Ozark Packing

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1992

308 N.L.R.B. 704 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

704
308 NLRB No. 97
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Motion for Summary Judgment states that the Respondent
was administratively dissolved by the Secretary of State for the State
of Missouri effective December 31, 1991. The compliance specifica-
tion was served on the Respondent at its last known place of busi-
ness and was returned to the Regional Office—‘‘Returned to send-
er—undeliverable as addressed—No forwarding order on file.’’ Cop-
ies of the specification were also served by certified mail on Nick
Tountas, president of the Respondent and Gus Tountas, secretary of
the Respondent, at their addresses. A return receipt was received by
the Regional Office from Gus Tountas. The specification sent to
Nick Tountas was returned as unclaimed. We find that service on
the corporate secretary in the circumstances here is adequate service.
Moreover, the Respondent’s failure to provide for receipt of properly
served documents cannot serve to defeat the purposes of the Act.
See Michigan Expediting Service, 282 NLRB 210 fn. 6 (1986).
Tountas Meat Packing, Inc. d/b/a Ozark Packing
and Teamsters Local Union 245, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
AFL–CIO. Cases 17–CA–14886, 17–CA–15002,
17–CA–15091, and 17–CA–15274
August 31, 1992
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
On June 3, 1991, the National Labor Relations
Board issued an unpublished Decision and Order, inter
alia, ordering Tountas Meat Packing, Inc. d/b/a Ozark
Packing to make whole certain of its unit employees
for loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
their discharges in violation of the National Labor Re-
lations Act. On March 23, 1992, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit enforced the
Board’s Order in its entirety.
A controversy having arisen over the amount of
backpay due discriminatees, on June 16, 1992, the Re-
gional Director for Region 7 issued a compliance spec-
ification 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 has failed to file an answer.1
By letter dated July 13, 1992, the Region advised
the Respondent that no answer to the compliance spec-
ification had been received and that unless an appro-
priate answer was filed by close of business July 20,
1992, summary judgment would be sought. The Re-
spondent filed no answer.
On August 7, 1992, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a Motion to Transfer Proceeding to the
Board and for Summary Judgment, with exhibits at-
tached. On August 11, 1992, the Board issued an order
transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice
to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted.
The Respondent again filed no response. The allega-
tions in the motion and in the compliance specification
are therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
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 Regu-
lations states:
If the respondent fails to file any answer 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 further notice to the
respondent, find the specification to be true and
enter such order as may be appropriate.
According to the uncontroverted allegations of the
Motion for Summary Judgment, the Respondent, de-
spite having been advised of the filing requirements,
has failed to file an answer to the compliance speci-
fication. In the absence of good cause for the Respond-
ent’s failure to file an answer, we deem the allegations
in the compliance specification to be admitted as true,
and grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the net back-
pay due the discriminatees is as stated in the compli-
ance specification and we will order payment by the
Respondent to the discriminatees.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Tountas Meat Packing, Inc. d/b/a Ozark
Packing, Pleasant Hope, Missouri, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall make whole the individ-
uals named below, by paying them the amounts fol-
lowing their names, with interest to be computed in the
manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987), minus tax withholdings re-
quired by Federal and state laws:
Percy Brandt $3,427.32
Robert Groen 1,043.65
Delbert Scott Mincks 3,191.93
Carolyn Smith 3,170.08
Jimmy Blanton 1,856.46
Jerry Lee 1,248.21
Juan Perez 158.29
Bobbie Brollier 2.51
Glen Johnston 66.62
Alejandro Navarro 503.52
Roger Seippel 1,348.17
Elaine Hood 63.32
John McGowin 54.35
705OZARK PACKING
Jesus Castro 561.47
Ismael Cruz 46.36
Armondo Faz 816.15
Bernardino Mendez 154.75
Pedro Castillega 653.63
Brenda Evans 24.83
Joel Prado 451.44
Gullermina Reyes 314.65
Jose Villagomes 418.20
Vanancio Palacios 240.00
Fortino Hernandez 298.20