Ha's Bi-Rite & Hang Jak Lee

HA'S BI-RITE AND HANG JAK L.EE 749 Three Brother's Market d/b/a Ha's Bi-Rite and Hang Jak Lee d/b/a Jack's Family Bi-Rite, Successor Employer and West Ewing. Case 14- CA- 11898 August 27, 1980 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND TRUESDALE On January 22, 1980, the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued an Order' adopting, in the ab- sence of exceptions, the Decision of the Adminis- trative Law Judge in Case 14-CA-11898 directing Respondent Three Brother's Market, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, to, inter alia, make whole employees West Ewing and Tammy Shaw for any loss of pay suffered by reason of Respond- ent Three Brother's Market's discrimination against them. A controversey having arisen over the amount of backpay due under the terms of the Order, the Regional Director for Region 14, on May 13 and 15, 1980, issued and duly served on Respondents a backpay specification and notice of hearing alleging, inter alia, that Hang Jak Lee d/b/ a Jack's Family Bi-Rite assumed the business and operations of Respondent Three Brother's Market on April 9, 1979, and has engaged in substantially the same business operations with substantially the same employees and equipment as that of Respond- ent Three Brother's Market. Accordingly, the spec- ification alleged that Hang Jak Lee is a successor to Respondent Three Brother's Market and that Respondents predecessor employer and successor employer are jointly and severally liable for all backpay due under the Board's Order. The specifi- cation further alleged the amount of backpay due and notified Respondents predecessor employer and successor employer that they should file timely answers complying with the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Respondents predecessor employer and successor employer did not file an answer to backpay specifi- cation. Counsel for the General Counsel subse- quently informed Respondents predecessor employ- er and successor employer of the requirement to file an answer and that the failure to do so could result in its filing directly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 12, 1980, counsel for the General Counsel filed with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the failure of Respondents predecessor employer and successor employer to file an answer to the back- pay specification as required by Section 102.54(a) i Not reported ill wllum, Iof Hoard Deciilonr 251 NLRB No. 100 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. The Board, on June 23, 1980, issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's motion should not be granted. Respondents predecessor employer and successor employer have not filed any re- sponse to the Notice To Show Cause. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this proceeding. the Board makes the following: 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 15 days from the service of the specification, if any, file an answer thereto .... (c) . . . 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 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 .... Respondents predecessor employer and successor employer have failed to file an answer to the back- pay specification and have made no response to the Notice To Show Cause. Therefore, the motion to find the backpay specification true is granted, and the obligations of the backpay specification are deemed to be admitted pursuant to Section 102.54(c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Accordingly, we find that the allegations of the specification are deemed to be admitted as true, and that the net amount of backpay due the two discriminatees is as stated in the computation in the specification. We hereby order payment thereof. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that Respondent Three Brother's Market d/b/a Ha's Bi-Rite and Respond- ent Hang Jak Lee d/b/a Jack's Family Bi-Rite, St. Louis, Missouri, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole each of the discri- minatees named below by paying them the amounts set forth adjacent to their names, plus interest to be computed in the manner specified in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977), until payment 75() DECISIONS OF NAIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BO)ARD of all backpay due, less tax withholding required by Federal and state laws.2 Membher JellkiS hould aiard icrcm on the hackpay due hbascd n his disst h i m i Olvmp .Mcdual ('orporaiion, 250 NL RB No 1 (19 ()). West Ewing Tammy Shaw $856.38 $172.80 I