Bradley University

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 1139 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

BRADLEY UNIVERSITY
Bradley University and International Union of Op-
erating Engineers-Local 399. Case 33-CA-
7182. , -
30 September 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
Upon a charge filed, by the Union, International
Union of Operating Engineers-Local- 399, on 6
March 1985, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on 17
April 1985 against Bradley University, the Re-
spondent, alleging that it had violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
The complaint alleges that about 4 March 1985
the Respondent changed the manner in which em-
ployees, take their lunchbreaks and that this alleged
change was contrary to a well-established past
practice. The complaint alleges --that the Respond-
ent has engaged in this conduct without having af-
forded the -Union an opportunity to negotiate and
bargain with it as the exclusive representative of
the Respondent's employees. On 30 April 1985 the
Respondent filed an answer to the complaint admit-
ting in part and denying 'in part the allegations in
the complaint and asserting an affirmative defense. i
On 20 May 1985 the Respondent filed directly
with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment
and a supporting -memorandum. On 31 May 1985
the Board issued an order transferring this proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment
should not be granted. On 6 June 1985.the General
Counsel filed a motion in response and opposition
to the Respondent's motion to dismiss.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
On the entire record the Board makes the fol-'
lowing
' The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that the Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(6) and
(7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Sec . 2(5) of the Act .
1139
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its Motion for Summary Judgment and its
supporting memorandum, the Respondent contends
that the unfair labor practice allegations should be
deferred to the parties' grievance-arbitration proce-
dure pursuant to- Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB
837 (1971), and United Technologies Co., 268 NLRB
557 (1984). The Respondent contends that the
unfair labor practice alleged in the complaint con-
cerns the identical dispute which is the subject of-a
grievance filed previously by the' Union - on 19
March -1985.2 In response to the Respondent's
motion, the General Counsel concedes that the
Union "continues to maintain a grievance covering
the same dispute as alleged in the Complaint." The
General Counsel has informed the Board that upon
further review subsequent to the Respondent's
motion, the Acting Regional Director has deferred
disposition.of this matter pending the outcome of
the grievance-arbitration process. Dubo Mfg. Corp.,
142 NLRB 431 (1963). See also Postal Service, 225
NLRB 220 (1976). In view of these circumstances,
it is evident that deferral to the parties' grievance-
arbitration machinery is appropriate. Accordingly,
we shall grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.
- ORDER -
The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted,
and the'complaint-is dismissed, provided that:
Jurisdiction of this proceeding is retained for the
limited purpose of entertaining an appropriate and
timely' motion for further consideration upon a
proper showing that either (a) the dispute has not,'
with, reasonable promptness after the issuance of
this Decision and -Order, been either--resolved by
amicable settlement in the grievance procedure or
submitted promptly to arbitration, or (b) the griev-
ance or arbitration procedures have not been fair
and regular or have reached a result which is re-
pugnant to the Act.
2 According to documents submitted by the Respondent and not dis-
puted by the General Counsel, art VIII of the parties' collective-bargain-
ing agreement provides for a grievance -arbitration procedure culminating
in "final and binding" arbitration Pursuant to this provision, the Union
has filed and maintained a formal written grievance alleging that the Re-
spondent violated an agreement of the parties entered into on 12 June
1984
276 NLRB No. 119