Salon/Spa at Boro, Inc.

357 NLRB No. 104 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. Salon/Spa at Boro, Inc. and Natalie Ann Lakes and Elizabeth A. Frith. Cases 9–CA–45349, 9–CA– 45426, and 9–CA–45538 October 27, 2011 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS BECKER AND HAYES The Acting General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file an answer to the compliance specification. On December 30, 2010, the Board issued a Decision and Order1 that, among other things, ordered the Re- spondent to make whole discriminatees Natalie Ann Lakes and Elizabeth A. Frith for any loss of earnings and other benefits they may have suffered as a result of their unlawful discharges in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. A controversy having arisen over the amount of back- pay due the discriminatees, on July 29, 2011, the Re- gional Director issued a compliance specification and notice of hearing alleging the amount of backpay due under the Board’s Order. The compliance specification notified the Respondent that it should file a timely an- swer 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 August 22, 2011, 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 1, 2011, a motion for default judg- ment would be filed. To date, the Respondent has failed to file an answer. On September 8, 2011, the Acting General Counsel filed with the Board a Motion for Default Judgment and a memorandum in support, with exhibits attached. On September 9, 2011, the Board issued an order transfer- ring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Re- spondent again filed no response. The allegations in the motion and in the compliance specification are therefore undisputed. 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 1 356 NLRB No. 69. 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 ab- sence 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 we grant the Acting General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the net backpay due Nata- lie Ann Lakes and Elizabeth A. Frith is as stated in the compliance specification, and we will order the Respon- dent to pay those amounts to the discriminatees, plus interest accrued to the date of payment. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Salon/Spa at Boro, Inc., Springboro, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole Natalie Ann Lakes and Elizabeth A. Frith 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), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medi- cal Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010), enf. denied on other grounds sub nom., Jackson Hospital Corp. v. NLRB, 647 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011), and minus tax withholdings required by Federal and State laws: Natalie Ann Lakes $21,114 Elizabeth A. Frith 22,400 TOTAL BACKPAY DUE: $43,514 Dated, Washington, D.C. October 27, 2011 Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman Craig Becker, Member Brian E. Hayes, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD