TIME AUTO TRANSPORTATION, INC. AND TIME AUTO TRANSPORT, L.S.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 2011

357 NLRB No. 150 (N.L.R.B. 2011)

357 NLRB No. 150
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.
Time Auto Transportation, Inc. and Time Auto
Transport, L.S. and Randy Hill and Ernest L.
Blake. Case 7–CA–43641
December 22, 2011
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS BECKER
AND HAYES
The Acting General Counsel seeks default judgment in
this case on the ground that the Respondents have failed
to file an answer to the reissued compliance specifica-
tion. On November 22, 2002, the Board issued a Deci-
sion and Order,1 in which it found, inter alia, that the
Respondents violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by discharging, and terminating the lease agreements of,
its employees Randy Hill and Ernest L. Blake. The
Board required the Respondents, among other things, to
make whole the discriminatees for any loss of earnings
and other benefits resulting from their unfair labor prac-
tices. On July 23, 2004, 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 amount due the
discriminatees, on October 3, 2011, the Regional Direc-
tor reissued its compliance specification and notice of
hearing alleging the amount due under the Board’s Or-
der, and notifying the Respondents that they should file a
timely answer complying with the Board’s Rules and
Regulations.3 Although properly served with a copy of
the reissued compliance specification, the Respondents
failed to file an answer.

1 338 NLRB 626 (2002).
2 377 F.3d 496; mandate issued on September 13, 2004.
3 On February 17, 2006, the Regional Director for Region 7 ap-
proved a settlement agreement in which the Respondents agreed to pay
in full the amounts owed to Hill and Blake, including interest. The
Respondents made several timely payments in the amount of $5000 per
month, totaling $330,000. However, about September 6, 2011, the
Respondents refused to make any additional payments. Thereafter, the
Regional Director reissued the compliance specification. The total
amount due set forth in the reissued compliance specification credits
the Respondents for the amounts they have already paid to the dis-
criminatees.
By letter dated October 26, 2011, the Regional Direc-
tor advised the Respondents that no answer to the reis-
sued compliance specification had been received and that
unless an appropriate answer was filed by October 31,
2011, default judgment would be sought. To date, the
Respondents have failed to file an answer.
On November 4, 2011, the Acting General Counsel
filed with the Board a motion for default judgment, with
exhibits attached. On November 9, 2011, 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 Respondents again filed no response.
The allegations in the motion and in the reissued compli-
ance 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
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 Respondents, despite hav-
ing been advised of the filing requirements, have failed
to file an answer to the reissued compliance specifica-
tion. In the absence of good cause for the Respondents’
failure to file an answer, we deem the allegations in the
reissued compliance specification to be admitted as true,
and grant the Acting General Counsel’s Motion for De-
fault Judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the net
backpay due the discriminatees is as stated in the reis-
sued compliance specification and we will order the Re-
spondents to pay those amounts to Randy Hill and Ernest
L. Blake, plus interest accrued on said amounts to the
date of payment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondents, Time Auto Transportation, Inc. and Time
Auto Transport, L.S., Troy, Michigan, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole the
individuals named below, by paying them the amounts
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
following their names, plus interest accrued to the date of
payment, as prescribed in New Horizons for the Re-
tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), minus tax withholdings
required by Federal and State laws:4
Randy Hill $48,005.69
Ernest L. Blake $30,579.43
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $78,585.12

4 The Board has declined to apply its policy, announced in Kentucky
River Medical 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) of daily compounding of interest on backpay awards,
in cases such as this, that were already in the compliance stage on the
date that decision issued. Rome Electrical Systems, Inc., 356 NLRB
No. 38, slip op. at 1 fn. 2 (2010).
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 22, 2011
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
Craig Becker, Member
Brian E. Hayes, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD