633
306 NLRB No. 122
TPS/TOTAL PROPERTY SERVICES
1 Sec. 102.20 provides that the allegations in the complaint shall
be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days from
service of the complaint, unless good cause is shown.
2 Because the alleged violations of TPS are derivative and stem
from its alleged status as a single integrated business enterprise and
a single employer with New England, the answer filed by New Eng-
land precludes summary judgment against TPS. See Caribe Cleaning
Services, supra at fn. 3.
TPS/Total Property Services of New England Inc.
and TPS/Total Property Services, Inc. and
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Local 210. Case 34–CA–4921
March 6, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND OVIATT
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by the
Union on October 9, 1990, and May 6, 1991, respec-
tively, the General Counsel of the National Labor Re-
lations Board issued a complaint and an amended com-
plaint on November 21, 1990, and July 30, 1991, re-
spectively, against TPS/Total Property Services of New
England Inc. and TPS/Total Property Services, Inc.,
the Respondents (New England and TPS, respectively),
alleging that they have violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the National Labor Relations Act. On December 11,
1990, New England filed an answer admitting in part
and denying in part the allegations of the initial com-
plaint and requesting that the complaint be dismissed.
Although properly served copies of the amended
charge and amended complaint, both New England and
TPS failed to file an answer to the amended complaint.
On September 3, 1991, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment, with exhibits attached.
On September 6, 1991, 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 filed no response. The allegations in
the motion are therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In the Motion for Summary Judgment, the General
Counsel contends that the Respondents have failed to
file an answer to the amended complaint and that,
under Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions,1 the Board should find the allegations of that
complaint to be true and issue an order based on those
findings. The amended complaint includes all the alle-
gations contained in the initial complaint and addition-
ally alleges that New England and TPS constitute a
single integrated business enterprise and a single em-
ployer.
We find summary judgment is not appropriate under
the circumstances of this case. Most of the allegations
contained in the amended complaint previously were
alleged in the complaint, and previously were denied
in the answer to the initial complaint filed by New
England. Summary judgment is not proper based on a
respondent’s failure to answer an amended complaint’s
allegations that are substantively unchanged from alle-
gations contained in a prior version of the complaint
to which the respondent filed a proper denial. See
Caribe Cleaning Services, 304 NLRB 932 fn. 2
(1991). Accordingly, we deny the General Counsel’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.2
ORDER
It is ordered that the General Counsel’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is re-
manded to the Regional Director for Region 34 for fur-
ther appropriate action.