National Labor Relations Board v. Aero-Motive Manufacturing Company
1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11750 · 475 F.2d 27 · 82 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3052
February 8, 1973 · Docket 72-1697
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 149.15.17 Labor and Employment Law > Labor Law > NLRB Proceedings and Remedies Law49.14.10 Labor and Employment Law > Labor and Employment Administrative Enforcement Law > Judicial Review of Labor and Employment Agency Action Law49.14.11 Labor and Employment Law > Labor and Employment Administrative Enforcement Law > NLRB Enforcement Law
The court relied on prior decisions to conclude that the Board had wide authority in crafting the remedial order under review.
- Headnote 2
In deciding whether to enforce the Board's monetary order, the court relied on the principle that the Board possesses broad remedial discretion in crafting orders to redress unfair labor practices.
- Headnote 3
The Board found that Aero-Motive failed to pay a $100 bonus to employees who engaged in the strike, did not receive the bonus, and were recalled to work on or before March 9, 1972. The court agreed with the Board's violation finding.
- Headnote 4
The court accepted the Board's conclusion that Aero-Motive violated sections 8(a)(1) and (5) because the Board's reported order and decision supplied the pertinent facts and the court concurred in the violation finding.
- Headnote 5
In deciding whether to enforce the Board's order requiring payment of a $100 bonus plus interest to recalled strikers, the court emphasized the Board's broad remedial discretion in selecting the remedy.
- Headnote 6
Although the panel expressed reluctance, it enforced the Board's order requiring Aero-Motive to pay $100 plus interest to the recalled strikers because the remedy was within Board discretion and no practical alternative existed.
- Headnote 7
Chief Judge Phillips would have denied enforcement of a subpart concerning payment to some affected persons because of violence and threats to non-strikers, but the majority granted enforcement of the full Board order.
Opinion
ORDER
This case is before the court upon the application of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order reported at 195 N.L.R.B. No. 133. Reference is made to the reported decision of the Board for a recitation of pertinent facts.
We agree that the respondent company was guilty of violating §§ 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act as found by the Board. The majority of the panel is of the view that this court must enforce, albeit reluctantly, the order that the company pay $100 plus interest to those who engaged in the strike, did not receive the $100 bonus and were recalled to work on or before March 9, 1972. The award to non-strikers was made after a new collective bargaining agreement had been signed. The Board has broad discretion in formulating orders remedying unfair labor practices. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 379 U.S. 203, 216, 85 S.Ct. 398, 13 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964); N. L. R. B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, 346-347, 73 S.Ct. 287, 97 L.Ed. 377 (1953); Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 313 U.S. 177, 194-195, 61 S.Ct. 845, 85 L.Ed. 1271 (1941). Further, there appears to be no practical alternative to the remedy prescribed by the Board.
It is ordered that enforcement be granted.
Because of the violence and threats to the personal safety and property of non-strikers which occurred while the strike was in progress, Chief Judge Phillips would deny enforcement of sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2 of the order of the Board, as amended April 17, 1972, but would enforce the remainder of the Board’s order.