Fiore Trucking and Contracting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 17, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 492 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
William Fiore d/b/a Fiore Trucking and Contracting
Company and Kenneth L. Fine and Donald Fine.
Cases 6-CA-6820 and 6-CA-6828 . {
November 17, 1975
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
On February 13, 1974, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued an Order adopting, in the absence
of exceptions, the Decision of the Administrative
Law Judge, in the above-entitled proceeding. The
Board ordered, inter alia,, that the Respondent make
whole certain of its employees for any loss of pay
they may have suffered as a result, of the Respon-
dent's unlawful conduct. Thereafter, on April 29,
1975, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit entered its judgment enforcing in full
the Board's Order. A controversy having arisen as to
the amounts of backpay due under the. terms of the
Board's Order, as enforced by the court, the Regional
Director for Region 6, on June 30, 1975, issued and
duly served on the Respondent a backpay specifica-
tion and notice of hearing, alleging the amounts of
backpay due, the employees under the Board's Order
and notifying the Respondent that it shall file a
timely answer which must comply with the Board's
Rules and Regulations. Thereafter, on July 18, 1975,
after receiving an extension of time, Respondent filed
its answer to the specification in which ' it made a
general denial of various allegations in4the specifica-
tion and admitted others. In essence, Respondent
denied the propriety of the Regional Director's
method of computing, the hours the discriminatees
would have worked 'during the applicable backpay
period insofar as that method, according to Respon-
dent, failed to account for the fact that the discrimi-
natees "had the worst absenteeism record of Respon-
dent's employees." In addition, Respondent made a
general denial of the Regional Director's computa-
tion of the discriminatees' interim earnings. 11
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
On July 31, 1975, counsel for the General Counsel
filed directly with the Board a motion for summary
judgment. Subsequently, on August 28, 1975, the
Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to
the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the
General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment
221 NLRB No. 100
should not be granted: On September 9, 1975,-the
Respondent filed a response to