Gloria J. Verno d/b/a Joe's Painting and Its Alter Ego Joe's Painting, Inc.; T & M Painting, Inc., A, (2012)

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can

Gloria J. Verno d/b/a Joe2019s Painting and its alter ego Joe2019s Painting, Inc.; T&M Painting, Inc., a corporation charged with derivative liability; Joseph P. Verno, an individual charged with personal liability and International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 57 of Western Pennsylvania, AFL2013CIO, CLC. Case 062013CA2013036647

June 26, 2012 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS HAYES, GRIFFIN, AND BLOCK

On September 30, 2010, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order¹ in this proceeding that, among other things, ordered Respondent Gloria J. Verno d/b/a Joe2019s Painting and its alter ego Joe2019s Painting, Inc. to make whole bargaining unit employees for any loss of earnings or other benefits caused by the unlawful failure to adhere to the terms of a collectivebargaining agreement between the parties. On December 13, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered its judgment enforcing the Board2019s Order.²

Based on noncompliance with the Board2019s Order as enforced, on February 15, 2012, the Regional Director for Region 6 issued a compliance specification and notice of hearing, alleging the amounts due and notifying the Respondents³ that they should file an answer complying with the Board2019s Rules and Regulations. On March 5, 2012, the Respondents filed an answer to the specification.⁴

By letter dated April 6, 2012, counsel for the Acting General Counsel notified the Respondents that their answer did not satisfy the standards set forth in Section 102.56(b) of the Board2019s Rules and Regulations, and stated that, if the Respondents failed to file an amended answer by the third business day following receipt of the letter, a Motion for Default Judgment would be filed with the Board. The Respondents did not file an amended answer.

¹ 355 NLRB No. 214 (not reported in Board volumes).

² 10-4324.

³ 201cThe Respondents201d refers collectively to Gloria J. Verno d/b/a Joe2019s Painting, Joe2019s Painting, Inc., T&M Painting, Inc., and Joseph P. Verno.

⁴ On February 23, 2012, the Regional Director issued an amendment to the specification only to correct an inadvertent error by substituting an appendix and to specify the time of the hearing. We attach no significance to the Respondents2019 neglecting to indicate that they were also answering the amendment.

On May 8, 2012, the Acting General Counsel moved for partial summary judgment as to particular paragraphs of the specification to which the Respondents2019 answer either attempted to raise matters that had been decided in the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding or failed to meet the specificity requirements of Section 102.56(b). On May 9, 2012, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the Acting General Counsel2019s motion should not be granted. The Respondents filed no response to the Notice to Show Cause.

The Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

On the entire record, the Board makes the following Ruling on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Section 102.56(b) and (c) of the Board2019s Rules and Regulations provides that:

(b) Contents of answer to specification. The answer shall specifically admit, deny, or explain each and every allegation of the specification, unless the respondent is without knowledge, in which case the respondent shall so state, such statement operating as a denial. Denials shall fairly meet the substance of the allegations of the specification at issue. When a respondent intends to deny only a part of an allegation, the...