt of an answer by 23 September 1982 a Motion for Summary Judg- ment would be filed. By letter dated 12 October 1982 counsel for the General Counsel again in- formed Respondent that no answer to the specifica- tion had been received. Finally, by letter dated 21 October 1982 counsel for the General Counsel in- formed Respondent that, since no answer had been filed within 15 days of the date that the specifica- tion issued, she would move for summary judg- ment. No answer was filed. On 24 November 1982 counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on 1 December 1982 the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent has not filed a response to the Notice To Show Cause. Pursuant to the provisions of 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: I Not reported in volumes of Board Decisions. 267 NLRB No. 81 Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Section 102.54(c) of the Board's Rules and Regu- lations, Series 8, as amended, provides in relevant part with respect to a backpay specification: (c) Effect of failure to answer or to plead spe- cifically and in detail to the specification.-If the respondent fails to file any answer to the speci- fication within the time prescribed by this sec- tion, the Board may, either with or without taking evidence in support of the allegations of the specification and without notice to the re- spondent, find the specification to be true and enter such order as may be appropriate. The backpay specification duly served on Re- spondent specifically states that, pursuant to Sec- tion 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, Respondent shall, within 15 days from the date of the specification, file with the Regional Director an original and four copies of an answer to the specification. To the extent that such answer fails to deny the allegations of the 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 Re- spondent shall be precluded from introducing any evidence controverting them. According to the un- controverted allegations of the Motion for Summa- ry Judgment, Respondent, by letters dated 16 Sep- tember and 12 October 1982, was informed of the requirement to file an answer to the specification and that the General Counsel would move for sum- mary judgment if no answer was filed. Again on 21 October 1982 Respondent was informed by certi- fied mail that, since no answer was filed, the Gen- eral Counsel would move for summary judgment. 2 As of 23 November 1982, the date of the Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent has not filed an answer to the specification. Nor has it filed a re- sponse to the Notice To Show Cause. As Respondent has not filed an answer to the specification or offered any explanation for its fail- ure to do so, in accordance with the rule set forth above, the Board deems Respondent to have admit- ted all the allegations of the specification to be true and there are no matters in issue requiring a hear- ing. Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summa- ry Judgment. On the basis of the specification and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following: 2 Copies of the letters and the return receipts are attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment 486 ALPHA-X CORPORATION FINDINGS OF FACT We find that Patricia Williamson is entitled to be made whole under the terms of the Board's Order by the payment to her of the amount calculated in the General Counsel's backpay specification; namely, by payment to her of the amount of $3,021.75, plus interest accrued to the date of pay- ment, minus the tax withholdings as required by Federal and state laws. 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, Alpha-X Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole Patricia Williamson by paying to her the sum of $3,021.75, plus interest accrued to the date of payment to be computed in the manner set forth in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977),3 less withholdings required by Federal and state laws. 3 See, generally, Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 487