Sun Inn, Inc. d/b/a San Antonio Inn

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1982

261 N.L.R.B. 988 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sun Inn, Inc. d/b/a San Antonio Inn and Deborah
Ousley. Case 14-CA-14431
May 18, 1982
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, AND
HUNTER
On May 5, 1981,1 the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order2 in the above-
entitled proceeding, in which the Board granted
the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judg-
ment and found, inter alia, that Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by discharging em-
ployee Deborah Ousley because she engaged in
protected concerted activities. The Board ordered,
inter alia, that Respondent make whole Deborah
Ousley for any loss of pay she may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination practiced against
her. On October 23, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit entered its judg-
ment enforcing in full the Board's Order, including
its backpay provisions. A controversy 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 14, on No-
vember 13, issued and duly served3 on Respondent
a backpay specification and notice of hearing, set-
ting forth certain allegations with respect to the
amount of backpay due to Deborah Ousley under
the Board's Order, and notifying Respondent that
it must file a timely answer pursuant to the Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Re-
spondent failed to file a timely answer to the speci-
fication.
Thereafter, on December 21, counsel for the
General Counsel filed with the National Labor Re-
lations Board a Motion for Summary Judgment,
with exhibits attached. On December 30, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the Gen-
eral Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment
I Unless otherwise specified, all dates refer to 1981.
2 255 NLRB 1321.
s The General Counsel submits that, on November 13, a copy of the
backpay specification and notice of hearing was sent by certified mail to
Respondent's place of business. On December 2, it was returned marked
"unclaimed." Subsequently, personal service of the backpay specification
and notice of hearing was made on December 9 on Respondent's clerk at
Respondent's place of business. On December 10, counsel for the General
Counsel sent a letter by regular mail to Respondent, which included a
copy of the backpay specification and notice of hearing. The letter ad-
vised Respondent that it was required by the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions to file an answer within 15 days from the date of the specification,
and that if such an answer were not filed the allegations of the specifica-
tion would be deemed to be admitted as true. The letter further advised
that, unless Respondent filed an answer by December 16, counsel for the
General Counsel would file a Motion for Summary Judgment with the
Board.
261 NLRB No. 139
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:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions provides in pertinent part:
(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....
The backpay specification, issued and served on
Respondent on or about November 13, specifically
states that Respondent shall, within 15 days from
the date of service, file an answer to the specifica-
tion with the Regional Director for Region 14. The
specification further states that, to the extent that
such answer fails to deny allegations of the specifi-
cation 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 Respondent
shall be precluded from introducing any evidence
controverting them.
Respondent has failed to respond to the Notice
To Show Cause and therefore the allegations of the
General Counsel's motion stand uncontroverted.
Since Respondent has not filed an answer to the
specification and has not offered any explanation
for its failure to do so, the allegations of the speci-
fication, in accordance with the Rules set forth
above, are deemed to be admitted as true and are
so found by the Board.
Accordingly, on the basis of the allegations of
the backpay specification, the Board finds the facts
as set forth therein to be true, and concludes that
the net backpay due to Deborah Ousley is as stated
in the computations of the specification. Therefore,
the Board hereinafter orders that payment be made
by Respondent to Deborah Ousley.
988
SAN ANTONIO INN
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Sun Inn, Inc., d/b/a San Antonio Inn, Hazelwood,
Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall make whole Deborah Ousley by paying
to her the amount of $1,234.48, plus interest there-
on to be computed in the manner prescribed in
Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977),4
until payment of all backpay is made, less tax with-
holdings required by Federal and state laws.
I See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
In accordance with his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporarion. 250
NL RB 146 (198(0), Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay
due based on the formula set forth therein.
989