Goodless Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 2002

337 N.L.R.B. 1259 (N.L.R.B. 2002)

GOODLESS ELECTRIC CO. 1259
Goodless Electric Co., Inc. and Local Union No. 7,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Work­
ers, AFL–CIO. Cases 1–CA–31249, 1–CA–31429,
and 1–CA–31657
August 30, 2002
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, COWEN, AND BARTLETT
On October 31, 2000, the National Labor Relations
Board, on remand from the United States Court of Ap­
peals for the First Circuit, issued a Supplemental Deci­
sion and Order reaffirming its original decision finding
that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(5), (3), and
(1) of the Act. 332 NLRB 1035.1
Subsequently, the Board filed with the First Circuit a
petition for enforcement of its Supplemental Order, and
the Respondent petitioned for review. On March 28,
2002, the court issued a decision denying enforcement of
the Board’s Supplemental Order.
In that decision, the court held that the Board had erred
in concluding that the court’s opinion permitted the
1 The Board’s original Decision and Order is reported at 321 NLRB
64 (1996). The First Circuit’s decision denying enforcement is re-
ported at 124 F.3d 322 (1997).
Board to reaffirm, rather than to reverse, its earlier Order
based on a clarification of precedent. The court, there-
fore, reversed with “an explicit instruction that the Board
dismiss the charges against [Respondent] Goodless.”
NLRB v. Goodless Bros. Electric Co., 285 F.3d 102,
111.2
By letter dated July 16, 2002, the Board invited the
parties to file statements of position with respect to the
court’s decision. Only the Respondent filed a statement
of position. In that statement, the Respondent requested
that the Board expeditiously dismiss the charges against
it.
Having accepted the First Circuit’s decision as the law
of the case, we shall therefore dismiss the complaint
against the Respondent.
ORDER
The Board’s prior Orders in this proceeding, reported
at 321 NLRB 64 and 332 NLRB 1035, are vacated and
the complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
2 Members Cowen and Bartlett did not participate in the Board’s de­
cisions in this case and express no view as to those decisions.
337 NLRB No. 190