Quality Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1998

326 N.L.R.B. 83 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

QUALITY HOTEL 83
Charles Zanetis and Shayne L. Zanetis d/b/a Quality
Hotel and Marvine Nesbeth. Case 9–CA–30145

August 19, 1998

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND BRAME
On April 26, 1994, the National Labor Relations Board
issued a Decision and Order,1 inter alia, ordering the Re-
spondent, Charles S. Zanetis and Shayne L. Zanetis d/b/a
Quality Hotel to reinstate and make whole discriminatees
Wanda Alexander, Dale Brown, Sharon Davis, Barbara
Hall, Latasha Hall, Shannon McDole Harriman, Pearl
McDole, Janet Mitchell, Marvine Nesbith, and Tujuania
Perry, for loss of earnings and benefits they suffered re-
sulting from the Respondent’s unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On March 12,
1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit enforced the Board’s Order.2
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay due, on August 13, 1996, the Regional Director for
Region 9 issued a compliance specification and notice of
hearing alleging the amount of backpay due the discrimi-
natees. On October 28, 1996, the Respondent, proceed-
ing pro se, filed an answer to the specification, but with
the Sixth Circuit, and not the Board’s Regional Office.
On November 12, 1996, the General Counsel filed a Mo-
tion for Default Summary Judgment with the Board, cit-
ing the Respondent’s alleged failure to file an answer to
the specification. The Sixth Circuit forwarded the Re-
spondent’s answer to the Board’s Division of Judges on
November 18, 1996. On December 6, 1996, the General
Counsel filed with the Board a Motion for Partial Sum-
mary Judgment and Motion to Strike Portions of the Re-
spondent’s Answer to the Compliance Specification.
On May 30, 1997, the Board issued its Supplemental
Decision and Order3 denying the General Counsel’s ini-
tial Motion for Summary Judgment but granting the
General Counsel’s Motion for Partial Summary Judg-
ment, except with regard to the allegations concerning
the amounts of interim earnings, and the motion to strike
portions of the Respondent’s answer.
Pursuant to the Board’s Supplemental Decision and
Order, a hearing was held on February 24, 1998, before
Administrative Law Judge David L. Evans to determine
interim earnings of the discriminatees and the net back-
pay liability. Although duly served notice of that hear-
ing, the Respondent did not appear. After producing
evidence from the compliance officer of the Regional
Office as to how the computations in the specification
had been made, the General Counsel made a motion for a
bench decision under Section 102.45 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations. The judge granted the motion for
a bench decision and issued an order that the Respondent
make whole the discriminatees by paying them the
amounts set forth in the specification. The Respondent
filed exceptions to the judge’s Second Supplemental De-
cision and Order, and the Acting General Counsel filed a
brief in opposition.

1 313 NLRB 1119.
2 No. 94–6425 (unpublished).
3 323 NLRB 154.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and record in
light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to af-
firm the judge’s rulings, findings,4 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Charles Zanetis and Shayne L. Zanetis,
d/b/a Quality Hotel, Louisville, Kentucky, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order and make whole the individuals named
below by paying them the amounts following their names
plus interest as computed pursuant to New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), less any taxes
withheld pursuant to state or Federal law:

Wanda Alexander $1,518
Dale Brown 2,000
Barbara Hall 0
Sharon Davis 8,293
Latasha Hall 3,782
Sharon McDole Harriman 3,335
Pearl McDole 8,625
Janet Mitchell 7,117
Marvine Nesbeth 2,308
Tujuania Perry 507
TOTAL: $37,485

4 We find without merit the Respondent’s contention that a new
hearing should be held. Although the Respondent did not appear at the
hearing, a letter from the Respondent’s counsel was hand-delivered to
the General Counsel and the judge during the hearing alleging that
counsel for the General Counsel had represented to the Respondent that
there would be a conference call with the judge before the date of the
hearing to discuss postponement of the hearing and a possible settle-
ment. After reading the letter admitted into evidence as G.C. Exh. 3 in
the presence of the judge, counsel for the General Counsel stated on the
record that the portion of the letter concerning an alleged conference
call was untrue. Further, counsel for the General Counsel referred to a
letter dated February 18, 1998, which she had written to the Respon-
dent, and which was admitted into evidence as G.C. Exh. 2(b), in which
she informed the Respondent that the judge had asked her to advise the
Respondent to seek counsel and that he did not intend to initiate a con-
ference call. It is clear from the judge’s decision that he accepted coun-
sel for the General Counsel’s representations on this matter as true.
The record further shows that the Respondent had ample time to
seek counsel to represent it at the hearing, and it offered no explanation
as to why it had only retained counsel the day before the hearing. Fur-
thermore, at no time has the Respondent made an offer of proof con-
cerning any factual disputes over alleged interim earnings on the part of
the discriminatees, which was the sole issue before the judge.
326 NLRB No. 22