DTR Industries

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1995

317 N.L.R.B. 825 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

825
317 NLRB No. 115
DTR INDUSTRIES
1 311 NLRB 833.
2 The UAW filed a petition for an election on September 25, 1989.
A Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election was approved
by the Regional Director on October 17, 1989. An election was held
on November 17, 1989. The tally of ballots shows that of approxi-
mately 74 eligible voters, 73 cast ballots, of which 36 were cast for
and 37 against the Petitioner. There were no challenged ballots.
DTR Industries, Inc. and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, UAW.
Cases 8–CA–22436 and 8–RC–14189
June 8, 1995
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER AND
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS STEPHENS
AND COHEN
On May 28, 1993, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding.1
The Respondent filed a petition for review of the
Board’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit. The Respondent sought vacation
of the entire Order of the Board and dismissal of the
objections to the election. The Board cross-petitioned
for enforcement of its entire Order.
In an opinion dated November 3, 1994, the court
found that the Board’s findings of ‘‘hallmark’’ Section
8(a)(1) violations were not supported by substantial
evidence and denied enforcement of the Board’s bar-
gaining Order.
Thereafter, on November 9, 1994, the Board filed
with the court a motion to clarify whether the court
had enforced other portions of the Board’s Order find-
ing that Respondent had committed ‘‘non-hallmark’’
violations of Section 8(a)(1), viz, unlawful solicitation
of grievances, coercive interrogation of an employee,
and maintenance of an invalid no-solicitation/no-dis-
tribution rule. On November 18, 1994, the Respondent
filed a response and argued that the Board’s motion for
clarification should be denied because the Board’s en-
tire Order was before the court and the court denied
enforcement of that Order.
On January 23, 1995, the court issued an order de-
nying the Board’s motion for clarification. On January
30, 1995, the court issued its mandate and entered
judgment concluding ‘‘that the order of the Board
should not be enforced.’’
By letter dated February 27, 1995, the Board in-
formed the parties that it had accepted the court’s deci-
sion and that all parties could file statements of posi-
tion with respect to any possible further action by the
Board.Thereafter, counsel for the General Counsel and
the Respondent filed statements of position.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
We have accepted the court’s decision as the law of
the case. The court has denied enforcement of the
Board’s Order. Therefore, we shall dismiss the com-
plaint. In addition, inasmuch as the predicate for set-
ting aside the election was the Board’s finding of vio-
lations, we shall overrule the Union’s objections to the
election.
As the Petitioner failed to receive a majority of the
valid ballots cast in Case 8–RC–14189,2 we shall cer-
tify the results of that election.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Union’s objections
in Case 8–RC–14189 are overruled.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots
have not been cast for International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW, and that it is not the ex-
clusive representative of these bargaining unit employ-
ees.