Local 345, Utility Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 8, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 469 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

I.()CAI 345, UTII.ITY' W()RKFI-RS
Local 345, Brotherhood of Utility Workers of New
England, Incorporated (New England Power
Service Company) and Robert A. Parker, Jr.
Local 345, Brotherhood of Utility Workers of New
England, Incorporated and the Brotherhood of
Utility Workers of New England, Incorporated
aid Robert A. Parker, Jr. Cases 1-CB-2971
and 1-CB-3230
July 8, 1980
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDAI E
On March 18, 1978, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued its Supplemental Decision and
Order in this proceeding' in which it corrected its
previous Order to correspond to the remedy of the
Administrative Law Judge. Thereafter, the General
Counsel petitioned the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the First Circuit for enforcement of the
Board's Order. On January 11, 1980, the court
modified the Board's Supplemental Decision and
Order by deleting the paragraphs which the Board
substituted for certain paragraphs of the Board's
Order of October 27, 1977. The court remanded
this proceeding to the Board for entry of an appro-
priate supplemental Order "after the parties have
been given an opportunity to be heard upon their
exceptions and cross-exceptions, if any, to the
amendment of the Order." N.L.R.B. v. Local 345,
Brotherhood of Utility Workers of New England,
Inc., 612 F.2d 598, 604 (lst Cir. 1980).
On February 12, 1980, the Board accepted the
court's remand and notified the parties that they
could file statements of position with regard to the
issues raised by the remand. Subsequently, the
General Counsel and Respondents filed statements
of position.
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.
The Board has reviewed the entire case in light
of the court's decision and the statements of posi-
tion on remand and we now enter the following
findings.
In its Supplemental Decision and Order, the
Board corrected the Administrative Law Judge's
recommended Order to reflect the remedy con-
tained in his Decision. The Board determined that
the failure of the Administrative Law Judge to
issue an Order which corresponded to his remedy
I Neither Ihis decision nor the original Order was reported in the wol-
umes of Board Decisions
occurred through inadvertence, and that the Board
possessed the authority to correct such a mechani-
cal error, sua sponte. In so deciding, the Board
stated that Respondents could and should have an-
ticipated that the Board could exercise its authority
to correct such obvious errors, and thus Respond-
ents should not be permitted to file exceptions to
the remedy ordered by the Board. Respondents
maintained that the Board could not, under Board
Rules and Regulations, correct its own Orders after
time to file exceptions had passed, that the General
Counsel had not filed such exceptions, and also
that the General Counsel's alleged ex parte commu-
nications with the Administrative Law Judge taint-
ed the proceedings so as to foreclose the Board
from acting further. The Board rejected these argu-
ments, and corrected the Order it had previously
adopted by providing specific orders to remedy the
8(b)(1)(A) violations found by the Administrative
Law Judge.2
In its decision, the court deleted those portions
of the Board's Supplemental Decision and Order
which modified the Board's original Order adopt-
ing the Administrative Law Judge's Decision and
Order. The court held that if the Board intends to
amend an order "so as materially to increase the
burden or diminish the advantage of the order, the
party affected by the proposed change must be
given an adequate opportunity by exception or oth-
erwise to present objections to the proposed
amendment." 612 F.2d at 604. We have accept-
ed that holding as the law of the case. The court
instructed us to enter a supplemental Order, if ap-
propriate, after the Board afforded the parties an
opportunity to respond to the amended Order of
our Supplemental Decision and Order. Upon con-
sideration of the case in light of the court's opin-
ion, which as noted above we deem to be the law
of the case, and the positions of the parties as sub-
mitted, we now enter our Order which conforms
to the remedy of the Administrative Law Judge.
Respondents, in setting forth their position con-
cerning the remand, filed exceptions to the Board's
Supplemental Decision and Order. In presenting
their position, however, Respondents contend inter
alia, that they did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act by forgiving dues payments and paying
Blue Cross-Blue Shield premiums for members
who did not cross the picket line while collecting
dues from members who worked, and raising the
dues of all members to help pay, in part, loans se-
cured to pay the premiums. Contrary to Respond-
ents, we do not believe the court remanded this
2 The Board subsequelitly denied Res.pondents' motion for reconsider-
ation, denied the General Counsel's "Molion to Correct Order," and cor-
rected all illild',erenlt error in its Supplemental Decision and Order
250 NLRB No. 7
469
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
case so that Respondents could dispute the unfair
labor practice findings of the Administrative Law
Judge. As the court pointed out, "[R]espondents
have sought to file exceptions, or something of
equivalent legal effect, limited to the changes made
by the Boards amended order." 612 F.2d at 604
(emphasis supplied). The court recognized the
narrow scope of the case and the remand, for it
found it unnecessary to decide whether under dif-
ferent circumstances "the only fair remedy might
be revival of the right to except to the entirety of
the decision." 612 F.2d at 604. 3 Indeed, the
court realized that situations such as this one occur
infrequently, and that the nature of the relief to be
afforded Respondents on appeal is concomitantly
narrow. In our opinion, Respondents have miscon-
trued the limited scope of the remand, and seek to
reverse substantive findings of the Administrative
Law Judge. They have not challenged the propri-
ety of the remedy 4 in light of the findings, but in-
stead have challenged the findings. We do not be-
lieve the court intended such a result and, accord-
ingly, we decline to reexamine the Administrative
Law Judge's substantive findings in light of Re-
spondents' exceptions. Instead, upon due considera-
tion, we hereby amend our previous Order.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the Respondents, Local
345, Brotherhood of Utility Workers of New Eng-
land, Incorporated and the Brotherhood of Utility
Workers of New England, Incorporated, their offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assessing fines against or otherwise disciplin-
ing members for not engaging in or participating in
a work stoppage during the existence of a no-strike
clause between Respondents and the Employer,
whether said work stoppage be in advancement of
direct demands of Respondents or its members or
in advancement of demands of any other union.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it
is found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind the fines assessed upon members
Robert Parker and Mary Label for having crossed
the picket line of the IBEW during the period of
such picket line from April 18 through June 19,
1975, and inform each of them by letter that said
fine has been rescinded.
:' The court's ohservations on this matter were based on Respondent's
position at oral argument
4 Respondentl did except it the mailing requirements which, upon due
consideration. we believe arpropriale here
(b) Return to Parker and Label any money paid
toward those fines.
(c) Expunge from all records any indication of
charges, trials, or fines relating to Parker and
Label.
(d) Mail to each member of Respondent Local
345 a letter advising that the Respondents were en-
gaged in acts violative of the Act.
(e) Forgive dues for those members who crossed
the IBEW picket line for a period of time equiva-
lent to that for which those who did not cross the
picket line were forgiven dues.
(f) Proportionately reimburse each member who
crossed the picket line for the amount of money
paid by the Respondent Local 345 in Blue Cross-
Blue Shield premiums for the period April 18 to
June 20, 1975.
(g) Post at their offices copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region I, after being duly signed by Respondents'
authorized representatives, shall be posted by Re-
spondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by them for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(h) Mail or deliver to the Regional Director for
Region I copies of said Appendix for posting by
New England Power Service Company, if said
Employer is willing, at all places where notices to
its employees are customarily posted.
(i) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondents have taken to comply
herewith.
In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT assess fines or otherwise disci-
pline members for not engaging or participat-
ing in a work stoppage in violation of the no-
strike clause between the undersigned union,
Local 345, Brotherhood of Utility Workers of
47()
I() OCAI 34, Ul IIT Y WO()RKERS
New England, Incorporated, whether the
work stoppage is in furtherance of direct de-
mands of the undersigned local and its mem-
bers, or in furtherance of demands of any
other union or local.
Wt WlltI NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WItL rescind the fines assessed upon
members Robert Parker and Mary Label for
having crossed the picket line of the IBEW
during the period of such picketing from April
18 through June 19, 1975; return to Parker and
Label any money paid toward those fines; and
expunge from all records any indication of
charges, trials, or fines relating to Parker and
Label.
Wl- wil.l forgive those who crossed the
IBEW picket line dues for a period of time
equivalent to that for which those who did not
cross the picket line were forgiven dues.
Wt Wi l. proportionately reimburse each
member who crossed the picket line for the
amount of money paid by Respondent Local
345 in Blue Cross-Blue Shield premiums for
the period April 18 to June 20 1975.
LOCAL 345, BROTHERHOOD OF UTIL-
ITY WORKERS OF NEW ENGLAND,
INCORPORATED; THE BROTHERHOOD
OF UTILITY WORKERS OF NEW ENG-
LAND, INCORPORATED
471