Haddon House Food Products, Inc. and Flavor Delight, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 19, 1982

260 N.L.R.B. 1060 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Haddon House Food Products, Inc. and Flavor De-
light, Inc. and Teamsters Local 115, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case 4-CA-7700
March 19, 1982
ORDER DENYING MOTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On June 12, 1979, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order in this matter,'
in which it found that Respondent engaged in nu-
merous and egregious violations of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act in response to its employees' or-
ganizational activities and violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) by refusing to reinstate unfair labor practice
strikers upon their unconditional offer to return to
work. As part of the remedy for the unfair labor
practices found, the Board ordered, inter alia, a
series of remedial actions requiring Respondent to
grant the Charging Party (hereinafter referred to as
the Union) access to company bulletin boards and
other posting places for a 2-year period, to make
available to the Union a list of the names and ad-
dresses of its current employees, to give union
spokesmen reasonable access to nonwork areas
during nonwork periods, to grant the Union equal
time if Respondent convenes its employees for an
in-plant speech on union representation, and to
allow the Union to make one 30-minute preelection
speech if there is a Board election involving the
Union.2 The Board also ordered Respondent to
engage in various notice remedies, 3 but declined to
issue a bargaining order.4
Subsequent to the issuance of the Board's deci-.
sion, the Union and Respondent filed petitions for
review and the Board filed a petition for enforce-.
ment with the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia. On January 26, 1981, the
court issued its decision 5 granting enforcement of
the Board's Order, as modified,6 and on November
'242 NL RB 1()57
2 Member Murphy did not join ill firding the access rmedices appropri-
ate
' Member Pencllo dissented fronm the "full Iextent" of the extraordinary,
remedies ordered
' Then-Chairn la l ailrilng anid Mcmbier Jenki ns disselled fimnl thl
Order insofar as it failed tl include a bairgalilning order
' 64,) F2d 392
' The court did not adopt that pltrltion of the Boaidtl's ()rder rcquiring
Respondenlt's irlanager anrd oillCr. Harold Aldersol. i. t persollall read
to employees thie ciillcllts of the Board's liitice
4, 1981, following the denial of writs of certiorari
by the United States Supreme Court, the court en-
tered its judgment therein.
On December 22, 1981, Respondent filed with
the Board a motion for reconsideration and modifi-
cation of the Order, and for reopening of the
record and rehearing. 7 Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed a brief in opposition to Respondent's
motion.
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.
In its motion Respondent asserts that extraordi-
nary circumstances and events which transpired
subsequent to the court's decision warrant modifi-
cation of the Board's Order. s However, we note
that while Section 10(d) of the Act provides that
the Board may, until the record is filed in a court,
modify or set aside any order issued by it,9 Section
10(e) of the Act provides that upon the filing of
the record "the jurisdiction of the court shall be
exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be
final," subject, of course, to review by the Supreme
Court. Accordingly, since, as noted above, the
Board's Order has already been enforced, we no
longer possess jurisdiction to modify that Order.
Royal Typewriter Company, a Division of Litton
Business Systems. Inc., et at., 239 NLRB 1 (1978).
See also N.L.R.B. v. Mastro Plastics Corporation,
261 F.2d 147, 148 (2d Cir. 1958); cf. Flav-O-Rich,
Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 531 F.2d 358, 361 (6th Cir.
1976). 't
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Respond-
ent's motion for reconsideration and modification
of the Board's Order, and for reopening of the
record and rehearing, be, and it hereby is, denied.
Respondelit has also requested oral argument This request is hereby
denied as the record adequately presents the issues for consideration
" Respondent relies on its recognition and _execution of a collective-bar-
gainilg agreement in July 1981 with Local 80, Food and Allied Service
Workers, chartered by United Food and Commercial Workers, AFL--
CIO() Such recognition is the subject iof current unfair labor practice pro-
ccedi igs
. Sec 102 49i of the Board's Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure. Series 8, as amended, provides that the Board maN modify
ally findings or order nlade or issued by it until the transcript of the
record is filed in court
"' Il addition, awe note that Sec. 102.48(d) of the Board's Rules and
Regulatirnl requires that a motion for reconsideration, rehearing, or re-
openinig A the record must be based on "extraordinary circumstances"
and "shiall be filed i. thin 20) dass, or such further period as the Board
may allow, after the sers ice of its decision or order." The "extraordinary
circuunlstalces," as contended by Respondent. supra. fn 8, arose in July
1981 TIhe instant motion vaas not filed for several months following these
evenl,, aid approximately 7 weeks after the court's final judgment en-
forcinig the Board's Order, as modified Moreos er. we note that the
mliotiorl A a, filed well over 2 years after the Btoard's Order. Therefore.
we also conrllulde Ihial Respolldellt's nolltioin is untimely
260 NLRB No. 146
1060