Canteen Corp.

CANTEEN CORP Canteen Corporation, a Subsidiary of Trans World Corporation and General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 249, affiliated with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL- CIO Case 6-CA-18863 March 15, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY On December 8, 1987, the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued an Order' in this proceeding in which it ordered the Respondent, inter alia, to make certain employees whole for any loss of earn- ings and other benefits suffered by reason of cer- tain unilateral changes in rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment 2 On May 11, 1988, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered its judg- ment enforcing the Board's Order 3 On September 9, 1988, the Acting Regional Di- rector for Region 6 issued a backpay specification and notice of hearing alleging, inter alia, that a controversy had arisen over the amounts due the employees under the terms of the Board's Order, and notifying the Respondent that it should file a timely answer complying with the Board's Rules and Regulations The Respondent filed an answer on October 13, 1988, admitting in part and general- ly denying in part the allegations of the backpay specification On December 5, 1988, the General Counsel filed with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment, with exhibits attached The General Counsel al- leges that the Respondent's answer to the backpay specification fails to meet the specificity require- ments of the Board's Rules and Regulations Subse quently, on December 22, 1988, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and Notice to Show Cause why the General Coun- sel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted The Respondent did not file a response The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel On the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following ' Not reported in Board volumes 2 In that earlier decision the Board adopted the judges findings of 8(a)(1) and (5) violations in the absence of any exceptions filed 3 No 88-3206 unpublished 295 Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Section 102 56(b) and (c)4 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, in pertinent part, states (b) Contents of answer to specification -The answer shall specifically admit, deny, or ex- plain each and every allegation of the specifi cation, unless the respondent is without know' edge, in which case the respondent shall so state, such statement operating as a denial De vials shall fairly meet the substance of the alle gations of the specification at issue When a re spondent intends to deny only a part of an al legation, the respondent shall specify so much of it as true and shall deny only the remainder As to all matters within the knowledge of the respondent, including but not limited to the various factors entering into the computation of gross backpay, a general denial shall not suffice (c) Effect offailure to answer or to plead spe- cifically and in detail to backpay allegations of specification - If the respondent files an answer to the specification but fails to deny any allegation of the specification in the manner required by paragraph (b) of this sec- tion, and the failure so to deny is not adequate ly 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 introducing any evi- dence controverting the allegation In its answer to the backpay specification, the Respondent admits that Interstate United Vending Company, which it has purchased , and the Union were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement that was effective from September 10, 1982, through March 10, 1986 The Respondent, howev er, has offered a general denial to each of the other allegations in the backpay specification Thus, the Respondent has generally denied that, pursuant to article XIII, Insurance and Pension, of the contract described above, the Company agreed to provide without cost to the employees and their eligible de- pendents an insurance program, including a Blue Cross/Blue Shield major medical and dental plan, during the life of the agreement , that beginning in March 1986 and continuing until the end of that 4 Formerly Sec 102 54(b) and (c) The Board amended its rules gov erning proceedings concerning compliance with Agency orders effective November 13 1988 The substance of former Secs 102 54 and 102 55 has been incorporated into Sec 102 56 as revised and former Sec 102 56 with some modification has become the new Sec 102 57 while the sub stance of former Sec 102 57 has become par (c ) of the new Sec 102 55 in the revised rules 293 NLRB No 30 296 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD year, the Respondent, which by this time employed Interstate United Vending employees, charged each former Interstate employee on its payroll $79 79 per month for medical insurance coverage, that during this period the Respondent deducted specified amounts for medical insurance coverage from the former Interstate employees on its pay roll, and that the Respondent is obligated to make whole the discriminatees as specified in the Board's Order and court judgment by paying each of them a designated amount, plus interest The General Counsel asserts that information re- garding each of these matters is within the Re- spondent's knowledge, and that the Respondent has failed to state the basis for its disagreement with any of the allegations in the backpay specification Accordingly, the General Counsel contends that the Respondent's general denials do not comply with the requirements of Section 102 56(b), and that, therefore, the allegations in the backpay speci- fication should be deemed admitted as true and that summary judgment should be granted on the entire backpay specification 5 We agree It is clear that information regarding the allegations that the Respondent has generally denied is within the Respondent's knowledge and control We therefore find that the Respondent's failure to set forth fully its position as to these issues or to furnish appropriate supporting figures is contrary to the specificity requirements of Sec 5 The undisputed allegations in the Motion for Summary Judgment dis close that on November 7 1988 counsel for the General Counsel spoke by telephone with Harold J Taegel the Respondent s vice president of labor relations and informed him that in accordance with the Board s Rules and Regulations the Respondent s answer generally denying cer tarn allegations in the backpay specification was insufficient Counsel for the General Counsel further advised Taegel that unless an amended answer was filed by the close of business on November 23 1988 that complied with the specificity requirements set out in the Board s Rules and Regulations she would file a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board No amended answer had been received by the Region as of December 2 1988 the date the General Counsel submitted this motion tion 102 56(b) Accordingly, we deem paragraphs 2 through 5 of the backpay specification, to which the Respondent has offered only a general denial, to be admitted to be true Because the Respondent has admitted the remaining allegation in the specifi- cation, we grant the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the amounts due the 15 discnminatees identified below ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Canteen Corporation, a Subsidiary of Trans World Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl- vania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole each of the employees named below by payment to them of the amounts set forth opposite their names, plus interest accrued to the date of payment as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded 6 Lloyd Bickerstaff $797 90 Louis Caputo 797 90 Paul Cella 478 74 Frank Cone 718 11 Herb Cornman 638 32 John Hayes 638 32 Michael Horvath 638 32 William Lesher 797 90 Gene Mercun 718 11 Peter Perla 797 90 James Ponitz 797 90 Tom Priestly 478 74 Edward Rowland 797 90 Marty Welsh 797 90 Joseph Zombek 718 11 6 283 NLRB 1173 ( 1987) Interest on and after January 1 1987 shall be computed at the short term Federal rate for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621 Interest on amounts accrued prior to January 1 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621) shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977)