National Specialties Installations, Inc.

350 NLRB No. 79 National Specialities Installations, Inc. and Erin Hardcastle-Mehlhose. Case 7–CA–46698 August 28, 2007 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 January 18, 2005, the Board issued a Decision and Order,1 that, inter alia, ordered the Respondent, National Specialties Installations, Inc., to make whole discrimina- tees Erin Hardcastle-Mehlhose and Matthew Mehlhose for any loss of earnings and benefits that they may have suffered as a result of the Respondent’s unfair labor prac- tices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. On December 23, 2005, the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Sixth Circuit entered its judgment enforcing the Board’s Order.2 A controversy having arisen over the amounts of backpay due the discriminatees, on May 11, 2007, the Regional Director issued a compliance specification and notice of hearing alleging the amounts due under the Board's Order. The compliance specification notified the Respondent that it should file an answer by June 1, 2007, complying with the Board's Rules and Regulations. Al- though properly served with a copy of the compliance specification,3 the Respondent failed to file an answer. By letter dated June 12, 2007, the Regional Attorney advised the Respondent that no answer to the compliance specification had been received and that unless an appro- priate answer was filed by June 19, 2007, default judg- ment would be sought.4 The Respondent filed no an- 1 344 NLRB No. 2 (2005). 2 Case No. 05-1498. 3 The compliance specification was sent to the Respondent’s address by regular and certified mail on May 11, 2007. On June 4, 2007, the certified envelope containing the compliance specification was returned stamped “unclaimed,” and the envelope sent by regular mail was never returned to the Region. Thereafter, on June 4, 2007, the Regional Di- rector served a copy of the compliance specification by certified and regular mail on the Respondent’s president, Michael A. Beydoun, at his home address, and neither envelope was returned to the Region. It is well settled that a respondent’s failure or refusal to accept certified mail or to provide for appropriate service cannot serve to defeat the purposes of the Act. See, e.g., I.C.E. Electric, Inc., 339 NLRB 247 fn. 2 (2003), and cases cited therein. In any event, the failure of the Postal Service to return documents served by regular mail indicates actual receipt of those documents by the Respondent. Lite Flight, Inc., 285 NLRB 649, 650 (1987). We therefore find that the Respondent was properly served with copies of the compliance specification. 4 This letter was sent by certified and regular mail to the Respon- dent’s address and to Beydoun’s home address. The envelopes have not been returned. swer. On June 28, 2007, the General Counsel filed with the Board a motion for default judgment, with exhibits attached. On June 29, 2007, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted.5 On July 11, the Respondent filed a document entitled “General Allegations.” This document sets forth objec- tions to the Board’s findings in the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding, but does not address in any way the allegations in the backpay specification. The document does not purport to be an answer to the com- pliance specification, and does not comport with the re- quirements of specificity and particularized pleadings within the meaning of Section 102.56, Answer to compli- ance specification, of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. That Section provides, inter alia, that an “answer shall specifically admit, deny, or explain each and every alle- gation of the specification, unless the respondent is with- out knowledge, in which case the respondent shall so state, such statement operating as a denial.” Section 102.56(b). Accordingly, we find that the document filed by the Respondent is not an answer to the compliance specification. The allegations in the motion and in the compliance specification 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 in the Mo- tion for Default Judgment, the Respondent, despite hav- ing 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 answer, we deem the allegations in the compliance specification to be admitted as true, and grant the Gen- eral Counsel's Motion for Default Judgment. Accord- ingly, we conclude that the net backpay due the discrimi- natees is as stated in the compliance specification and we will order the Respondent to pay those amounts to the 5 The Order stated that responses to the Notice to Show Cause should be filed by July 11, 2007. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 discriminatees, plus interest accrued on said amounts to the date of payment. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, National Specialties Installations, Inc., De- troit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall make whole the individuals named below by paying 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), minus tax withholdings required by Federal and State laws: Matthew Mehlhose $71,425.42 Erin Hardcastle-Mehlhose $47,419.62 TOTAL BACKPAY: $118,845.04