Superior Micro Film Systems, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 4, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 236 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Superior Micro Film Systems , Inc. and/or Wilfred W.
Burgart and Jesse Guido , Partners d/b/a B. G.
Management Company and International Union of
District 50, Allied and Technical Workers of the
United States and Canada . Case 6-CA-5815
June 4, 1975
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On February 1, 1973, the National Labor Relations
Board issued an Order' adopting the Decision of an
Administrative Law Judge directing the Respon-
dents, inter alia, to offer reinstatement to and to
make whole Gary A. Daugherty, Marian L. Daugh-
erty, and Ellen Gallucci for any loss of pay suffered
by reason of Respondents' discrimination against
them. On October 30, 1973, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered a judgment
enforcing in full the Board's Order herein.2 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 6, on January 29, 1975, issued a backpay
specification and notice of hearing setting forth
certain allegations with respect to the amount of
backpay due said discriminatees. The Respondents
failed to file an answer to the specification.
Counsel for the General Counsel, on February 25,
1975, filed a motion for summary judgment directly
with the Board. The Board, on March 10, 1975,
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a notice to show cause why the General
Counsel's motion for summary judgment should not
be granted. Respondents thereafter filed a response
to the notice to show cause in the form of a letter of
March 17, 1975, with attachments.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority 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, as follows:
(a) The respondent shall, within 15 days from
the service of the specification, if any, file an
answer thereto . .. .
1 201 NLRB 555.
(c) 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 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 Respondents on January 29, 1975, specifically
states that the Respondents shall, within 15 days
from the date of the service of the specification, file
an answer to the specification with the Regional
Director for Region 6, and that, if the answer fails to
deny the allegations 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 Respondents shall be
precluded from introducing any evidence controvert-
ing them.
According to the motion for summary judgment,
counsel for the General Counsel, having been
advised that Respondents' counsel had withdrawn
from the case, telephoned Jesse E. Guido, Respon-
dents' president, on February 20, 1975, after the time
for filing an answer had expired, and no answer had
been filed, and followed the telephone call with a
confirmatory letter, in both of which he outlined the
consequences of Respondents' failure to answer and
advised of his intention to seek summary judgment.
As of the date of the motion for summary judgment,
Respondents had not filed an answer to the specifica-
tion nor had they requested an extension of time in
which to file. Respondents have given no reason for
their failure to file even in the March 17, 1975,
response to the notice to show cause, except to state
an inability to hire an attorney. The allegations of the
motion for summary judgment are, therefore, uncon-
troverted. Since Respondents have not filed an
answer to the specification and have not offered a
satisfactory explanation for their failure to do so, the
allegations of the specification are, in accordance
with the rules set forth above, deemed to be admitted
as true 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
orders the payment thereof by the Respondents to
each discriminatee.
2 485 F.2d 681.
218 NLRB No. 44
SUPERIOR MICRO FILM SYSTEMS 237
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents,
Superior Micro Film Systems, Inc. and/or Wilfred
W. Burgart and Jesse Guido, Partners d/b/a B. G.
Management Company, New Kensington, Pennsyl-
vania, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall make whole each of the discriminatees named
below by paying to each of them the amount set
forth adjacent to his or her name, plus interest
accrued at the rate of 6 percent per annum in the
manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716 (1962), until all backpay due is paid,
less the tax withholdings required by Federal and
state laws:
Gary A. Daugherty $7,847.50
Marian L. Daugherty 2,704.25
Ellen Gallucci 7,525.81