Eckart Trucking, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 2002

337 N.L.R.B. 69 (N.L.R.B. 2002)

1
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the E x­
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.
Eckart Trucking, Inc. and Dixie Cannon. Case 32-
CA–17765–1
May 6, 2002
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, COWEN, AND BARTLETT
The General Counsel in this case seeks summary
judgment on the ground that the Respondent has failed to
file an answer to the compliance specification.
On November 15, 2000, the National Labor Relations
Board issued an Order directing the Respondent, Eckart
Trucking, Inc., to make whole Dixie Cannon for loss of
earnings and other benefits resulting from her discharge
in violation of the Act.1 On April 30, 2001, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a
judgment enforcing the Board’s Order.2
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay due Cannon, on August 13, 2001, the Regional Di­
rector for Region 32 issued a compliance specification
and notice of hearing alleging the amount due under the
Board’s Order, and notifying the Respondent 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.3
On October 25, 2001, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment, with exhib­
its attached. On October 30, 2001, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a No­
tice to Show Cause why the motion should not be
granted. The Respondent again filed no response. The
allegations in the motion and in the compliance
specification are therefore undisputed.4
1 Unpublished Order adopting the decision of Administrative Law
Judge Albert A. Metz, in the absence of exceptions.
2 No. 01–70252. On June 21, 2001, the Ninth Circuit issued an Or­
der denying the Respondent’s objection to the entry of the judgment.
3 The Respondent refused to accept service of the compliance speci­
fication and notice of hearing. A respondent’s failure or refusal to
claim certified mail or to provide for receiving appropriate service
cannot serve to defeat the purposes of the Act. See Michigan Expedit­
ing Service, 282 NLRB 210 fn. 6 (1986).
4 Although it appears that no further reminder letter was sent to the
Respondent, this does not warrant denying the General Counsel’s Mo­
tion for Summary Judgment. See, e.g., Superior Industries, 289 NLRB
834, 835 fn. 13 (1988).
The Board has delegated its authority in this proceed­
ing to a three-member panel.
On the entire record in this case, the Board makes the
following
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 Regula­
tions 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 uncontroverted allegations of the Mo­
tion for Summary Judgment, the Respondent, despite hav­
ing been advised of the filing requirements, has failed to
file an answer to the compliance specification. In the
absence of good cause for the Respondent’s failure to file
an answer, we deem the allegations in the compliance
specification to be admitted as true, and grant the Ge neral
Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly,
we conclude that the net backpay due Dixie Cannon for
the period of August 16, 1999, through August 13, 2001,
is as stated in the compliance specification, and we will
order payment by the Respondent of the amount to Can-
non, plus interest accrued on that amount to the date of
payment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Eckart Trucking, Inc., Elko, Nevada, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make
whole Dixie Cannon, by paying her $13,810.35, plus
interest and minus tax withholdings required by Federal
and State laws.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 6, 2002
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
William B. Cowen, Member
Michael J. Bartlett, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
337 NLRB No. 69
2