Simon DeBartelo Group, (2006)

Extract

---

Simon DeBartelo Group, (2006)

Simon Debartelo Group a/w M. S. Management Associates, Inc. and Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union.[1] Case 29–CA–23218–1

May 31, 2006

ORDER REMANDING PROCEEDINGS

By Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Kirsanow

On December 1, 2000, Administrative Law Judge Howard Edelman issued the attached decision in this case. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed an answering brief. The General Counsel and the Charging Party filed limited cross-exceptions.

The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

Consistent with our decision in Dish Network Service Corp., 345 NLRB No. 83 (2005), the Board has decided to remand this case in order for another judge to review the record and issue an appropriate decision.[2]

In this case and in many others, the same judge has copied extensively from the General Counsel’s brief in his decision. In each case, the judge then decided the case in favor of the General Counsel.[3] Our comparison of the General Counsel’s brief and the judge’s decision reveals that the majority of the judge’s decision was copied verbatim from the General Counsel’s posthearing brief. The judge copied verbatim from the General Counsel’s brief in both his factual statement and his legal discussion.

In Dish Network, 345 NLRB No. 83, slip op. at 1, we said:

‘[I]t is essential not only to avoid actual partiality and prejudgment . . . in the conduct of Board proceedings, but also to avoid even the appearance of a partisan tribunal.’ Indianapolis Glove Co., 88 NLRB 986 (1950). See Reading Anthracite Co., 273 NLRB 1502 (1985); Dayton Power & Light Co., 267 NLRB 202 (1983).

Considering the instant case in the context of all of these cases as a whole, the impression given is that...

See the full content of this document

---