T.V. Dispatch, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 2, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 1081 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

TA" DISP'ACtl. INC. 1081
T.V. Dispatch, Inc. and Barbara Jean Trefz, Priscil-
la Jane Shoop, and John Francis Kasper. Cases
18-CA-6227, 18-CA-6227-2, and 18-CA -
6227-3
July 2, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 15, 1980, the National Labor Relations
Board issued an order' adopting, in the absence of
exceptions, the Decision of the Administrative Law
Judge and directing Respondent, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, inter alia, to offer
reinstatement to and make whole Barbara Jean
Trefz, Priscilla Jane Shoop, and John Francis
Kasper for their losses resulting from Respondent's
unlawful discrimination against them. On August
29, 1980, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit summarily enforced the Board's
Order. A controversy having arisen over the
amounts of backpay due the discriminatees, the
Acting Regional Director for Region 18, on De-
cember 31, 1980, issued a backpay specification and
notice of hearing. Respondent failed to file an
answer to the specification.
On April 6, 1981, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed with the Board in Washington, D.C., a
Motion for Summary Judgment. On April 10, 1981,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted. Respondent failed
also to file a response to the Notice To Show
Cause.
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
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....
Not published in BoHard lurnes
256 NLRB No. 156
The backpay specification, issued and served on
Respondent on December 31, 1980, specifically
states that Respondent shall, within 15 days from
the service of the specification, file an answer to
the specification with the Acting Regional Director
for Region 18, 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 explained, such alle-
gations shall be deemed to be admitted to be true
and Respondent shall be precluded from introduc-
ing an? evidence controverting them.
According to the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment, the Regional Director for Region 18 granted
two successive requests by Respondent for 30-day
extensions of time for filing an answer to the speci-
fication, extending such time to February 19 and
then to March 19, 1981. The Motion for Summary
Judgment further alleges that counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel informed Respondent by letter on
March 20 and 24, and the compliance officer for
Region 18 notified Respondent's president orally
on March 20, that a Motion for Summary Judg-
ment would be filed unless Respondent filed an
answer by March 27, 1981. Nevertheless, Respond-
ent has not answered the specification, nor has it
responded to the Board's Notice To Show Cause.
Therefore, the allegations of the backpay specifica-
tion and the Motion for Summary Judgment stand
uncontroverted.
Accordingly, the Board finds the allegations as
set forth in the backpay specification to be true,
grants the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment, and concludes that the net backpay due
each discriminatee is as stated in the computations
of the specification except for two inadvertent
errors, which are hereby corrected. 2
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,
T.V. Dispatch, Inc., St. Louis Park, Minnesota, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make
whole each of the discriminatees named below by
payment to each of them of the amount specified as
net backpay, with interest thereon to be computed
in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corpora-
tion, 234 NLRB 1089 (1978),3 less the tax with-
holdings required by Federal and state laws:
-All arithti tilllLi error %;lr m t i l .i catldlatid net hcl.kp.N fr iar-
bara Jean.l Ircf ill pr 7. >-,' 1li1 e( Ihd. %Ptl.t ' /kifltl[1r . ven it l -' Ihe
qu;artrl y MIllTul11, ot Ile hckpa.l I h. t.4 lii mt "48X h stlC hlackpa
I atele tor Jhn i.rancli Kiaper i par S. il 41)4. I, incIerreIl Kaxpcr i net
hackpai '' ai Citpu,'tl i par ? t te p-pc l,.itM1th. $1,221
See, gentrail>. It IPl nbilng & Ih atJe, ( .. 1 3 NRH 71t (1902l
TA'. DISPArCI!. [C. I
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAI. ILAHOR RELATIONS BOARI)
Barbara Jean Trefz 6,940.00
Priscilla Jane Shoop 527.00
John Francis Kasper 1,221.00