Bunting Bearing Corp.

351 NLRB No. 62 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. Bunting Bearing Corp. and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Al- lied Industrial and Service Workers Interna- tional Union, AFL–CIO. Cases 7–CA–43996, 7– CA–44208–1, 7–CA–44266-1, 7–CA–44266–2, 7– CA–44614, and 7–CA–44794 November 29, 2007 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND SCHAUMBER The General Counsel seeks default judgment in this case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file an answer to the compliance specification. On May 14, 2007, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order1 that, among other things, ordered the Respondent to make whole employees for lost earn- ings and benefits resulting from the Respondent’s unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. A controversy having arisen over the amount of back- pay due the discriminatees under the Board’s Order, on August 16, 2007, the Regional Director issued a compli- ance specification and notice of hearing specifying the amounts due under the Board’s Order. The compliance specification notified the Respondent that it should file an answer by September 6, 2007, 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 7, 2007, the Region advised the Respondent that no answer to the compliance specifi- cation had been received and that unless an answer was filed by September 14, 2007, a motion for default judg- ment would be filed. To date, the Respondent has not filed an answer. 1 349 NLRB No. 99 (2007). This decision supersedes the Decision and Order reported at 343 NLRB 479 (2004), in which the Board or- dered the Respondent, among other things, to make whole employee Todd McNett for his unlawful discharge. The Board, however, dis- missed the allegation that the Respondent unlawfully locked out certain other employees. By order dated April 28, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the lockout was unlawful and remanded the case to the Board to determine whether the subsequent decertification petition was tainted by the lock- out, and if so, whether the Respondent’s withdrawal of recognition and refusal to bargain was unlawful. 179 Fed. Appx. 61 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (unpublished). On remand, the Board found that the subsequent decer- tification petition was tainted by the lockout, and that the Respondent unlawfully withdrew recognition and refused to bargain with the Union. On September 24, 2007, the General Counsel filed with the Board a motion for default judgment, with ex- hibits attached. On September 27, 2007, the Board is- sued 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 and in the compliance specifi- cation 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 Default Judgment Section 102.56(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regula- tions provides that a respondent shall file an answer within 21 days from service of a compliance specifica- tion. Section 102.56(c) provides that if the respondent fails to file an answer to the specification 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 without further notice to the re- spondent, find the specification to be true and enter such order as may be appropriate. According to the uncontroverted allegations of the mo- tion for default judgment, the Respondent, despite having been advised of the filing requirements, has failed to file an answer to the compliance specification. In the absence of good cause for the Respondent’s failure to file an an- swer, we deem the allegations in the compliance specifi- cation to be admitted as true, and grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the net backpay due the discriminatees is as stated in the compliance specification and we will order the Respondent to pay those amounts to the dis- criminatees, plus interest accrued to the date of payment. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Bunting Bearings Corp., Kalamazoo, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole the individuals named below, by pay- ing them the amounts following their names, plus interest accrued to the date of payment, as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), mi- nus tax withholdings required by Federal and State laws: Ackley, George $ 1,484.73 Alworden, Ron 1,413.03 Arndt, Rob 1,314.72 Asakevich, Lee 1,183.20 Barnes, Russell 1,218.00 Blett, Shurie 1,304.16 Cook, Terry 1,188.30 Davis, Mickey 1,252.80 Edgerton, Chris 1,274.40 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 Fisher, Jeffrey 1,413.03 Frehlin, Robert 1,148.40 Fuhrman, Shannon 1,009.92 Griffin, Patrick 1,132.80 Johnson, James 1,009.80 Kovach, Laura 1,136.16 Lemmers, Robert 1,434.24 Lemmers, Sue 1,269.00 Prince, Sue 991.80 Skinner, Alberta 1,009.92 Stonerock, Anna 1,291.68 Strong, James 1,353.24 Walker, James 1,278.06 Witt, John 1,166.88 TOTAL: $28,278.27 McNett, Todd 4,926.30 TOTAL BACKPAY: $33,204.57 Dated, Washington, D.C. November 29, 2007 Robert J. Battista, Chairman Wilma B. Liebman, Member Peter C. Schaumber, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD