Ha's Bi-Rite & Hang Jak Lee

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 749 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

HA'S BI-RITE AND HANG JAK L.EE 749
Three Brother's Market d/b/a Ha's Bi-Rite and
Hang Jak Lee d/b/a Jack's Family Bi-Rite,
Successor Employer and West Ewing. Case 14-
CA- 11898
August 27, 1980
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND TRUESDALE
On January 22, 1980, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued an Order' adopting, in the ab-
sence of exceptions, the Decision of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge in Case 14-CA-11898 directing
Respondent Three Brother's Market, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, to, inter alia, make
whole employees West Ewing and Tammy Shaw
for any loss of pay suffered by reason of Respond-
ent Three Brother's Market's discrimination against
them. A controversey having arisen over the
amount of backpay due under the terms of the
Order, the Regional Director for Region 14, on
May 13 and 15, 1980, issued and duly served on
Respondents a backpay specification and notice of
hearing alleging, inter alia, that Hang Jak Lee d/b/
a Jack's Family Bi-Rite assumed the business and
operations of Respondent Three Brother's Market
on April 9, 1979, and has engaged in substantially
the same business operations with substantially the
same employees and equipment as that of Respond-
ent Three Brother's Market. Accordingly, the spec-
ification alleged that Hang Jak Lee is a successor
to Respondent Three Brother's Market and that
Respondents predecessor employer and successor
employer are jointly and severally liable for all
backpay due under the Board's Order. The specifi-
cation further alleged the amount of backpay due
and notified Respondents predecessor employer
and successor employer that they should file timely
answers complying with the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
Respondents predecessor employer and successor
employer did not file an answer to backpay specifi-
cation. Counsel for the General Counsel subse-
quently informed Respondents predecessor employ-
er and successor employer of the requirement to
file an answer and that the failure to do so could
result in its filing directly with the Board a Motion
for Summary Judgment. On June 12, 1980, counsel
for the General Counsel filed with the Board a
Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the
failure of Respondents predecessor employer and
successor employer to file an answer to the back-
pay specification as required by Section 102.54(a)
i Not reported ill wllum, Iof Hoard Deciilonr
251 NLRB No. 100
of the Board's Rules and Regulations. The Board,
on June 23, 1980, issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Cause why the General Counsel's motion should
not be granted. Respondents predecessor employer
and successor employer have not filed any re-
sponse to the Notice To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding. the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) . . . The respondent shall, within 15 days
from the service of the specification, if any,
file an answer thereto ....
(c) . . . If the respondent fails to file an
answer to the specification within the time
prescribed by this section, the Board may,
either with or without taking evidence in sup-
port of the allegations of the specification and
without notice to the respondent. find the
specification to be true and enter such order as
may be appropriate ....
Respondents predecessor employer and successor
employer have failed to file an answer to the back-
pay specification and have made no response to the
Notice To Show Cause. Therefore, the motion to
find the backpay specification true is granted, and
the obligations of the backpay specification are
deemed to be admitted pursuant to Section
102.54(c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations.
Accordingly, we find that the allegations of the
specification are deemed to be admitted as true,
and that the net amount of backpay due the two
discriminatees is as stated in the computation in the
specification. We hereby order payment thereof.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that Respondent Three
Brother's Market d/b/a Ha's Bi-Rite and Respond-
ent Hang Jak Lee d/b/a Jack's Family Bi-Rite, St.
Louis, Missouri, their officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall make whole each of the discri-
minatees named below by paying them the amounts
set forth adjacent to their names, plus interest to be
computed in the manner specified in Florida Steel
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977), until payment
75() DECISIONS OF NAIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BO)ARD
of all backpay due, less tax withholding required
by Federal and state laws.2
Membher JellkiS hould aiard icrcm on the hackpay due hbascd n
his disst h i m i Olvmp .Mcdual ('orporaiion, 250 NL RB No 1 (19 ()).
West Ewing
Tammy Shaw
$856.38
$172.80
I