Extract
Contek Int. Inc., 879 (2005)
Contek Int., Inc. and Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 592, AFL–CIO. Case 22–CA–26321
June 23, 2005DECISION AND ORDERBy Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and SchaumberOn December 30, 2004, Administrative Law Judge William N. Cates issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respondent filed a reply brief.The National Labor Relations 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.1In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to adhere to the terms of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement, we note that the Respondent does not raise, in its exceptions, the affirmative defense that the agreement is voidable based on either a fraudulent or a material misrepresentation by the Union to induce the Respondent’s assent to the contract. See Restatement of Contracts Second § 164 (1981). Consequently, we make no findings or conclusions concerning the merits of such defenses. Moreover, in adopting the judge’s decision, we disavow his statement that “it is well settled that a unilateral mistake is not grounds for rescission of a contract.” Although the judge cited AEi2 LLC, 343 NLRB No. 56 (2004), for that proposition, and that statement does appear in the administrative law judge’s decision in AEi2, supra, it is not a correct statement of the law. The judge in AEi2 relied on the Board’s decision in Carpenters Local 405, 328 NLRB 788, 794 (1999), as support for that proposition, but Carpenters Local 405 actually recognized that although the remedy is granted sparingly, unilateral mistake may be grounds for rescission of a...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
