Extract
Inter-Lakes Engineering Co., 148 (1975)
Inter-Lakes Engineering Company and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA-8819
March 28, 1975 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On October 10, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Samuel Ross issued the attached- Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed an answering 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.The General Counsel on September 9, 1971, issued a complaint against Respondent which alleged that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) when it, inter alia, laid off 15 employees on July 6, 1971, in retaliation for their union activities and to discourage membership in the Union. On November 22, 1971, under circumstances more fully detailed by the Administrative Law Judge, the parties entered into a settlement stipulation which provided, inter alia, for the withdrawal by the Respondent of its answer and for the entry of a Board order and court of appeals decree against the Respondent. The Board approved the settlement stipulation on January 14, 1972. On April 20, 1972, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered a consent judgment enforcing the Board's order. Since that time a controversy has arisen between the parties as to the correct interpretation of a portion of the settlement stipulation.The settlement stipulation required Respondent to make the alleged discriminatees whole by payment of a lump sum of $10,000 'to be apportioned by and at the discretion of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region . . . in accordance with the normal procedures and practices of the National Labor Relations Board.' The settlement further provided in paragraph 10 as follows:10. The parties hereto recognize that the amount of backpay to be paid herein represents a compromise settlement of pay due for the period of July 7, 1971 to September 20, 1971. It is agreed, therefore, that in the event any of the discriminatees reimburse the Michigan Employment Security Commission for any unemployment compensation they received as a result of a loss of pay because of the alleged unfair labor practices in this matter, the Employer will compensate the discriminatees for any -money they are required to repay the Michigan Employment Security Commission in excess of the settlement received by the individual employees in this matter. [Emphasis supplied.] The parties are in disagreement as to the meaning of the underlined portion of the quoted clause. General Counsel contends that the clause requires Respondent to reimburse discriminatees an amount equal to that which the discriminatee must repay to the Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC) with the total amount not to exceed 100 percent of the backpay due. Respondent contends that the clause unambiguously requires Respondent to reimburse discriminatees only the amount by which their repayment to MESC exceeds the amount which they received under the terms of the settlement stipulation. Respondent further contends that since the settlement stipulation is unambiguous the Parol Evidence Rule precludes the taking of any evidence as to its meaning.The language used...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
