United Inventories of Dallas, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1981

253 N.L.R.B. 1201 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

UNITED INVENTORIES OF DALLAS. INC.
United Inventories of Dallas, Inc. and United Physi-
cal Inventories, Inc. and W. Marshall Magill.
Case 23-CA-6463
January 9, 1981
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On January 19, 1979, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued an Order' against United Inven-
tories of Dallas, Inc., adopting the Board's Pro-
posed Decision and Order, which found that Re-
spondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
discharging W. Marshall Magill and Benny Mad-
lock. The Order, inter alia, directed Respondent to
offer Magill and Madlock reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, and to
make them whole for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered as a result of their unlawful dis-
charges. On July 13, 1979, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered its Judg-
ment enforcing in full the Board's Order. A contro-
versy having arisen over the amount of backpay
due Magill and Madlock under the terms of the
Board's Order, the Regional
Director for Region 23, on August 14, 1980,
issued and served on Respondent a backpay specifi-
cation and notice of hearing, alleging, inter alia,
that United Physical Inventories, Inc., is a dis-
guised continuance of, successor to, or alter ego of,
United Inventories of Dallas, Inc.,2 and that United
Physical Inventories, Inc., is liable for specific
amounts of backpay to Magill and Madlock. Re-
spondent did not file an answer to the backpay
specification.
On September 29, 1980, counsel for the General
Counsel filed with the Board a Motion for Default
Judgment with exhibits attached, more commonly
referred to as a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Subsequently, on October 10, 1980, 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 Default Judgment should
not be granted. Respondent did not 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:
1 239 NIRB 1414
z Both entilies are collectlivel referred to herein as Resptondent
Ruling on 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....
The backpay specification, issued and served on
Respondent on or about August 14, 1980, specifi-
cally states that Respondent shall, within 15 days
from the date of the specification, file with the Re-
gional Director for Region 23 an answer to the
specification and that, if the answer "fails to deny
allegations of the Specification in the manner re-
quired 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 Respondent shall be precluded
from introducing any evidence controverting such
allegation." Further, counsel for the General Coun-
sel submits in her Motion that Respondent was no-
tified by telephone and telegram on September 8
and 9, 1980, respectively, of the requirement of
filing an answer pursuant to Section 102.54 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations.
As Respondent did not file an answer to the
specification nor offer any explanation for its fail-
ure to do so, the allegations of the specification, in
accordance with the rule set forth above, are
deemed to be admitted to be true and are so found
by the Board. Accordingly, we grant the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment against
Respondent, and conclude the net backpay due
Magill and Madlock is as stated in the computa-
tions of the specification.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that Respondent
United Inventories of Dallas, Inc., Dallas, Texas,
and United Physical Inventories, Inc., Richardson,
Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall make whole each of the employees named
below by payment to each of them the amount
specified as net backpay, with interest thereon,
computed in the manner set forth in Florida Steel
253 NLRB No. 157
1201
1202
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977),3 until payment
of all backpay due is made as provided for in F. W.
3 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), less tax
withholdings required by Federal and state laws:
W. Marshall Magill $21,155
Benny Madlock 18,802
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD