Rich'S Precision Foundry, Inc.

RICH'S PRECISION FOUNDRY . ` - : 821 Rich's Precision Foundry, -Inc. and Felix Birt., Case 25-CA-10431 28 June 1985 - SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER- AND.DENNIS On 1 August 1980 the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and 'Order in this proceed- ing' ordering the Respondent, inter alia, to offer immediate and full reinstatement to certain of its employees and to make them whole for any loss of earnings and benefits resulting from the Respond- ent's unfair labor practices which violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. On 15 December 1981 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted enforcement of the Board's Order.2 On 25 January 1985'the Acting Regional Direc- tor for Region 25 issued a backpay specification and notice of hearing alleging, inter alia, that a controversy had arisen over the amount of backpay due under the terms of the Board's Order and noti- fying the Respondent that it must file a timely answer which must comply with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations. On 11 February 1985 the Respondent filed an answer to the backpay specification which, inter alia, con- tends that it had agreed to the Region's._proposed stipulation on backpay and interest before issuance of the backpay specification. - On 25 March 1985 the General Counsel filed with the Board a motion to strike portions of the Respondent's answer and Motion for Summary Judgment. On 29 March 1985 the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the General Coun- sel's motion should not be granted. On 10 April 1985 the Respondent filed a response to the Gener- al Counsel's motion. -The Respondent claims that it had agreed to the Region's proposed stipulation on backpay and interest prior to the issuance of the backpay specification. The' Respondent contends that the Region's substitution of the projected earn- ings method of computation in the specification is not proper because the parties had a previous agreement as to the backpay calculations. On the entire record, the Board makes the fol- lowing 1 250 NLRB 1317 2 667 F 2d 613 (7th Cir 1981) Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Section' 102:54(b) and (c) of the Board's • Rules and Regulations provides ` as follows: (b) Contents -of the- answer to specification.- The answer to the specification shall- be in writing, the original .being signed and sworn to by the respondent . or by a duly authorized agent with appropriate power. of attorney af- fixed, and shall contain . the post office address of the , respondent. The respondent shall specif- ically admit, deny, _ or explain each -and every allegation.- of the specification, unless the re- spondent is without knowledge , in which case the respondent shall so -state, such statement operating as a denial . Denials shall fairly.meet the substance , of the allegations of the specifi-_ cation denied . When a respondent intends to deny only a part of an allegation , the respond- ent shall specify so much of it as true .and.shall deny only the remainder.. As to all matters within the knowledge of the respondent, in- cluding but not limited to the various factors entering _ into the computation of gross back- pay, a general denial shall not suffice. As to such matters, if the respondent disputes - either the accuracy of the figures .in the specification or the premises on which they are based, he shall specifically state the basis for his dis- agreement, setting forth in detail his position as to the applicable premises and, furnishing the appropriate supporting figures. (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. If the respondent files an answer to the specification but fails to deny any allegation of the specifi- cation in the manner required by subsection (b) of this section , and the failure so to deny is not adequately explained , such allegation shall be deemed to be admitted to be true , and may be so found by the Board without the taking of evidence supporting such allegation, and the respondent shall be precluded from introduc- ing any evidence controverting said allegation. In its answer to the backpay specification, the Respondent entered a denial to the characterization of the discriminatees ' discharges as illegal . The Re- spondent further stated that it is without informa- tion as to the definitions of calendar quarter net in- 275 NLRB No. 118 822 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD terim earnings, calendar quarter net backpay, and total net backpay, and as to the general formula used to calculate backpay. The Respondent offered a denial as to the gross and net backpay informa- tion for discriminatees Birt and Acres. In the af- firmative, the Respondent alleges that it had en- tered into an agreement with the Region as to the net backpay for each of the discriminatees. The General Counsel asserts that the Board in its Decision and Order, found the discharges of the discriminatees to have violated the Act and thus the denial should be stricken. The General Counsel further urges that the definitions used in the back- pay specfication are well established and that be- cause the Respondent does not contend that other definitions of the terms are appropriate, summary judgment is proper.- The General Counsel asserts that the Respondent's, answer does not specifically dispute the backpay formula or the gross and net backpay figures, but alleges instead that there was a purported agreement on the backpay figures. The General Counsel contends that the Respondent had not agreed' to the Region's proposed stipulation on backpay and interest prior to' the issuance of the backpay specification. We agree with the General Counsel that 'the Re- spondent's answer, to paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7 does not raise any issue of -fact which would require a hearing. Furthermore, - the Respondent's answer to the- remaining paragraphs does not specifically dis- pute the accuracy of the gross backpay figures con- tained in • the specification . The answer merely states that there was a prior agreement between the Respondent and the Region. The evidence of -cor- respondence presented shows, however, that no agreement had been reached between the Respond- ent and the Region before the issuance of the back- pay specification. As the Respondent has failed to deny specifically the gross backpay allegations or to explain adequately its failure to do so, Section 102.54(c) requires that these allegations be deemed to be admitted true. Accordingly, we strike the Respondent's answer with respect to paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 of-the, backpay specification, and deem such allegations to be admitted as true.3 Thus, we shall grant the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. We further find that the net backpay due the discriminatees, Kurt Elder, Homer Acres, and Felix Birt, is as stated in the computations of the backpay specification, and shall order the Re- spondent to pay the amount set forth to each named employee. - ORDER The National Labor Relations- Board orders. that the Respondent, Rich's Precision Foundry, Inc., Yorktown, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors,' and assigns, make whole' the employees named below by paying them the amount set forth adja- cent to their names, plus interest computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel 'Corp:; 231' NLRB 651 (1977),' and accrued to the date of pay- ment, minus tax withholdings required by law. Homer Acres-$40,915.46 ' - Felix Birt-$19,359.62 - - Kurt Elder-$56.00 Member Hunter, agrees that the Respondent's denials' in its answer raise no issue of fact and that pursuant to Sec 102 54 of the Board's Rules and Regulations the allegations of the backpay specification prop- erly may be deemed to be admitted true ' He therefore findstit unneces- sary to pass on the General Counsel's motion to strike portions of the Respondent 's answer 4 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 'i'