Farina Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1993

311 N.L.R.B. 1186 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

1186
311 NLRB No. 152
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 310 NLRB 318.
2 The Board notes that in Porta-King Building Systems, 310 NLRB
539 (1993), it rejected an argument similar to that made by the Re-
spondent here that an offer to bargain about layoffs after they had
occurred was sufficient to toll backpay liability. Moreover, in Porta-
King, the Board gave a similar reinstatement and make-whole rem-
edy for the unilateral layoffs. We note, however, that our order is
without prejudice to the Respondent’s opportunity, in compliance, to
show that, as a result of external factors, the Respondent had no
work for the laid-off employees to perform, i.e., such work was not
being performed either by other employees of the Respondent or by
employees under a subcontracting arrangement with the Respondent.
Backpay would be tolled as of the date that the Respondent could
show that all such work had disappeared, and that therefore it was
impossible to restore the status quo ante by reinstating the employ-
ees to their same or substantially equivalent positions prior to bar-
gaining.
Member Raudabaugh did not participate in the original decision in
this case, and he does not necessarily agree with its rationale for
finding a violation. However, he does agree that the instant motion,
confined to remedial matters, should be denied.
Farina Corporation and Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, AFL–CIO, Local
Union No. 17. Cases 1–CA–27051 and 1–CA–
27207
July 23, 1993
ORDER DENYING MOTION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
On January 29, 1993, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding.1
On February 16, 1993, the Respondent filed a Motion
to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration of
Board Order. In support of its motion, the Respondent
contends, inter alia, that the Board should reconsider
its remedy and toll backpay as of the date the Re-
spondent offered to bargain over the layoffs at issue,
that the record should be reopened to receive evidence
available only since the close of hearing concerning
layoffs subsequent to the hearing, and that the judge’s
order should be amended to conform to his conclu-
sions of law. Subsequently, the General Counsel filed
an opposition to the Respondent’s motion.
The Board having duly considered the matter,
IT IS ORDERED that the Respondent’s Motion to
Reopen and for Reconsideration is denied as lacking in
merit.2