Media One Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 876 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

876
313 NLRB No. 150
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The caption has been changed to conform to the pleadings.
2 Sec. 102.20 provides that the allegations in the complaint shall
be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days from
service of the complaint, unless good cause is shown.
3 The sole difference between the original and amended complaints
is that in the amended complaint the Respondents are alleged to be
alter egos and a single employer rather than a single entity as alleged
in the original complaint.
4 Because Media One’s alleged violations are derivative and stem
from its alleged alter ego/single employer status with Bauer-Kinnear,
which answered the original complaint, summary judgment is inap-
propriate as to Media One. TPS/Total Property Services, supra at fn.
2.
Media One Incorporated and its alter ego/single
employer1 Bauer-Kinnear Enterprises, Inc. and
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em-
ployees Local No. 15, AFL–CIO. Case 19–CA–
22425
February 28, 1994
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND TRUESDALE
Upon a charge filed by the Union on December 4,
1992, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a complaint on January 28, 1993,
against Media One Incorporated d/b/a Bauer-Kinnear
Enterprises, Inc., alleging that it violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
On February 19, 1993, it filed an answer to the com-
plaint admitting in part and denying in part the allega-
tions of the complaint. On September 24, 1993, the
General Counsel, based on further information regard-
ing the Respondent’s corporate structure, issued an
amended complaint and notice of hearing alleging that
Media One Incorporated and its alter ego/single em-
ployer Bauer-Kinnear Enterprises, Inc. violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Although properly served
copies of the amended complaint, neither Media One
nor Bauer-Kinnear filed an answer to the amended
complaint or moved for an extension of time for filing
an answer.
On October 22, 1993, the General Counsel filed a
motion to transfer case to Board and Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment, with exhibits attached. On October 26,
1993, the Board issued an order transferring proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the
motion should not be granted. The Respondents filed
no response. The allegations in the motion are there-
fore undisputed.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In the Motion for Summary Judgment, the General
Counsel contends that the Respondents have failed to
file an answer to the amended complaint and that,
under Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions,2 the Board should find the allegations of that
complaint to be true and issue an order based on those
findings. The amended complaint includes all the alle-
gations contained in the original complaint and addi-
tionally alleges that Bauer-Kinnear is the alter
ego/single employer of Media One.
We find that summary judgment is not appropriate
under the circumstances of this case. As noted above,
the substantive allegations of the amended complaint
are substantially the same as the allegations of the
original complaint,3 and were previously denied in the
answer to the initial complaint by Bauer-Kinnear. The
Board will not grant summary judgment based on a re-
spondent’s failure to answer an amended complaint’s
allegations that are substantively unchanged from alle-
gations contained in a prior version of the complaint
to which the respondent filed a proper denial.
TPS/Total Property Services, 306 NLRB 633 (1992);
Caribe Cleaning Services, 304 NLRB 932 (1991). Ac-
cordingly, we find that Bauer-Kinnear’s answer to the
original complaint satisfies the Respondents’ obligation
under Section 102.20 to file a timely answer, and we
accordingly deny the General Counsel’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.4
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the General Counsel’s Motion
for Summary Judgment is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is re-
manded to the Regional Director for Region 19 for fur-
ther appropriate action.