Starlite Cutting, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1987

284 N.L.R.B. 620 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

620 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Starlite Cutting, Inc. and its alter ego Petal Pink
Novelty, Inc.; and Joseph Fornaro, and Chil-
dren's Dress, Infants' Wear Housedress and
Bathrobe Makers' Union Local 91, Internation-
al Ladies' Garment Workers' Union. Case 2-
CA-18563
30 June 1987
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN, BABSON, STEPHENS, AND
CRACRAFT.
On 24 June 1986 the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order 1
granting the General Counsel's Motion for Summa-
ry Judgment on the backpay specification. The
Board noted that one discriminatee had been un-
available to the General Counsel for questioning
regarding possible interim earnings and stated,
"Accordingly, we shall order the Respondents to
pay this discriminatee's specified net backpay to
the Regional Director for Region 2 to be held in
escrow for a period not exceeding 1 year from the
date of this Supplemental Decision and Order."
Thereafter, on 25 July 1986 the General Counsel
filed a Motion for Clarification of the Supplemental
Decision and Order. 2 The General Counsel ques-
tioned whether delays in payment of the money
into escrow was intended to toll the running of the
year of the Respondents' backpay liability. For ex-
ample, if the Respondents sought court review of
the supplemental decision and the court's decision
issued 13 months later, would the Respondents be
able to argue that its period of liability had lapsed
1 month before the enforcement decision issued?
1 280 NLRB 1071 (1986)
2 The Respondents filed no response to the General Counsel's motion.
Member Cracraft did not participate in the Supplemental Decision and
Order and expresses no view here on the issue that divided the Board.
She observes that the General Counsel's motion by its own terms "con-
cerns only the measurement of the escrow period."
We believe the General Counsel's point is well
taken, and we now order that the 1-year escrow
period shall begin either upon the Respondents'
compliance by payment of the backpay for deposit
into escrow or upon the date the Board's Supple-
mental Decision and Order becomes final, includ-
ing enforcement thereof, whichever is later. Thus,
if the Respondents pay the money into escrow and
do not seek review of the Board's Supplemental
Order, the escrow period will end 1 year from the
date the money is deposited. If the Respondents
seek review and then deposit the money after court
enforcement of the Board's Order, the escrow
period will end 1 year after the money is deposited.
Finally, if the Respondents deposit the money and
then seek review, the escrow period will end 1
year after the Board's Order is enforced.
ORDER
It is ordered that the Supplemental Decision and
Order is amended to add the following to the end
of the Order: "The amount due to Domingo Can-
delaria shall be paid to the Regional Director for
Region 2 to be held in escrow for a period not to
exceed 1 year. The 1-year escrow period shall
begin upon the Respondents' compliance by pay-
ment of the backpay for deposit into escrow or the
date the Board's Supplemental Decision and Order
becomes final, including enforcement thereof,
whichever is later."
CHAIRMAN DOTSON and MEMBER JOHANSEN, dis-
senting.
The Supplemental Decision and Order in this
case clearly established that any lapse of backpay
liability is premised on a failure to locate the discri-
minatee within 1 year of that decision. It does not
require or imply that enforcement and compliance
be complete within that period. Accordingly, we
would deny the General Counsel's motion.
284 NLRB No. 71