Human Development Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 2005

344 N.L.R.B. 902 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
344 NLRB No. 113
902
Human Development Association and New York’s
Health and Human Service Union, 1199/Service
Employees International Union (formerly
known as District 1199, National Union of Hos-
pital and Health Care Employees, R.W.D.S.U.,
AFL–CIO) and District 6, International Union
of Industrial Service, Transport and Health
Employees (formerly known as Local 6, Interna-
tional Federation of Health Professionals, Inter-
national Longshoremen’s Association, AFL–
CIO). Case 29–CA–9367
June 24, 2005
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
This compliance proceeding is before the Board on the
General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
the Respondent’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
The General Counsel seeks summary judgment on the
basis that the Respondent’s answer to the compliance
specification is deficient under Section 102.56(b) of the
Board’s Rules, because the answer, as amended, fails to
plead specifically as to information within the Respon-
dent’s knowledge. The Respondent contends, inter alia,
that the Respondent lacks the records necessary to pre-
pare a more specific answer, because the Respondent
submitted those records to the Region. As explained
below, we shall allow the Respondent an opportunity to
review the records and amend its answer.
On May 22, 1989, the National Labor Relations Board
issued a Decision and Order concluding that the Respon-
dent had violated Section 8(a)(2), (3), and (1) of the Act
by recognizing Local 6, International Federation of
Health Professionals, International Longshoremen’s As-
sociation, AFL–CIO (Local 6) as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of a unit of the Respon-
dent’s home attendants when Local 6 did not represent a
valid majority of the unit and by executing and enforcing
union-security and dues-deduction clauses in a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with Local 6.1 The Board
ordered the Respondent to reimburse unit employees,
with interest, for moneys withheld from them on or after
the effective date of the collective-bargaining agreement
for initiation fees, dues, or other obligations of member-
ship in Local 6.2 The United States Court of Appeals for

1 293 NLRB 1228 (1989). Local 6 is now known as District 6, In-
ternational Union of Industrial Service, Transport and Health Employ-
ees.
2 Id. at 1229.
the District of Columbia Circuit enforced the Board’s
Order in full.3
On June 30, 2004, the Regional Director for Region 29
issued a compliance specification and notice of hearing,
setting forth the Region’s position as to the amount of
reimbursement due each of the 3082 claimants. On Au-
gust 24, 2004, the Respondent filed an answer admitting
certain allegations in the specification and generally de-
nying other allegations, including the amounts due. On
March 29, 2005, after notice from the General Counsel
that the answer was deficient, the Respondent filed an
amended answer claiming insufficient information to
admit or deny the reimbursement amounts in the specifi-
cation.
On April 7, 2005, the General Counsel notified the Re-
spondent’s attorney that the amended answer was still
deficient. According to the General Counsel, the Re-
spondent’s attorney replied “that [the] Respondent was
unable to be specific because it lacked the documents
necessary to formulate its computations and that, in fact,
the Region had the documents.” The General Counsel
contends, however, that the Respondent never requested
access to the records.
On April 20, 2005, the General Counsel filed his Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment, contending that the Re-
spondent’s answer, as amended, fails to comply with
Section 102.56(b). On April 25, 2005, the Board issued
an Order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a
Notice to Show Cause why the General Counsel’s mo-
tion should not be granted.
On May 9, 2005, the Respondent filed an Affidavit in
Opposition to General Counsel’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and in Support of Respondent’s Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment. The General Counsel and the
Respondent each filed a reply brief. The Respondent
contends, inter alia, that the Respondent lacks the records
necessary to prepare a more specific answer, because the
Respondent submitted those records to the Region.4
We find, under the circumstances, that the Respondent
is entitled to an opportunity to review the records it has
provided to the Region and to file, with the Board’s Ex-
ecutive Secretary in Washington, D.C., a second
amended answer that complies with the requirements of
Section 102.56(b) of the Board’s Rules. Accordingly,

3 937 F.2d 657 (1991), cert. denied 503 U.S. 950 (1992).
4 The Respondent also contends that the General Counsel’s Motion
for Summary Judgment should be denied, and the Respondent’s motion
granted, because the Respondent is “essentially bereft of assets” and
because the Region did not issue the compliance specification until 13
years after court enforcement of the Board’s Order in the unfair labor
practice case. Because we find it appropriate to allow the Respondent
to amend its answer, we need not address those contentions or resolve
the summary judgment motions here.
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSN. 903
we shall order the General Counsel to make the relevant
records available to the Respondent within 14 days of the
date of this Order. Within 21 days after the last day of
that 14-day period, the Respondent may file a second
amended answer to the specification.5 After the expira-
tion of the Respondent’s time to amend its answer, we
will consider the pending motions for summary judgment
in light of the Respondent’s second amended answer, if
such an answer has been filed. In the meantime, consis-
tent with the Board’s longstanding policy of “en-
courag[ing] compromises and settlements,” Wallace
Corp. v. NLRB, 323 U.S. 248, 253–254 (1944), we

5 If the Respondent needs additional time to file its second amended
answer, the Respondent may seek an extension of time. Because the
case remains before the Board, the second amended answer and any
request for an extension of time should be directed to the Board through
its Executive Secretary’s Office. Any request for an extension of time
should comply with Sec. 102.111(b) and (c) of the Board’s Rules.
strongly urge the parties to explore voluntary resolution
of this dispute.6
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within 14 days from the
date of this Order, the General Counsel shall make avail-
able to the Respondent for inspection and copying all
records obtained from the Respondent that are relevant to
the allegations in the specification.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 21 days after the
last day of the 14-day period described above, the Re-
spondent may file a second amended answer to the com-
pliance specification. The contents of any such answer
shall be subject to the requirements of Section 102.56(b)
of the Board’s Rules.

6 However, settlement negotiations shall not operate to stay the ef-
fectiveness of this Order. Therefore, if the parties are engaged in mean-
ingful settlement discussions, they should promptly notify the Board of
this fact in order that the Board may, on request, extend the time for the
filing of the Respondent’s second amended answer.