Croatian Fraternal Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 968 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Croatian Fraternal Union of America and Louise
Bursic. Case 6-CA-9742
October 7, 1977
ORDER DENYING MOTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On May 26, 1977, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for Region 6, issued a complaint and notice
of hearing in the above-captioned matter alleging
that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) and 2(6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that Respondent
laid off the Charging Party on or about November
12, 1976, and has failed and refused to recall the
Charging Party for engaging in union or other
concerted activities. Respondent filed an answer,
admitting in part and denying in part the allegations
of the complaint, asserting affirmative defenses,
including a defense based on an arbitration proceed-
ing, and requesting that the complaint be dismissed.
On June 6, 1977, the Regional Director for Region
6 issued an amendment to the complaint alleging a
further violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
in that Respondent, in or about the summer of 1976,
prohibited the Charging Party from signing articles
in Respondent's newspaper with a previously granted
job title. Respondent, by answer dated June 10, 1977,
denied this allegation. On June 24, 1977, Respondent
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, together with
a brief and exhibits in support thereof. On July 8,
1977, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Cause why Respondent's motion should not be
granted. On the same date, the General Counsel filed
an answer and statement in opposition to Respon-
dent's Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 11,
1977, Respondent filed a response to the General
Counsel's statement. On July 25, 1977, the General
Counsel filed a further response to the Motion for
Summary Judgment.
Respondent seeks summary judgment on the
ground that the issues raised by the complaint were
resolved by an arbitrator who concluded that the
Charging Party was laid off due to lack of work
because she lacked a vital qualification for the job,
and who further concluded that Respondent acted
within its rights and prerogatives under the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement. Respondent argues that
the arbitrator's award meets the standards set forth
in Spielberg Manufacturing Co., 112 NLRB 1080
(1955), and that the Board should defer to it under
the policy enunciated in that decision. Respondent
further argues that the allegations in the amendment
to the complaint are unrelated to the allegations in
the charge and occurred, if at all, more than 6
months prior to the amendment or outside the
limitation period provided by Section 10(b) of the
Act.
In opposition, the General Counsel asserts that the
issue of Respondent's alleged discrimination against
the Charging Party for union activities was not
presented to or passed upon by the arbitrator
because the arbitrator refused to allow questions on
the Charging Party's union activities, although
questions on this same issue were attempted, and
that deferral to arbitration is therefore inappropriate.
The General Counsel asserts further that the allega-
tions contained in the amended complaint are not
unrelated to or at variance with the charge which was
timely filed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board, having duly considered the entire
matter, is of the opinion that the submissions of the
parties raise substantial and material issues of fact
and law which may best be resolved by a hearing and
which warrant denial of the Motion for Summary
Judgment.
It is hereby ordered that Respondent's Motion for
Summary Judgment be, and it hereby is, denied.
It is further ordered that this proceeding be, and it
hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for
Region 6 for the purpose of scheduling a hearing,
before a duly designated Administrative Law Judge,
and said Regional Director is hereby authorized to
issue notice thereof.
232 NLRB No. 145
968