Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board DecisionsMay 21, 2012

03-CA-025915 (N.L.R.B. May. 21, 2012)

NOT INCLUDED IN BOUND VOLUMES LBP Rochester, NY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORPORATION and Case 3-CA-25915 LOCAL UNION 36, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO ORDER DENYING MOTION On August 16, 2010, the National Labor Relations Board, by a three- member panel, issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding, affirming the administrative law judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to provide the Union with certain information and by refusing to bargain over the effects of discontinuing its practice of allowing employees to drive company vehicles to and from work. The Board’s decision included an amended remedy and corresponding modifications to the judge’s recommended Order, deleting the judge’s make-whole remedy and substituting a remedy similar to that ordered in Transmarine Navigation Corp., 170 NLRB 389 (1968).1 On August 24, 2010, the Charging Party filed a motion for clarification or reconsideration. The Respondent filed an opposition to the motion. Having considered the motion and opposition, we see no need to clarify the Board’s Decision and Order. Regarding the request for reconsideration, Section 102.48(d)(1) of the Board’s Rules permits a party to move for 1 355 NLRB No. 86. 2 reconsideration in “extraordinary circumstances.” There has been no showing of extraordinary circumstances here. Accordingly, we deny the Charging Party’s motion.2 Dated, Washington, D.C. November 8, 2010. ____________________________ Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman ____________________________ Craig Becker, Member ____________________________ Mark Gaston Pearce, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 Member Pearce did not participate in the underlying case, but he agrees that clarification of the Board’s Decision and Order is unnecessary and that the Charging Party has not shown extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration.