Arsham , Martin, Sewing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1982

260 N.L.R.B. 1309 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

MARTIN ARSHAM SEWING CO.
Martin Arsham Sewing Co. and International Ladies
Garment Workers Union, Local 29. Case 8-
CA- 11894
March 30, 1982
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS
On September 7, 1979, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued its Decision and Order' in the
above-entitled proceeding in which it adopted the
findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge, modified his Order, and required, inter alia,
that Respondent make whole certain employees for
their losses resulting from Respondent's unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3),
and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. A controversy having arisen over the
amount of backpay due under the terms of the
Order, the Acting Regional Director for Region 8,
on March 11, 1981, issued a backpay specification
and notice of hearing, alleging the amount of back-
pay due under the Board's Order, and notifying
Respondent that it should file a timely answer com-
plying with the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. To
effect service on Respondent, the backpay specifi-
cation and notice of hearing was sent by certified
mail to Respondent's address and a copy of the
same was sent by regular mail to Respondent's
counsel. On March 24, Respondent requested an
additional 30 days' time for filing its answer to the
backpay specification and notice of hearing. Pursu-
ant to the request, the Regional Director granted
an extension of time for filing an answer until April
27, 1981. Thereafter, on April 27, 1981, Respondent
filed an answer to the complaint which it later
withdrew. 2
On November 4, 1981, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board in Washing-
ton, D.C., a Motion for Summary Judgment and a
brief in support thereof, with exhibits attached.
Subsequently, on November 12, 1981, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the Gen-
eral Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment
should not be granted. Respondent has filed no re-
sponse to the Notice To Show Cause and, accord-
:244 NLRB 918.
2 In Respondent's withdrawal of its answer to the backpay specifica-
tion, Respondent withdrew its answer. waived a hearing on issues previ-
ously placed in dispute by its withdrawn answer, and stated that it would
not file any further response to the backpay specification or contest any
motion for summary judgment filed by the General Counsel.
260 NLRB No. 176
ingly, the allegations of the Motion for Summary
Judgment stand uncontroverted.
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 ....
(b) . . . The respondent shall specifically
admit, deny, or explain each and every allega-
tion of the specification, unless the respondent
is without knowledge, in which case the re-
spondent shall so state, such statement operat-
ing as a denial. Denials shall fairly meet the
substance of the allegations of the specification
denied. When a respondent intends to deny
only a part of an allegation, the respondent
shall specify so much of it as is true and shall
deny only the remainder. As to all matters
within the knowledge of the respondent, in-
cluding but not limited to the various factors
entering into the computation of gross back-
pay, a general denial shall not suffice....
(c) . . . If the respondent fails to file any
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....
The backpay specification, issued and served on
Respondent on March 11, 1981, specifically states
that Respondent shall, within 15 days from the date
of the specification, file an answer to the specifica-
tion with the Regional Director for Region 8, and
that if the answer fails to deny the allegations of
the specification in the manner required under the
Board's Rules and Regulations, and the failure to
do so is not adequately explained, such allegations
shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and Re-
spondent shall be precluded from introducing any
evidence controverting them.
According to the uncontroverted allegations of
the Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent
has withdrawn its answer to the complaint and
does not oppose the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment. The withdrawal of an answer necessarily has
1309
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the same effect as a failure to file an answer.3 Re-
spondent did not file a response to the Notice To
Show Cause. No good cause to the contrary
having been shown, in accordance with the rules
set forth above, the allegations of the backpay
specification are therefore deemed admitted as true
and the Board so finds.
Accordingly, on the basis of the allegations of
the specification, which are accepted as true, the
Board finds the facts as set forth therein, concludes
that the net backpay due each of the employees is
as stated in the computations of the specification,
and orders that payment thereof be made by Re-
spondent as set forth below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Martin Arsham Sewing Co., Cleveland, Ohio, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make
whole each of the employees named below by pay-
3 Newark Pipeline Company, 202 NLRB 234 (1973); Nickey Chevrolet
Sales, Inc., 199 NLRB 411 (1972).
ment to them of the amounts set forth adjacent to
their names, plus interest computed in the manner
described in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB
651 (1977) (see, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)), and accrued to the
date of payment, minus tax withholdings required
by Federal and state laws:
Crystal Cash
Rebecca
Clements
Albertha Curry
Charlotte Daye
Wilma Jones
Magnolia Mays
Gloria McCoy
Marliese Nieves
Ann Patterson
Mary Patton
Rose Thomas
Sarah White
Diana Whitmore
Denise Wilcox
Beadell Wilson
$ 3,001.53
1,424.75
1,095.44
2,245.39
865.79
2,811.61
3,359.96
2,457.40
863.91
2,598.20
5,332.90
1,924.38
580.14
2,156.31
1,222.68
1310