Dynatron/Bondo Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 1999

330 N.L.R.B. 16 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 16
Dynatron/Bondo Corporation and Union of Needle-
trades, Industrial and Textile Employees, AFL–
CIO. Case 10–CA–30523
November 16, 1999
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND HURTGEN
On March 6, 1998, the Regional Director for Region
10 issued a complaint in this proceeding alleging that the
Respondent, Dynatron/Bondo Corporation, violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act
by disciplining and discharging Raleigh Bell, and other
employees similarly situated, pursuant to its “late arrival
to work station” rule. The complaint rests on the Board’s
decision in 1997 that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act by unilaterally implementing the “late
arrival to work station” rule and by discharging em-
ployee Lamar Shelton pursuant to this disciplinary rule.1
On June 8, 1998, the General Counsel, the Respon-
dent, and the Union filed with the Board a Submission of
Proceeding to the Board by Stipulation. On September
14, 1998, the Board issued an Order Approving Stipula-
tion and Transferring the Proceeding to the Board.
On May 25, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision in Dyna-
tron/Bondo I enforcing the majority of the Board’s unfair
labor practice findings.2 The court, however, reversed the
Board’s conclusions that the Respondent unlawfully im-
plemented the “late arrival to work station” rule and that
Lamar Shelton was unlawfully discharged. The court
found that the underlying complaint allegations were
time-barred by Section 10(b) of the Act.

1 Dynatron/Bondo Corp., 324 NLRB 572. See also Dynatron/Bondo
Corp., 323 NLRB 1263 (1997), in which the Board found, inter alia,
that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act by unilaterally
changing its employees’ terms and conditions of employment. These
two cases are collectively referred to as Dynatron/Bondo I.
2 176 F.3d 1310.
On September 14, 1999, the Board issued a Notice to
Show Cause in which it advised the parties in this pro-
ceeding that the Board had decided to accept the court’s
opinion in Dynatron/Bondo I as the law of the case, for
the purpose of resolving the issues presented by the in-
stant case. The Board invited the parties to show cause,
in writing, why the complaint in this proceeding should
not be dismissed in light of the court’s decision in Dyna-
tron/Bondo I. Thereafter, the Union filed a response to
the Notice to Show Cause in which it argues that the
court’s decision was erroneous. The Union “urge[s] the
Board to find some procedural means of revisiting the
issue, either by reconsidering its decision to accept the
Court’s decision as the law of the case, and/or by allow-
ing the instant case to be litigated through the Board
process so that the Eleventh Circuit can be asked to re-
visit the issue.” The Respondent filed an opposition to
the Union’s response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
After careful consideration, the Board has decided to
adhere to its decision to accept the court’s opinion in
Dynatron/Bondo I as the law of this case. Accordingly,
in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, the Board will
dismiss the complaint allegations that the Respondent
violated the Act by disciplining and discharging Raleigh
Bell, and other employees similarly situated, pursuant to
its unlawfully implemented “late arrival to work station”
rule.
The court’s opinion in Dynatron/Bondo I forecloses
finding that the Respondent’s “late arrival to work sta-
tion” rule was unlawfully implemented. There is no other
basis in the record for concluding that the Respondent
violated the Act by disciplining and discharging Raleigh
Bell, and other employees similarly situated, pursuant to
the “late arrival to work station” rule. We shall, there-
fore, dismiss the complaint.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.

330 NLRB No. 5