Howard Industries, Inc.,
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.
Howard Industries, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1317. Case 15–CA–131447
June 13, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE AND MCFERRAN
On September 24, 2015, Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued the attached decision. The Charging Party, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1317, filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed crossexceptions and a supporting brief, the Respondent filed answering briefs, and the General Counsel 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,1 findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
The recommended Order of the administrative law judge is adopted and the complaint is dismissed.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 13, 2017
Philip A. Miscimarra, Chairman
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 We do not rely on the judge’s citation to Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc., 359 NLRB 918 (2013), which was issued by a panel subsequently found invalid. See NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014).
Joseph Hoffman, Esq. and Kevin McClue, Esq., for the General
Elmer E. White, Esq. (The Kullman Law Firm), of Birmingham,
Alabama, for the Respondent.
Clarence Larkin, for the Charging Party.
BENCH DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KELTNER W. LOCKE, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this case on September 9, 2015, in Laurel, Mississippi. After the parties rested, I heard oral argument, and, on September 10, 2015, issued a bench decision pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law. In accordance with Section 102.45 of the Rules and Regulations, I certify the accuracy of, and attach hereto as “Appendix A,” the portion of the transcript containing this decision.1 The Conclusions of Law and Order provisions are set forth below.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent, Howard Industries, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The Charging Party, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1317, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
At all times since about 1970, the Charging Party has been the exclusive bargaining representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, of the following unit of employees at the Respondent’s Laurel, Mississippi facility: All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees, EXCLUDING all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. This unit is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
The Respondent and the Charging Party were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement covering the employees in the unit described above. This collective-bargaining agreement was effective from January 21, 2012 to January 20, 2015. This agreement establishes grievance resolution procedures culminating in binding arbitration.
At all material times, Gregory Jones has been an employee in the bargaining unit described above.
On or about June 12, 2014, the Respondent suspended Gregory Jones, and discharged him on about June 19, 2014.
To contest the suspension and discharge of Gregory Jones, described in paragraph 6, above, the Charging Party filed the unfair labor practice charge in this case and also filed a grievance, the latter resulting in a hearing before Arbitrator Cary J. Williams on November 21, 2014. On February 6, 2015, the arbitrator issued an opinion and award denying the grievance and sustaining the suspension and discharge of Jones.
1 The bench decision appears in uncorrected form at pages 149 through 165 of the transcript. The final version, after correction of oral and transcriptional errors, is attached as “Appendix A” to this certification.
365 NLRB No. 96
Respondent and the Charging Party had agreed to be bound by the arbitrator's decision described in paragraph 6 above, the procedures resulting in the decision were fair and regular, and the arbitrator considered the unfair labor practice issue.
The arbitrator's decision described in paragraph 6, above, is not repugnant to the Act.
It is appropriate to defer the present Complaint to the arbitrator's decision.
Further proceedings are unwarranted.
On the findings of fact and conclusions of law herein, and on the entire record in this case, I issue the following recommended2
The complaint is dismissed.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 24, 2015
This decision is issued pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) and Section 102.45 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Finding that an arbitrator already has ruled on a grievance factually parallel to the circumstances under consideration here, and concluding that the arbitrator's decision meets the relevant Board standards for deferral, I recommend that the Board defer to that decision and dismiss the Complaint.
This case began on June 24, 2014, when the Charging Party, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1317, filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Respondent, Howard Industries, Inc., with Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board. The Region docketed this charge as Case 15–CA–131447 and served it on the Respondent by regular mail the next day. The Charging Party amended this charge on August 18, 2014 and again on August 22, 2014.
The charge alleged that the Respondent had violated the Act by discharging an employee, Gregory Jones, who...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP