Spann Building Maintenance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 24, 1987

284 N.L.R.B. 470 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

470 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Spann Building Maintenance Co. and Veronica Lewis. Case 14-CA-16799 24 June 1987 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS BABSON AND ST'EPHENS On 28 June 1985 the National Labor Relations Board, by a three-member panel, issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding. 1 The complaint al- leged that the Respondent had committed unfair labor practices by suspending and later discharging employee Veronica Lewis, the Charging Party. In its decision, the Board found that the contentions raised by Lewis could be resolved under the griev- ance and arbitration provision of the collective-bar- gaining agreement between the Respondent and the Union that represented the bargaining unit of which Lewis was a member. The Board further found that the Union had invoked the grievance procedure on Lewis' behalf and that the procedure had not run its course, as the grievance had not been withdrawn or submitted to arbitration. The Board concluded that under the principles set forth in United Technologies Corp., 268 NLRB 557 (1984), it would be inappropriate for the Board to enter the dispute prior to completion of the grievance-ar- bitration process. The Board dismissed the com- plaint but retained jurisdiction for the limited purpose of entertaining an ap- propriate and timely motion for further consid- eration upon a proper showing that either (a) the Respondent is resisting or impeding prompt processing, through the contractual grievance and arbitration procedure, of the grievance over Lewis' discharge, or (b) the grievance or arbitration procedures have not been fair or regular or have reached a result that is repugnant to the Act. 275 NLRB at 972-973 (footnote omitted). Thereafter, Lewis petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for review of the Board's Order. On 17 September 1986 the court issued its decision denying Lewis' petition for review. 2 However, the court noted Lewis' conten- 275 NLRB 971. 2 Lewis v. NLRB, 800 F.2d 818 (8th Cir 1986). tion that the portion of the Board's Order retaining jurisdiction was by its terms limited only to in- stances when the Respondent resists or impedes ar- bitration. The court expressed concern over wheth- er the retention of jurisdiction language applied likewise to the conduct of the Union in the arbitra- tion proceeding. Accordingly, the court remanded the case for the Board "to consider the limited issue of the propriety and extent of the Board's re- tention of jurisdiction." 3 On 12 January 1987 the Board notified the par- ties that it had accepted the remand from the court of appeals and invited the parties to file statements of position with respect to the issues raised by the remand.4 Lewis and the General Counsel filed statements of position. Asserting that the Respond- ent and the Union have made no further efforts to resolve her grievance, Lewis argues that the Board is now required to consider the merits of the al- leged unfair labor practice. The General Counsel contends that the Board should revise its Order to provide for further consideration of the case in the event that either the Respondent or the Union re- sists or impedes prompt processing of Lewis' griev- ance. Having considered the parties' statements of po- sition and the decision of the court, including the terms of the remand order, we conclude that the previously issued Order in this proceeding should be modified to conform to the language customari- ly used in similar cases. See, e.g., United Beef Co., 272 NLRB 66 (1984). Accordingly, we shall pro- vide the following Order. ORDER The complaint is dismissed, provided that juris- diction is retained for the limited purpose of enter- taining an appropriate and timely motion for fur- ther consideration upon a proper showing that either (a) the dispute has not, with reasonable promptness after the issuance of this Supplemental Decision and Order, either been resolved by amica- ble settlement in the grievance procedure or sub- mitted promptly to arbitration, or (b) the grievance or arbitration procedures have not been fair and regular or have reached a result that is repugnant to the Act. 3 Id. at 821. Lewis thereafter petitioned the court for rehearing en basic. On 13 November 1986 the court denied this petition. 4 The Board thereafter extended the period for submission of state- ments of position to 6 March 1987 284 NLRB No. 53