SPURLINO MATERIALS, LLC.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Feb 24, 2012

25-CA-030053 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SPURLINO MATERIALS, LLC.
and Cases 25-CA-30053
25-CA-30054
25-CA-30080
25-CA-30104
25-CA-30156
25-CA-30179
25-CA-30362
COAL, ICE, BUILDING MATERIAL, SUPPLY
DRIVERS, RIGGERS, HEAVY HAULERS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, and
LOCAL UNION NO. 716 a/w INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA
ORDER DENYING MOTION
The Acting General Counsel’s Motion to Correct Inadvertent Error is
denied. The Acting General Counsel asserts that the Board’s March 31, 2009
Decision and Order in this case1 inadvertently failed to include a make-whole
remedy for losses suffered by discriminatee Gary Stevenson as a result of his
unlawful suspension and discharge by the Respondent.
Contrary to the Acting General Counsel’s assertion, we find that the
Board’s March 31, 2009 Order encompassed all of the violations committed by
the Respondent against Stevenson, including the Respondent’s suspension and
discharge of him that violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1). Paragraph 2(c) of the
Board’s Order requires the Respondent to make Stevenson whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits “suffered as a result of the discrimination against”
him “in the manner set forth in the amended remedy section of this decision.” It
is clear from the Board’s decision (as well as the Administrative Law Judge’s
decision, which the Board adopted on this matter) that the discrimination against
Stevenson includes his suspension and discharge.

1 353 NLRB 1198. This Decision and Order, which was issued by a two-Member
Board, was subsequently affirmed and adopted by a three-Member panel in an
August 9, 2010 Decision and Order, reported at 355 NLRB No. 77.
2
Further, the Board’s amended remedy, at footnote 14, expressly refers to
“the backpay remedy for Stevenson’s unlawful suspension and discharge” in
setting forth the standards for computing the backpay and interest due him
because of the suspension and discharge. Thus, the Acting General Counsel’s
position that the Board failed to provide a make-whole remedy for Stevenson’s
suspension and discharge is incorrect. Accordingly, we find that no correction of
the Board’s Order is warranted because that Order—which was enforced in full
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—requires the
Respondent to make Stevenson whole for losses incurred as a result of his
unlawful suspension and discharge.
In addition, even were there merit to the Acting General Counsel’s
assertions, his Motion would be denied on the ground that the Board would have
no jurisdiction to modify its prior Order because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit enforced that Order on June 23, 2011. See Section 10(d) and
(e) of the Act; Section 102.49 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations; and Royal
Typewriter Company, 239 NLRB 1, 2 (1978).
Dated, February 24, 2012.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
BRIAN E. HAYES, MEMBER
RICHARD F. GRIFFIN, JR., MEMBER