New Truck Transport, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 328 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New Truck Transport, Inc. and Thomas O'Hearon and
James Johnson and William Shuff and Claudino
Rivera. Cases 28-CA-1699 and 28-CA-1761
March 12, 1973
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On September 22, 1969, the National Labor
Relations Board issued its Decision and Order'
adopting the Trial Examiner's 2 Decision in which he
directed, inter alia, that the Respondent make whole
Thomas A. O'Hearon, James C. Johnson, Henry M.
Chayrez, William O. Shuff, and Claudino Rivera for
loss of pay suffered by them by reason of the
Respondent's discrimination against them. On May
11, 1971, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit entered its judgment, enforcing in full
the backpay provisions of the Board's Order. A
controversy having arisen over the amounts of
backpay due under the terms of the Board's Order,
as enforced by the court, the Acting Regional
Director for Region 28, on October 18, 1972, issued
and duly served upon the Respondent a Backpay
Specification and Notice of Hearing alleging the
amounts of backpay due the discriminatees under
the Board's Order and notifying the Respondent
that, pursuant to Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Respon-
dent shall, within 15 days from the date of the
specification, file an answer to the specification. The
Respondent failed to file such an answer.
Thereafter, on December 7, 1972, counsel for the
General Counsel filed directly with the Board a
Motion for Summary Judgment on the pleadings and
issuance of a Board Order and Decision. Subse-
quently, on December 19, 1972, the Board issued an
Order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a
Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's
motion should not be granted. Respondent failed to
file a response to Notice To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority 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-
1 178 NLRB 545
2 The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
tions, Series 8, as amended, 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 . . . .
(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 support 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
the Respondent on October 18, 1972, specifically
states that the Respondent shall, within 15 days from
the date of the specification, file with the Regional
Director for Region 28 an answer to the specification
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 the
Respondent shall be precluded from introducing any
evidence controverting them. According to the
Motion for Summary Judgment, the Respondent
failed to file an answer to the specification which was
due 15 days from October 18, 1972, and as of
December 5, 1972, the date of the Motion for
Summary Judgment, the Respondent had filed no
answer with the Regional Director and has not
indicated that it would file an answer. The Respon-
dent also failed to file a response to the Notice To
Show Cause and, therefore, the allegations of the
Motion for Summary Judgment stand uncontrovert-
ed. Since the Respondent has failed to file an answer
to the specification and has offered no explanation
for its failure to do so, in accordance with Section
102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
allegations of the specification are deemed to be
admitted to be true and so found by the Board
without taking evidence in support of the said
allegations.
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 discriminatees, Thomas
A. O'Hearon, James C. Johnson, Henry J. Chayrez,
William O. Shuff, and Claudino Rivera, is as stated
in the computations of the specification and orders
the payment thereof by the Respondent to each
discriminatee.
Judge" effective August 19, 1972.
202 NLRB No. 27
NEW TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC. 329
ORDER their names, plus interest accrued at the rate of 6
percent per annum to be computed in the manner
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor specified in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor 716, until payment of all backpay due, less tax
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, withholdings required by Federal and state laws:
New Truck Transport, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall make whole each of the Thomas A. O'Hearon $836.28
discriminatees, Thomas A. O'Hearon, James C. James C. Johnson $420.75
Johnson, Henry M. Chayrez, William O. Shuff, and Henry M. Chayrez $573.90
Claudino Rivera, the employees named below, by William O. Shuff $483.09
payment to them of the amounts set forth adjacent to Claudino Rivera $374.46