Baker Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1985

277 N.L.R.B. 193 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

BAKER MFG CO, 193
Baker Manufacturing Company and United Steel-
workers of America, AFL-CIO and Gary S.
Thornton. Cases 23-CA-8532 and-23-CA-8602
31 October 1985
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
On 30 March 1984 the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding' in which it adopted the ad-
ministrative law judge's findings, inter alia, that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
Subsequently, the Respondent filed with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir-
cuit a petition for review of the Board's Order, and
the Board filed a cross-petition for enforcement of
its Order. Thereafter, in an opinion dated 9 May
1985, the court denied enforcement in part and re-
mandled the case to the Board for further proceed-
ings consistent with the court's opinion.2 By letter
dated 22 July 1985, the Board notified the parties
in this proceeding that it had decided to accept, the
court's remand and that statements of position
could be filed with respect to the issues raised by
the court's opinion.
On 5 August 1985 the General Counsel filed a
statement of position contending that the issues
raised by the court's remand were moot, and
urging that the Board not remand the case for fur-
ther consideration of the issues. No other party
filed a response to the Board's request for state-
ments of position.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
1 269 NLRB 794 (1984).
2 Baker Mfg. Ca, v. NLRB, 759 F.2d 1219
In its Decision and Order, the Board ordered
that the Respondent, inter alia, "reestablish the po-
sition of toolroom attendant and maintenance elec-
trician if Connie Lane and Jesus A. Canales, re-
spectively, accept offers of reinstatement to their
old jobs."a However, in denying enforcement of
the Board's Order, the court found that the record
did not support the conclusion that "the coerced
re-creation and maintenance of these two positions
has been shown to be necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act."4 Accordingly, the court held
that the Respondent must be given "an opportunity
to demonstrate that the re-creation and continu-
ation of these positions at the time Lane and Can-
ales accept reinstatement, if they choose to do so,
would be economically inefficient."5 In her state-
ment of position the General Counsel asserts that
an investigation by the Compliance Officer for
Region 23 shows that Lane and Canales previously
declined offers of reinstatement to these positions.
The General Counsel further asserts that the em-
ployees' respective backpay was computed to 27
March 1983, the date that the employee hired to
replace Lane was laid off due to lack of work and
the date that the electrical work, which had been
contracted out, ceased to exist.
Having accepted the court's remand, and having
duly considered the General Counsel's statement of
position, we conclude that the issues raised by the
court's opinion are now moot and, accordingly, we
shall modify the Board's previous Order in this
proceeding.6
ORDER
It is ordered that the Board's Decision and
Order in this proceeding (269 NLRB 794) be modi-
fied as follows:
Delete paragraph 2(b) from the Order.
3 269 NLRB at 817
4 759 F 2d at 1224.
5 Id.
6 We have been administratively advised by the General Counsel that
the Respondent has previously posted the notice issued by the Board at
269 NLRB 794
277 NLRB No. 22