Facet Enterprises

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1990

300 N.L.R.B. 699 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

699
300 NLRB No. 81
FACET ENTERPRISES
1 290 NLRB 152.
2 907 F.2d 963 (10th Cir. 1990).
Facet Enterprises, Inc. and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW).
Cases 7–CA–22929, 7–CA–23154, and 7–CA–
23817
November 7, 1990
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND OVIATT
On July 29, 1988, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order1 in this proceeding,
finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. The
violations included, inter alia, direct dealing with unit
employees, insisting to impasse on a nonmandatory
subject of bargaining, refusing to provide requested fi-
nancial and other information, and unilaterally chang-
ing employment conditions without bargaining to im-
passe. The Board also found that the strike at each of
the Respondent’s three plants had been converted from
an economic strike to an unfair labor practice strike by
the Respondent’s commission of various unfair labor
practices after the strikes began.
On July 3, 1990, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit2 granted enforcement of the
Board’s Order, except for the Board’s finding that the
strike at the Respondent’s Detroit, Michigan plant had
been converted from an economic to an unfair labor
practice strike. Specifically, the court concluded that
there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s
finding that the economic strike had been converted,
and remanded the case to the Board for further pro-
ceedings consistent with its findings. Thereafter, the
Board advised the parties that it had accepted the
court’s remand and that they might file statements of
position. The General Counsel and the Respondent
filed statements of position.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Having accepted the court’s remand as the law of
the case, we conclude that the strike at the Respond-
ent’s Detroit plant was not converted to an unfair labor
practice strike, and we shall amend the Conclusions of
Law. As the court has already enforced our Order in
all other respects, our supplemental Order will be lim-
ited accordingly.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law
10.
‘‘10. Due to Respondent’s conduct described above
in paragraph 9, the economic strike at the Elmira plant
underway since November 7, 1983, was prolonged and
thereby converted to an unfair labor practice strike
commencing the third week of December 1983.’’
2. Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law
12.
‘‘12. Notwithstanding unconditional requests for re-
instatements made on February 18, 1984, by the Union
on behalf of its striking employees at the Madison
Heights and Elmira plants, the Respondent has refused
to reinstate them to their former or substantially equiv-
alent positions, thereby engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.’’
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges that
the strike at the Respondent’s Detroit, Michigan plant
was converted from an economic to an unfair labor
practice strike.