Barton Brands, Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 416 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Barton Brands, Ltd. and Edward Humes
Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers' In-
ternational Union of America , Local 23,
AFL-CIO and Edward Humes . Cases 9-CA-7816-
1 and 9-CB-2286
December 9, 1974
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
On September 27, 1974, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding' finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, and ordering that Respondents
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action to remedy such unfair labor practices. The
Board corrected its Decision and Order by an order
dated October 4, 1974.
Thereafter, on October 17, 1974, the Respondent
Union filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion
for Oral Argument. On October 18, 1974, the Respond-
ent Employer filed a motion, requesting that the Board
reconsider and modify its Decision and Order in cer-
tain respects.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
1 213 NLRB No. 71.
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board having duly considered the matter,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent Union's re-
quest for oral argument before the Board be, and it
hereby is, denied, as the record and the briefs ade-
quately set forth the issues and positions of the parties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent Union's
Motion for Reconsideration be, and it hereby is, denied
as it contains nothing not previously considered by the
Board.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent Employer's
Motion be, and it hereby is denied as it lacks merit. We
note that the Respondent Employer did not raise an
issue in its answer to the complaint allegations that the
complaint should be dismissed because of Section 10(b)
of the Act, nor was the statute of limitations issue
litigated by the Respondent Employer in the hearing
before the Administrative Law Judge. The Respondent
Employer raised the 10(b) issue for the first time in its
brief to the Administrative Law Judge. However, the
Administrative Law Judge rules on the merits of the
case, and thus, did not accept Respondent Employer's
10(b) contention. The Respondent Employer filed no
exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Deci-
sion, nor any brief to the Board. Therefore, Respondent
Employer did not raise any issue concerning this case
before the Board. Accordingly, we reject the Respond-
ent Employer's belated contention that the complaint
against it is barred by the statute of limitations.
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting in part:
For the reasons set forth in my previous dissenting
opinion in these cases, I would grant the Motions for
Reconsideration filed by the Respondents.
215 NLRB No. 82