The Von Solbrig Hospital, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 300 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Von Solbrig Hospital , Inc. and Hospital Employ-
ees Labor Program (HELP). Case 13-CA-9910
April 30, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY , AND PENELLO
On March 24, 1971, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order I in the above-
entitled proceeding in which the Board, inter alia, or-
dered the Respondent to make whole Veronica Bron-
gel for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the
Respondent's discrimination against her. On July 5,
1972, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sev-
enth Circuit entered its judgment enforcing the
Board's Order. A controversy having arisen over the
amount of backpay due under the Board's Order, as
enforced by the court, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 13, on December 8, 1972, issued and duly served
on the Respondent Backpay Specifications and No-
tice of Hearing, alleging the amount of backpay due
the discriminatee under the Board's Order and notify-
ing the Respondent that it shall file a timely answer
which must comply with the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations. The Respondent failed to file such an answer.
Thereafter, on January 8, 1973, counsel for the
General Counsel filed directly with the Board a Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on Janu-
ary 16, 1973, the Board issued an Order Transferring
Proceeding to the Board and Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's motion should not be
granted. Respondent failed to file a response to No-
tice 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, Series 8, as amended, 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. . .
(c) . . . If the respondent fails to file any an-
swer to the specification within the time pre-
scribed by this section, the Board may, either
with or without taking evidence in support of the
allegations of the specification and without no-
tice to the respondent, find the specification to be
true and enter such order as may be appropriate.
The Backpay Specifications, issued and served on
the Respondent on December 8, 1972, specifically
state that the Respondent shall, within 15 days from
the date of the specifications, file with the Regional
Director for Region 13 an answer to the specifications
and that, if the answer fails to deny the allegations of
the specifications 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 Respon-
dent shall be precluded from introducing any evi-
dence covering them. According to the motion for
Summary Judgment and an attached affidavit from
counsel for the General Counsel, three telephone calls
were made to the office of Respondent's attorney
prior to issuance of the Backpay Specifications in or-
der to arrange a mutually agreeable hearing date and
to pursue settlement. The attorney did not return any
of these calls, despite having messages to do so. Subse-
quent to issuance of the specifications, several tele-
phone conversations with a second attorney of the
Respondent and one conversation with the
Respondent's president also failed to elicit any re-
sponse. The Respondent failed to file an answer to the
specifications which was due 15 days from December
8, 1972, and, as of January 5, 1973, the date of the
Motion for Summary Judgment, the Respondent had
filed no answer and has not indicated that it would file
an answer. The Respondent also failed to file a re-
sponse to the Notice To Show Cause and, therefore,
the allegations of the Motion for Summary Judgment
stand uncontroverted. As the Respondent has not
filed an answer to the specifications and has not of-
fered any explanation for its failure to do so, in accor-
dance with the rules set forth above, the allegations of
the specifications are deemed to be admitted as true
and so found by the Board without the taking of
evidence in support of the said allegations.
Accordingly, on the basis of the allegations of the
specifications which are accepted as true, the Board
finds the facts as set forth therein, concludes that the
net backpay due the discriminatee, Veronica Brongel,
is as stated in the computations of the specifications,
and orders the payment thereof by the Respondent to
the discriminatee.
s
189 NLRB 273
203 NLRB No. 13
THE VON SOLBRIG HOSPITAL 301
ORDER the discriminatee named below by paying her the
amount set forth adjacent to her name, plus interest
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor accrued at the rate of 6 percent per annum, to be
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Rela- computed in lthe manner set forth in Isis Plumbing &
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, until payment of all
Von Solbrig Hospital , Inc., Chicago, Illinois, its offi- backpay due, less the tax withholding required by
cers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall make whole Federal and state laws:
Veronica Brongel $688.80