Advance Electrical

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1999

330 N.L.R.B. 16 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

330 NLRB No. 16
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.
Vantron, Inc., d/b/a Advance Electrical Services and
its Alter Ego and Single Employer Advance
Contracting, a Sole Proprietorship and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union 716. Case 16–CA–18840
November 18, 1999
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
On September 10, 1998, the National Labor Relations
Board issued an unpublished Order, inter alia, directing
Vantron, Inc., d/b/a Advance Electrical Services, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns to, among other
things, make whole John Gafford for any loss of earnings
and other benefits he suffered resulting from the dis-
crimination against him, in violation of the National La-
bor Relations Act. On March 23, 1999, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a Mandate
enforcing in full the Board’s Order.
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay due John Gafford, on August 27, 1999,1 the Acting
Regional Director for Region 16 issued a compliance
specification and notice of hearing alleging the amount
due under the Board’s Order, and notifying the Respon-
dent that it should file a timely answer 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 letter dated September 22, 1999, counsel for the
General Counsel advised the Respondent, by facsimile
transmission and by first class mail, that no answer to the

1 Although the reminder letter and the General Counsel’s motion
state that issuance and service of the compliance specification were
performed on August 6, 1999, the compliance specification is dated
August 27, 1999 (see Exh. A). Furthermore, the affidavit of service
reflects that the specification was served on the parties on August 27,
1999. The inadvertent errors in the letter and motion do not affect the
result in this proceeding.
compliance specification had been received and that unless
an appropriate answer was filed by October 4, 1999, default
summary judgment would be sought. The Respondent filed
no answer.
On October 18, 1999, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a Motion to Transfer and Continue Case Be-
fore the Board and Motion for Default Summary Judg-
ment, with exhibits attached. On October 21, 1999, the
Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion
should not be granted. The Respondent again filed no
response. The allegations in the motion and in the com-
pliance specification are therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.56(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions provides that the Respondent shall file an answer
within 21 days from service of a compliance specifica-
tion. Section 102.56(c) of the Board’s Rules and Regu-
lations states:
If the respondent fails to file any answer to the specifi-
cation 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 with-
out further notice to the respondent, find the specifica-
tion to be true and enter such order as may be appropri-
ate.
According to the
Motion for Default Summary Judgment, the Respondent,
despite having been advised of the filing requirements,
a-
failure to file an answer, we deem the allegations in the
compliance specification to be admitted as true, and grant
the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Summary
Judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the net back
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
pay due John Gafford is as stated in the compliance specifi-
cation and we will order payment by the Respondent of that
amount to Gafford, plus interest accrued on that amount to
the date of payment.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Vantron, Inc., d/b/a Advance Electrical
Services and its Alter Ego and single employer Advance

2 The compliance specification alleges, inter alia, that on or about
June 24, 1998, Respondent Advance Contracting, a sole proprietorship,
was established by Respondent Vantron, Inc., d/b/a Advance Electrical
Services, as a disguised continuance. The specification also alleges
that, at all material times, the two entities have been affiliated business
enterprises with common officers, ownership, directors, management,
and supervision; have administered a common labor policy; have
shared common premises, facilities, and telephones; have provided
services for, and made sales to, each other; have interchanged personnel
with each other; and have held themselves out to the public as a single-
integrated business enterprise. The specification further alleges that,
based on their conduct and operations, Respondent Advance Contract-
ing, a sole proprietorship, and Respondent Vantron, Inc., d/b/a Advance
Electrical Services are, and have been at all material times, alter egos
and a single employer within the meaning of the Act. In the absence of
an answer to the specification, we find these allegations to be true.
Contracting, a Sole Proprietorship, Deer Park, Texas, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make
whole John Gafford, by paying him the amount follow-
ing his name, plus interest accrued to date of payment
and minus tax withholdings required by Federal and state
laws:
John Gafford Total: $5,640
Dated, Washington, D.C. November 18, 1999
Sarah M. Fox, Member
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
Peter J. Hurtgen, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD