National Labor Relations Board v. Royal Palm Ice Co.
1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3495 · 201 F.2d 667 · 31 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2308
January 29, 1953 · Docket 13735_1
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The court affirmed that its denial of the Board’s motion did not limit the Board’s inherent authority; it relied on Home Beneficial Association precedent that the Board may proceed to determine the precise back‑pay amount once the general order exists.
- Headnote 2
The court explained that the Board’s original motion sought entry of an order only ‘if the court deems such specific authorization necessary,’ and denied it because the court was of the clear opinion that such authorization was not needed.
- Headnote 3
The court denied the respondent’s motion to remand the discrimination claim, holding that the matter had already been adjudicated and was not subject to further redetermination.
- Headnote 4
The court affirmed that the Board’s authority to carry out the reinstatement and back‑pay order is inherent once the court has entered a general judgment, citing Home Beneficial Association as authority.
- Headnote 5
The court explained that the Board’s motion was denied because the order sought was contingent on a finding that the court must deem a supplemental order necessary, which it did not.
- Headnote 6
The opinion notes that the court retains jurisdiction to intervene post‑order for enforcement or vacatur, preserving judicial oversight of the Board’s specific awards.
- Headnote 7
The court denied the respondent’s remand request, reaffirming that the Board’s power to award back‑pay is sufficient and that the earlier denial of supplemental authority was proper.
- Headnote 8
The motion to reopen the discrimination determination was denied because the court held that its earlier judgment was conclusive and could not be revisited absent a showing of error.
- Headnote 9
The court affirmed that the board’s authority is complete once the court’s general order is entered, so the board can determine the precise amount of back pay without seeking supplemental authority.
- Headnote 10
The court denied the board’s motion for supplemental authority because it concluded that the board already possessed sufficient power to fix the back‑pay amount, making a supplemental order unnecessary.
- Headnote 11
After reviewing the board’s motion to vacate the denial of its supplemental‑authority motion, the court affirmed the denial, finding no error in its original reasoning.
- Headnote 12
The respondent’s request to remand for further back‑pay determination was rejected because the board already had authority to compute the award without a new court order.
- Headnote 13
The court denied the respondent’s motion to remand for a new discrimination hearing, holding that the earlier judicial finding of discriminatory discharge was conclusive.
- Headnote 14
Having concluded that the board could finalize the back‑pay award and that the discrimination finding was final, the court rejected the respondent’s request for a full remand.
Opinion
Its motion for authority to conduct supplemental proceedings for the purpose of determining the precise amount of back pay due having been denied, the Board has .filed its motion to vacate' the denial order.
Upon -due consideration of this motion, it also is denied for the reasons which dictated the denial of the original motion, to which denial we adhere. These reasons are: (1) That the original motion sought the entry of the order if and only “if the court deems such specific authorization necessary”; and (2) the court was of the clear opinion that it was not.
In denying the original motion of the Board and in adhering to that denial, we did not, and do not, deny the power of the Board to proceed in the premises. On the contrary, O.ur denials' were, and are, based on our view: that such an order was not necessary. We were, and are, in short in complete argeement with these views set forth in Home Beneficial Association v. N. L. R. B., 4 Cir., 172 F.2d 62, at page 63.
“ * * * The Board has full power, without further direction from this Court, to take evidence and make findings and orders carrying out the general order for reinstatement and back pay which this Court approved. * * *
“After the Board has made orders with respect to specific reinstatements or awards of back pay appropriate application can be made to this court, if necessary, to enforce or set them aside.”
The motion to vacate is denied.
Insofar as respondent’s motion that the cause be remanded for further testimony, seeks a remand to the Board for the purpose of determining the amount of back pay due W. H. Rose, under the back pay order of Board and Court in this case, it is denied for the reasons given in denying the Board’s motion for the entry of an order authorizing it to conduct supplemental proceedings that such an order is not necessary.
Insofar as the motion seeks a remand to reopen the matter already determined in this court, that Rose was discriminatorily discharged, the motion is denied because that matter is not thus subject to redetermination.
The motion to remand is denied.