The Harris House

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 973 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

HARRIS HOUSE 973
The Harris House and Hotel and Restaurant Em-
ployees and Bartenders Union, Local 50, Hotel
and Restaurant ' Employees and Bartenders
International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 20-CA-
19734
30 September 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
In the absence of exceptions to the decision of
Administrative Law Judge Richard D. Taplitz in
this case, the National Labor Relations Board, by
Order dated 2 January 1986, adopted the judge's
decision, which required the Respondent to make
whole Robert Brown for any losses resulting from
his unlawful discharge. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enforced the Board's
Order. 1
On 16 May 1986 the Acting Regional Director
for Region 20 issued a' backpay specification and
notice of hearing, alleging the amount of backpay
due Brown and notifying the Respondent that it
should file an answer to the specification in accord-
ance with the Board's Rules and Regulations. The
Respondent did not file an answer, and on 21 July
1986 the General Counsel filed a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment. On -23 July 1986 the Board trans-
ferred the proceeding to the Board and issued a
Notice to Show Cause why the General Counsel's
Motion should not be granted. The Respondent did
not respond to the Notice to Show Cause.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding 'to a three-
member panel.
On the entire record, the Board makes the fol-
lowing
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions requires a respondent to file an answer to a
backpay specification within 15 days and to "spe-
cifically admit,' deny, or explain each and every al-
legation of the specification." As to matters within
a respondent's knowledge, the Section declares that
"a general denial shall not suffice." Section 102.54
further provides that if a respondent fails to answer
or plead specifically and in- detail to the backpay
1 No 86-7135 (May 14, 1986).
specification, the Board may find the allegations of
the specification to be true.
The backpay specification and notice of hearing
in this case informed the Respondent of the re-
quirements of Section 102.54, but the Respondent
did not file an answer . The Respondent did write a
letter to Region 20, received by the Region on 6
June 1986, stating that it disagreed with the fmd-
ings of the specification and was unable to pay the
specified amount. The Respondent inquired about
the possibility of settling the backpay claim and
making installment payments.2 An attorney in the
Regional Office answered the Respondent by letter
dated 18 June 1986, setting forth conditions for
making installment payments, and inviting further
discussion. The letter also pointed out that the Re-
spondent had not filed an answer to the backpay
specification as required, and stated that if an
answer was not received by 25 June 1986, a
Motion for Summary Judgment would be recom-
mended. The Respondent did not respond further,
The Respondent's letter to the Region clearly
does not meet the conditions of Section 102.54 and
does not constitute an "answer" as required by that
Section.
Because the Respondent has failed to file an
answer to the backpay specification, although noti-
fied of the requirements of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, and has not explained the failure to
file, we deem the allegations of the backpay specifi-
cation to be admitted as true, and we grant the
General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders the
Respondent, The Harris House, Vacaville, Califor-
nia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, to
pay Robert Brown the amount set forth in the
backpay specification, plus interest at the appropri-
ate rate, minus tax withholdings required by Feder-
al and state laws, subject to the accrual of addition-
al interest until payment is effected.
2 The Respondent's letter was undated and signed by the owner The
body of the letter reads:
In as much, [sic] as I'm not in agreement with the findings outlined
by the N.L.R.B it, might be to my,best interest to attempt to settle
the claim
It is impossible [sic] for me to make a payment of $3986 16 or any
part of that amount at this time. Could you please advise me if this
could be paid on a monthly basis I'm [sic] having a very hard time
even keeping my doors open for business.
Please advise me of any possibilities of settlement that I may have.
281 NLRB No. 131