Robbins Engineering

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 22, 1994

314 N.L.R.B. 827 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

827
314 NLRB No. 136
ROBBINS ENGINEERING
1 We have amended the caption to add Les Robbins Service Co.,
Inc., which we have found to be an alter ego of, and a single or
joint employer with, California Oilfield Maintenance, Inc. d/b/a Rob-
bins Engineering. See discussion below.
2 311 NLRB 1079.
3 Les Robbins Service Co., Inc. was not included in the caption
of the amended compliance specification or the caption of the Gen-
eral Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and was not other-
wise named as a Respondent or specifically alleged to be liable for
the backpay due in the amended specification or motion. However,
as discussed supra, Les Robbins Service Co. was specifically alleged
in the amended specification to be an alter ego of, and a single or
joint employer with, the Respondent, and was served with a copy
of the amended specification. Further, it was also notified that a Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment would be filed if the Respondent did
not file a timely answer to the amended specification, and was sub-
sequently served with a copy of the motion. As indicated above, it
was also served with the amended Notice to Show Cause why it
should not be required with the Respondent to pay the amounts set
forth in the amended specification. Finally, no contention has been
made that Les Robbins Service Co. has been denied due process or
Continued
California Oilfield Maintenance, Inc. d/b/a Robbins
Engineering and Les Robbins Service Co., Inc.1
and Local Union No. 460 of the United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, affiliated with the
AFL–CIO. Case 31–CA–18828
August 22, 1994
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, DEVANEY, AND
BROWNING
On June 9, 1993, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order,2 inter alia, order-
ing the Respondent, California Oilfield Maintenance,
Inc. d/b/a Robbins Engineering, to reinstate Rick
Arlos, Orville Burks, George Ferguson, Mike Flowers,
Agee Holloway, Donald Jones, Pat Patterson, Harold
Sisemore Jr., and Curtis Taylor and to make them
whole for any loss of earnings incurred by them as a
result of the Respondent’s discrimination against them
in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. On
January 5, 1994, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit entered its judgment enforcing
the Board’s Order.
A controversy having arisen over the amount of
backpay due discriminatees, on April 18, 1994, the Re-
gional Director for Region 31, issued an amended
compliance specification alleging the amount due
under the Board’s Order, alleging in addition that the
Respondent and another corporation, Les Robbins
Service Co., Inc., are alter egos and a single or joint
employer within the meaning of the Act, 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 amended
compliance specification, neither the Respondent nor
Les Robbins Service Co. filed an answer.
By letters dated May 11 and June 8, 1994, counsel
for the General Counsel advised the Respondent and
Les Robbins Service Co., respectively, that no answer
to the amended compliance specification had been re-
ceived and that unless the Respondent filed an appro-
priate answer by June 14, 1994, summary judgment
would be sought. No answer was subsequently filed.
On July 5, 1994, the General Counsel filed with the
Board a Motion to Transfer Case to the Board and for
Summary Judgment on Amended Compliance Speci-
fication, with exhibits attached. On July 22, 1994, the
Board issued and served on the Respondent and Les
Robbins Service Co. an amended order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and Notice to Show Cause
why the motion should not be granted and the Re-
spondent and Les Robbins Service Co. be ordered to
pay the amounts set forth in the amended compliance
specification. No response was filed. The allegations in
the motion and in the amended compliance specifica-
tion 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, neither the Respond-
ent nor Les Robbins Service Co., despite having been
advised of the filing requirements, have filed an an-
swer to the amended compliance specification. In the
absence of good cause being shown for the failure to
file an answer, we deem the allegations in the amend-
ed 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 amended
compliance specification and we will order payment by
the Respondent and Les Robbins Service Co., as an
alter ego and single or joint employer, of the amounts
to the discriminatees, plus interest accrued on the
amounts to the date of payment.3
828 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
otherwise prejudiced. In these circumstances, we find that it is ap-
propriate, in the absence of any answer to the amended specification
or response to the Notice to Show Cause, to find that Les Robbins
Service Co. is liable with Respondent for the backpay amounts set
forth in the amended specification. Cf. Jerry’s United Super, 289
NLRB 125 (1988).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent is now, and has been at all times mate-
rial herein, a corporation duly organized under and ex-
isting by virtue of the laws of the State of California,
with offices and a principal place of business located
in Newhall, California, where it is engaged in general
engineering contracting services in area oilfields.
Since about May 10, 1991, Les Robbins Service Co.
has been a corporation duly organized under and exist-
ing by virtue of the laws of the State of California,
with offices and a principal place of business located
in Newhall, California, where it is engaged in general
engineering contracting services in area oilfields.
Since about May 10, 1991, the Respondent and Les
Robbins Service Co. have been affiliated enterprises
with common officers, ownership, and management,
have formulated and administered a common labor
policy affecting their employees, and are engaged in
the same type of business at the same address.
By virtue of their operations described above, the
Respondent and Les Robbins Service Co. constitute a
single-integrated business enterprise and are alter egos
and a single employer within the meaning of the Act.
Alternatively, by virtue of their operations described
above, the Respondent and Les Robbins Service Co.
have had and exercised joint control over the employ-
ment relationship of their employees, and therefore
have been, and are now, joint employers within the
meaning of the Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, California Oilfield Maintenance, Inc. d/b/a
Robbins Engineering and Les Robbins Service Co.,
Inc., Newhall, California, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall make whole the individuals
named below, by paying them the amounts following
their names, plus interest, minus tax withholdings re-
quired by Federal and state laws:
Ricky Arlos $211,354.46
Orville Burks 134,155.80
George Ferguson 135,629.06
Mike Flowers 216,403.07
Agee Holloway 169,238.77
Donald Jones 71,523.77
Pat Patterson 117,953.74
Harold Sisemore Jr. 129,610.09
Curtis Taylor 194,220.00