Extract
IATSE, Local 659, 1187 (1966)
IATSE, LOCAL 659 1187
International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industries, Local 659 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada (MPO-TV of California Inc., Y-A Productions, Inc.) andJames N. Adler on behalf of Joel Colman and Vilis M. Lapenieks and Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., Party to the Contract. Cases 31-CB-189 and 31-CB-198June 30, 1972 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERSFANNING AND KENNEDYOn June 18, 1971, Trial Examiner Allen Sinsheimer, Jr., issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed a reply brief, cross-exceptions, and a supporting brief.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm only such of the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings,' and conclusions as are consistent herewith.Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that the Regional Director did not exceed his authority in setting aside certain settlement agreements and issuing the consolidated complaint.Respondent contends that the Regional Director may not set aside the settlement agreements since there has been no breach of the agreements or a subsequent unfair labor practice.It has long been the practice in the Board's Regional Offices that before any complaint is issued or other formal action taken the Regional Director affords an opportunity to all parties for the submission and consideration of facts, arguments, offers of settlement, or proposals of adjustment, except where time, the nature of the proceeding, and the public interest do not permit. Normally prehearing conferences are held, the principal purpose of which is to discuss and explore such submissions and proposals of adjustment. The Regional Office provides Boardprepared forms for such settlement agreements, as well as printed notices for posting by the respondent.These agreements, which are subject to the approval of the Regional Director, provide for an appeal to the General Counsel by a complainant who will not join in a settlement or adjustment deemed adequate by the Regional Director. Proof of compliance is obtained by the Regional Director before the case is closed. If the respondent fails to perform his obligations under the informal agreement, the Regional Director may determine to institute formal proceedings.2Pursuant to the above practice, settlement discussions were held in the Regional Office in the instant case, resulting in the execution by the parties, and approval by the Regional Director, of two separate but identical settlement agreements, both of which provided that 'the Union will make whole Joel Colman and Vilis Lapenieks by payment to each of them of backpay plus interest, such amounts to be determined by the Regional Director in accordance with existing Board formula.' The Regional Director determined that Colman was entitled to backpay amounting to approximately $400. Colman contended that his backpay should be approximately $40,000, and that the Regional Director's determination of the amount of the backpay would not adequately remedy the alleged vioiation of the Act.Colman's position was ultimately partially sustained, and his backpay recomputed by the Regional Director to the sum of $16,539.63. When Respondent refused to pay such an amount, approval of both of the settlement agreements was withdrawn.It appears obvious from the foregoing that there was no meeting of the minds when the settlement agreements were executed. Colman expected to receive a sum far in excess of $400. Respondent expected a liability substantially less than $16,539.63, the amount ultimately computed by the Regional Director. And the Regional Director was apparently faced with uncertainty as to the choice of a formula for making his determination. In such circumstances, we believe that it would be inequitable to hold the parties to the commitments contained in the settlement agreements, and we find that the Regional Director did not commit reversible error in withdrawing approval of the settlement agreements and reopening the case for further proceedings. While settlement agreements are entitled to be treated with sanctity and should not be lightly set aside, we recognize that circumstances can exist which warrant permitting withdrawal from a settlement agreement.Such is the case here.' The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings made enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and by the Trial Examiner. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a find no basis for reversing his...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
