Elliot Metal Processing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 2000

330 N.L.R.B. 103 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

330 NLRB No. 103
1
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Board 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.
Elliott Metal Processing Co. and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–
CIO and its Local 985. Cases 7–CA–41062 and
7–CA–41179
February 18, 2000
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX AND
BRAME
On October 30, 1998, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order,1 inter alia, ordering
Elliott Metal Processing Co., and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns (the Respondent) to make whole
certain of its unit employees for losses and expenses re-
sulting from its failure to maintain health insurance cov-
erage for its unit employees as provided in its 1994–1997
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union, in vio -
lation of the National Labor Relations Act. On April 30,
1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit issued its mandate enforcing the Board’s Order.2
A controversy having arisen over the amounts due unit
employees, on November 10, 1999, the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 7 issued a compliance specification and
notice of hearing alleging the amount due under the
Board’s Order, and notifying the Respondent that it
should file a timely answer 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 December 3, 1999, the Regional attor-
ney advised the Respondent that no answer to the com-
pliance specification had been received and that unless
an appropriate answer was filed by December 17, 1999,
default summary judgment would be sought. The Re-
spondent filed no answer.
On January 13, 2000, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a Motion for Default Summary Judgment, with
exhibits attached. On January 18, 2000, the Board issued
an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a
Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be
granted. The Respondent again filed no response. The
allegations in the motion and in the compliance specifi-
cation are therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

1 327 NLRB No. 32.
2 Case 99–5317.
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.56(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions provides that the Respondent shall file an answer
within 21 days from service of a compliance specifica-
tion. Section 102.56(c) of the Board’s Rules and Regu-
lations states:
If the respondent fails to file any answer to the specifi-
cation 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 with-
out further notice to the respondent, find the specifica-
tion to be true and enter such order as may be appropri-
ate.
According to the uncontroverted allegations of the
Motion for Summary Judgment, the Respondent, despite
having been advised of the filing requirements, has failed
to file an answer to the compliance specification. In the
absence 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 grant the Ge n-
eral Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Ac-
cordingly, we conclude that the amounts due the named
individuals are as stated in the compliance specification
and we will order payment by the Respondent of said
amounts to the named individuals, plus interest accrued
on said amounts to the date of payment, as set forth in
New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Elliott Metal Processing Co., Detroit,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall make whole the individuals named below, by pay-
ing them the amounts following their names, plus inter-
est:
Lonnie Dixon $1,167.00
Willie Mills 1,263.50
Joe Miree 782.65
Herbert Owens 5,241.42
TOTAL $8,454.57
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 18, 2000
John C. Truesdale, Chairman
Sarah M. Fox, Member
J. Robert Brame III, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD