Security Plating Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 735 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

SECURITY PLATING, CO., INC. 735
security Plating Company , Inc. and Local 67,
Metal Polishers , Buffers, Platers & Helpers
International Union , AFL-CIO. Case
21-CA-5484
June 21, 1967
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On June 29, 1964, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding,' finding, inter alia, that
Respondent discriminatorily discharged Minnie
Badillo and Mickey Palmer in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and ordering that the discriminatees be
offered reinstatement and made whole for any loss of
pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them.
On December 30, 1966, the Regional Director for
Region 21 issued a backpay specification and notice
of hearing which were duly served upon the parties.
Respondent filed an alleged answer to the backpay
specification.
Pursuant to a motion to strike the answer for
failure to conform to the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended, Trial Examiner
Louis S. Penfield issued a telegraphic order
directing Respondent to show cause why the motion
to strike its answer should not be granted. A
response, containing a proposed second answer, was
filed by Respondent.
After duly considering the premises, the Trial
Examiner, on February 21, 1967, issued a formal
order, pursuant to Section 102.54(c) of the Rules and
Regulations of the Board, granting the motion to
strike the answer to the backpay specification.2
On April 6, 1967, Trial Examiner Louis S. Penfield
issued a Supplemental Decision in this proceeding, a
copy of which is attached hereto, in which he found,
in agreement with the backpay specification, that
the discriminatees were entitled to the following
payments: Minnie Badillo, $3,666.58, and Mickey
Palmer, $2,939.21. The Respondent filed exceptions
to the Supplemental Decision. Counsel for the
Regional Director filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case, including the Trial Examiner's Supplemental
Decision, Respondent's exceptions thereto, and
answering brief, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and on the basis of the
entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Security Plating Company, Inc., Pico Rivera,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall make Minnie Badillo and Mickey
Palmer whole by payment to each of them of the
respective amounts set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Supplemental Decision.
1 147 NLRB 877
2 See Ohio Scientific Products Corporation, 151 NLRB 460,
461-463
TRIAL EXAMINER'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came before me following the initiation of a
backpay proceeding by the Regional Director for Region
21 pursuant to the provisions of Sections 102.52 and 102.53
of the Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
A backpay specification and notice of hearing in
conformity with such rules was issued on December 30,
1966, and thereafter duly served upon the parties.
Subsequent thereto, an answer to the backpay
specification was filed by Respondent. On February 3,
1967, counsel for the Regional Director filed a motion to
strike such answer alleging that the purported answer did
not conform to the requirements of the Board Rules in
certain particulars. Such motion was referred to me for
ruling. Thereafter, I issued a telegraphic order to show
cause why such motion should not be granted. A response
thereto was duly received from Respondent. After having
duly considered such response, and the items above noted
which comprise the so-called backpay specification
record, I issued an order granting the motion to strike the
answer to the backpay specification and finding the
allegations of the backpay specification to be true.
My order of February 21, 1967, sets forth fully the
reasons which I found to support it and such are expressly
incorporated in and made part of this Supplemental
Decision. In summary, I ruled that the original purported
answer filed by Respondent failed to meet the
requirements of the Board Rules and Regulations, that no
adequate answer was filed within the time limit as
extended by the Regional Director, that the response to
the order to show cause showed no excuse for
Respondent's earlier failure to file an appropriate answer,
and that the purported answer which it sought to file with
such response showed continuing disregard for the
requirements of the Rules since it was not properly
verified. Under the circumstances, I deemed it
appropriate to grant the motion to strike the answer, to
order that the allegations of the backpay specification be
deemed admitted as true without taking evidence in
support of such allegations, and that Respondent be
precluded from introducing any evidence controverting
such allegations . Such order had the necessary effect of
cancelling the hearing theretofore scheduled upon the
backpay specification.
165 NLRB No. 138
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon consideration of the foregoing, and upon the basis
of the ruling heretofore made by me in my order of
February 21, 1967, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The allegations of the backpay specification and
notice of hearing issued by the Regional Director on
December 30, 1966, conform fully with the requirements
of Sections 102.52 and 102.53 of the Rules.
2. I have heretofore found in my order above described
that Respondent has not filed an answer to the
specification which meets the requirements of Section
102.54 of the Rules, and that the effect of such failure is
that allegations of the specification are to be deemed true,
and Respondent precluded from adducing evidence to
controvert such allegations . Accordingly, I hereby find
that the allegations contained in numbered paragraphs 1
through 21 of the backpay specification show specifically
and in detail for each employee involved the appropriate
backpay periods broken down by calendar quarters, the
specific figures and basis for computation as to gross
backpay, and the interim earnings and the expenses for
each quarter.
3. I further find that upon the basis of the foregoing
findings relating to backpay periods, gross backpay,
interim earnings and expenses, the sums set forth after the
names of each employee as listed below plus interest at 6
percent per annum, but minus any tax withholding
required by Federal or State laws, constitute the net
backpay due.
Minnie Badillo $3,666.58
Mickey Palmer 2,939.21
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record as made in this proceeding, it is
recommended that the Board adopt the findings of fact
herein and issue such decision and order as may be
appropriate requiring and directing that the Respondent,
Security Plating Company, Inc., pay Minnie Badillo and
Mickey Palmer the amounts of backpay due them together
with interest as set forth above.