Berg Product Design, 33 (1997)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Board 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 be included in the bound volumes.
Berg Product Design, Inc. and Warehouse, Mail Order, Office, Technical and Professional Employees Union, Local 743, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO. Case 13-CA-31690
March 7, 1997
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND HIGGINS
On April 28, 1995, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order,1 inter alia, ordering Berg Product Design, Inc., Wheeling, Illinois, to make whole the discriminatee for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his discharge in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Thereafter, the parties executed a stipulation in which the Respondent waived its rights under Section 10(e) and (f) of the Act to seek judicial review of the Board's Order.
A controversy having arisen over the amount of backpay due the discriminatee, on December 20, 1996, the Regional Director for Region 13 issued a compliance specification and notice of hearing alleging the amount due under the Board's Order, and notifying the Respondent that it should file a timely answer complying with the Board's Rules and Regulations. Although properly served with a copy of the compliance specification, the Respondent failed to file an answer.
By letter dated January 13, 1997, the Region advised the Respondent that no answer to the compliance specification had been received and that unless an appropriate answer was filed by January 31, 1997, summary judgment would be sought. The Respondent filed no answer.
On February 7, 1997, the General Counsel filed with the Board a Motion to Transfer Case to the Board and for Summary Judgment, with exhibits attached. On February 11, 1997, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondent again filed no response. The allegations in the motion and in the compliance specification are therefore undisputed.
1 317 NLRB 92.
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.56(a) of the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP