Pms Corp.

870 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Property Management Services Corporation d/b/a PMS Corporation and Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Local 355, AFL-CIO,' Hotel & Restaurant Employees' and Bartenders' International Union, AFL-CIO and Mar Del Plata Condominium Association , Inc., Party in Interest. Case 12-CA-10621 August 17, 1988 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On February 5, 1987, the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued a Decision and Order2 in which the Board, inter alia, ordered the Respondent and Mar del Plata Condominium Association, Inc. (Mar del Plata) to make whole bargaining unit employ- ees for any loss of pay suffered as a result of their unlawful terminations and the subcontracting of unit work. Mar del Plata fulfilled its obligation to make the employees whole by settling the case and paying its portion of the net backpay due. On November 24, 1987, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit entered its judgment enforcing the Board's Order concerning the Respondent.3 A controversy having arisen over the amount of backpay due from the Respondent under the Board's Order, as enforced by the court, the Acting Regional Director for Region 12, on April 29, 1988, issued a backpay specification and notice of hearing, alleging the amount of backpay due from the Respondent and notifying the Re- spondent that it should file a timely answer com- plying with the Board's Rules and Regulations.4 The Respondent did not file an answer to the backpay specification. On May 17, 1988, the Re- gional Director wrote to counsel for the Respond- ent and informed it of the need to file an answer by May 20, 1988, or face a possible summary judg- ment order. A copy of the Board's Rules govern- ing the filing of an answer was mailed to the Re- spondent's counsel on that date. On May 26, 1988, the compliance officer for Region 12 telephoned the Respondent's president and informed him that he had failed to file an answer to the backpay specification. The Respond- ent's president stated that he did not intend to file an answer. The compliance officer said that if an 1 Formerly, Hotel, Motel, Restaurant and Hi-Rise Employees and Bar- tenders Union, Local 355. 2 Mar de: Plata Condominium Assn., 282 NLRB 1012 (1987). 8 No. 87-5881, enfd. mem. (Nov. 24, 1987). 4 The backpay specification was mailed to the Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested . The Respondent admits receiving the backpay specification. answer was not received by June 1, 1988, a Motion for Summary Judgment would be filed with the Board. The compliance officer also wrote the Re- spondent's president on May 26, confirming the substance of that day's telephone conversation. On June 27, 1988, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.5 On June 29, 1988, 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 did not file a response. The allegations in the motion are therefore undisputed. Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) . . . The respondent shall, within 21 days from the service of the specification, if any, file an answer thereto... . (c) . . . 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 sup- port of the allegations of the specification and without notice to the respondent, find the specification to be true and enter such order as may be appropriate. . . . The backpay specification states that the Re- spondent shall, within 21 days from the date of the specification, file with the Regional Director for Region 12 an answer to the specification. The backpay specification further states that if the answer fails to deny the allegations of the specifica- tion in the manner required under the Board's Rules and Regulations, and the failure to do so is not adequately explained, the allegations shall be deemed to be true and the Respondent shall be pre- cluded from introducing evidence controverting them. In addition to the backpay specification and notice of hearing, counsel for the General Counsel notified the Respondent of its failure to file an answer and that the General Counsel intended to seek summary judgment if no answer was filed. The Respondent has not filed an answer nor of- fered any explanation for its failure to do so. In ac- cordance with the rules set forth above, the allega- tions in the backpay specification are deemed to be admitted as true and the Board so finds. S Counsel for the General Counsel states in his Motion for Summary Judgment that the compliance officer wrote and telephoned the Respond- ent's attorney on May 26 , 1988. Exhs. D and E to that motion indicate that the compliance officer communicated with the Respondent's presi- dent and sole shareholder on this date. 290 NLRB No. 98 PMS CORP. 871 Accordingly, the Board grants the Motion for Corporation d/b/a PMS Corporation, Miami Summary Judgment and concludes that the amount Beach, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and due each of the bargaining unit employees is as assigns, shall make whole its bargaining unit em- stated in the backpay specification . The Board ployees by payment to them of the respective orders that payment to each bargaining unit em - amounts stated in the backpay specification, plus ployee be made by the Respondent as set forth in interest to be computed in the manner prescribed in the backpay specification. New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 ORDER (1987), less tax withholdings required by Federal and state laws. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Property Management Services