Jet Electric

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 2005

345 N.L.R.B. 7 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

345 NLRB No. 7
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.
Jet Electric Company, Inc. and James Andrew Jack-
son d/b/a Jet Electric, a Sole Proprietorship and
Local Union 342 of the International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO. Case
11–CA–18395
August 23, 2005
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
The Acting General Counsel seeks a default judgment
in this case on the ground that the Respondent has failed
to file an answer to the compliance specification.1
On November 22, 2002, the Board issued a Supple-
mental Decision and Order2 that, among other things,
ordered the Respondent to make whole Rodney Booe,
Stanley Grace, Jerry Loftis, Roger Stanley, Douglas
Summers, Allen Craver, Gary Maurice, and Percival Mil-
lington for any loss of earnings and benefits they may
have suffered as a result of the Respondent’s unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. On May 3, 2004, the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Fourth Circuit entered its Order enforcing
the Board’s Order.3
A controversy having arisen over the amounts of
backpay due the discriminatees, on May 31, 2005, the
Acting Regional Director issued a compliance specifica-
tion and notice of hearing alleging the amounts due un-
der the Board’s Order. The compliance specification
notified the Respondent that it should file an answer by
June 21, 2005, 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 certified letter dated June 22, 2005, the Regional
Attorney advised the Respondent that no answer to the
compliance specification had been received and that
unless an answer was filed by June 29, 2005, a Motion
for Summary Judgment would be filed. To date, the Re-
spondent has not filed an answer.
On July 11, 2005, the Acting General Counsel filed
with the Board a Motion for Default Judgment and a
memorandum in support, with exhibits attached. On July
13, 2005, the Board issued an order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why

1 The Acting General Counsel’s motion is titled a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment. However, because the basis of the motion is the Re-
spondent’s failure to file an answer, we construe the motion as a motion
for default judgment.
2 338 NLRB 650.
3 03–1818.
the motion should not be granted. The Respondent did
not file a response. The allegations in the motion and in
the compliance specification are therefore undisputed.4
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 Respondent, despite hav-
ing 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 Acting
General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment. Ac-
cordingly, we conclude that the net backpay due the dis-
criminatees is as stated in the compliance specification
and we will order the Respondent to pay those amounts
to the discriminatees, plus interest accrued to the date of
payment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Jet Electric Company, Inc. and James An-
drew Jackson d/b/a Jet Electric, A Sole Proprietorship,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall make whole the individuals
named below, by paying them the amounts following
their names, plus interest accrued to the date of payment,
as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), minus tax withholdings required by
Federal and State laws:

4 Chairman Battista and Member Schaumber did not participate in
the original decision on the merits, or in the supplemental decision.
They express no view as to whether they were correctly decided. How-
ever, as these matters have been finally adjudicated, and in the absence
of an answer by the Respondent to the compliance specification, they
agree with their colleague to the entry of this Second Supplemental
Decision and Order.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Rodney Booe $ 948.50
Stanley Grace 0.00
Jerry Loftis 3,222.00
Roger Stanley 11,492.89
Douglas Summers 0.00
Allen Craver 1,144.00
Gary Maurice 16,490.00
Percival Millington 1,336.98
TOTAL BACKPAY: $ 34,634.37
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 23, 2005
Robert J. Battista, Chairman
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD