Mackinac Jacks

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 309 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

MACKINAC JACKS 309
Mari-Weather, Inc. d/b/a Mackinac Jacks andKathe-
rive King. Case 7-CA-10088
December 5, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
On August 29, 1973, the National Labor Relations
Board issued an Order adopting, in the absence of ex-
ceptions, the Decision of an Administrative Law Judge
directing the Respondent, inter alia, to offer immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions and to make whole Katherine
King, Donna Jacobson, Deborah Owens, and Lonnie
Odom, Jr., for any loss of earnings resulting from Re-
spondent's discrimination against them. On January
15, 1974, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit entered its order enforcing in full the
backpay provisions of the Board's Order. A contro-
versy having arisen over the amount of backpay due
under the terms of the Board's Order, as enforced by
the court, the Regional Director for Region 7, on July
3, 1974, issued a backpay specification and notice of
hearing alleging the amounts of backpay due under the
terms of the Board's Order. Respondent failed to file an
answer to the specification.
On August 29, 1974, the General Counsel filed di-
rectly with the Board in Washington, D.C., a Motion
for Summary Judgment. The Board, on September 6,
1974, issued an order transferring proceeding to the
Board and Notice To Show Cause why the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not
be granted. Respondent failed to file a response 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:
to the specification 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 without notice to the respondent,
find the specification to be true and enter such
order as may be appropriate... .
The backpay specification, issued and served on the
Respondent on July 3, 1974, and again on July 23,
1974, explicitly states that the Respondent shall, within
15 days from the date of the specification, file an an-
swer to the specification with the Regional Director for
Region 7 and that, if the answer fails to deny the allega-
tions of the specification in the manner required under
the Board's Rules and Regulations and the failure to do
so is not adequately explained, such allegations shall be
deemed to be admitted to be true and the Respondent
shall be precluded from introducing any evidence con-
troverting them.
According to the Motion for Summary Judgment,
the corporate agent and treasurer of Respondent
refused service of the backpay specification and notice
of hearing on or about July 8, 1974. On July 23, 1974,
the Regional Director for Region 7 served on the Re-
spondent, by registered and regular mail, pursuant to
Michigan statutes providing for substituted service, a
second copy of the backpay specification and notice of
hearing. As of the date of the Motion for Summary
Judgment, Respondent had not filed an answer to the
specification nor had it requested an extension of time
to file. Respondent also failed to ' file a response to the
Notice to Show Cause. The allegations of the Motion
for Summary Judgment are, therefore, uncontroverted.
Since Respondent has not filed an answer to the specifi-
cation, in accordance with the rules set forth above, are
deemed to be admitted and are so found-by the Board.
Accordingly, on the basis of the allegations of the
specification which are accepted as true, the Board
finds the facts as set forth therein, concludes that the
net backpay due each discriminatee is as stated in the
computations of the specification, and hereinafter or-
ders the payment thereof by the Respondent to each
discriminatee.
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regulations
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 any answer
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Respondent, Mari-Weather,
Inc., d/b/a Mackinac Jacks, Ann Arbor, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make
whole each of the discriminatees named below by pay-
ing them the amounts set forth adjacent to their names
plus interest accrued at the rate of 6 percent per annum
215 NLRB No. 48
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to be computed in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumb- Donna Jacobson $451.87
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), until all Deborah Owens $2,323.16
backpay due is paid , less the tax withholdings required Katherine King $2,183.52
by Federal , state , and municipal laws. Lonnie Odom, Jr. $1,588.34