Connecticut State Conference Board, Amalgamated Transit Union, 760 (2003)
National Labor Relations Board
Linked as:
Extract
Connecticut State Conference Board, Amalgamated Transit Union, 760 (2003)
Connecticut State Conference Board, Amalgamated Transit Union and H.N.S. Management Company, Inc.
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 425 and H.N.S. Management Company, Inc. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 443 and H.N.S. Management Company, Inc. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 281 and H.N.S. Management Company, Inc. Cases 34-CB- 2506, 34-CB-2507, 34-CB-2508, and 34-CB- 2509 July 16, 2003 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND WALSH On December 3, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Joel P. Biblowitz issued the attached decision. The Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed a reply brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.1ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Respondents, Connecticut State Conference Board, Amalgamated Transit Union, East Hartford, Connecticut, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 425, East Hartford, Connecticut, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 443, Stamford, Connecticut, and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 281, New Haven, Connecticut, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a). 1 We shall modify par. 2(a) of the judge's recommended Order to include the customary affirmative bargaining language used to remedy an unlawful insistence to impasse on the inclusion of an interest arbitration clause in violation of Sec. 8(b)(3). E.g., Sheet Metal Workers Local 38, 231 NLRB 699, 702 (1977). We shall also substitute a new notice in accordance with our recent decision in Ishikawa Gasket America, Inc., 337 NLRB 175 (2001). Chairman Battista would not modify the judge's recommended Order. In his opinion, the language of the recommended Order requiring the Respondents to notify the Employer that they are willing to sign the collective-bargaining agreement without the interest arbitration clause, is narrowly tailored to the factual circumstances underlying the violation found and is sufficiently similar to the Board's customary remedial language. "(a) On request, bargain in g...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
