Laminite Plastics Mfg., Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1978

238 N.L.R.B. 888 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Laminite Plastics Mfg. Corp. and United Furniture
Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 10-CA-
13459
September 29, 1978
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND REMANDING TO THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
BY MMBI KRS PiNI l.I.,O, MURPHY, ANi) TRUESDAI.
On March 27, 1978, the Acting Regional Director
for Region 10 of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint, order consolidating cases, and no-
tice of hearing in Cases 10-CA 13459 and 10 CA-
13348, alleging that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(I) and
(3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act. as amended. Subsequently, Respon-
dent filed an answer admitting in part and denying in
part the allegations of the complaint and requesting
that the complaint be dismissed.
Thereafter, on June 9. 1978, Respondent filed with
the Board in Washington, D.C., a motion to transfer
the case and continue proceedings before the Board
and for summary judgment and brief in support
thereof; with exhibits attached.
The complaint herein alleges that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) by discharging employee Anne
Q. Kinley Christian for engaging in union activities.
Respondent submits that its conduct alleged in this
complaint occurred prior to the hearing and settle-
ment in another proceeding involving this Respon-
dent, Case 10-CA 12929,2 that the Union and the
General Counsel knew or should have known of the
acts alleged herein prior to the hearing and settlement
in Case 10 CA 12929, that the complaint in the in-
stant case does not allege that Respondent has failed
On Mas 10, 1978, the Respondent filed with the Board a motion to
transfer case and continue proceedings before the Board and for summary
judgment in ( ase 10 (CA 13348 which had been consolidated with the in-
stant case on March 27. 1978 On May 17, 1978, the Board issued an order
transferring proceeding to the Board and Notice To Show Cause in Case 10
(A 13348.
2 On December 16, 1977. the parties herein entered into a settlement
agreement in (ase 10 CA 12929 which was approved by the Administrative
L aw Judge
to comply with the settlement agreement, and that
the complaint herein does not allege any unfair labor
practices since the settlement in Case 10 CA-12929.
On June 22, 1978, the Board issued an order trans-
ferring proceeding to the Board and Notice To Show
Cause why Respondent's Motion for Summary Judg-
ment should not be granted. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed a response to Notice To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board, having duly considered the Motion for
Summary Judgment, is of the opinion that litigation
of allegations contained in the complaint herein is not
precluded by the settlement agreement in C'ase 10-
CA -12929. Contrary to Respondent's contention,
there is no evidence indicating that the General
Counsel was aware of Christian's discharge prior to
the execution of the settlement agreement.' Nor was
it possible, as argued by Respondent, that the Gen-
eral Counsel ·would have been aware of Christian's
discharge had a "proper" investigation been con-
ducted in Case 10 CA 12929, inasmuch as the inves-
tigation and issuance of complaint in that case pre-
ceded her discharge. Accordingly, the Motion for
Summary Judgment will be denied.
It is hereby ordered that the Respondent's Motion
for Summary Judgment in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding be, and it hereby is, denied.
It is further ordered that the above-entitled pro-
ceeding be. and it hereby is, remanded to the Re-
gional Director for Region 10 for the exercise of his
authority pursuant to Sections 102.15 and 102.18 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations. Series 8, as
amended.
I he circumstances in this case are distinguishable from those in Case 10
(CA 13348 (238 NLRB No. 173. issued simultaneously) involving the same
parties, wherein we granted Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment.
There the complaint alleged that Respondent violated Sec. 8aH11I bs dis-
charging its supervisor. Lsndon Fuller, for allegedl 5 refusing to engage in
certain antiunion conduct. Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judg-
ment contending that the complaint was barred by the settlement agreement
in Case 10 CA 12929. In granting Respondent's motion, we noted that.
unlike the circumstances herein, the General Counsel had obtained indepen-
dent knowledge of the alleged conduct prior to the consummation of the
settlement agreement and failed to reflect such knowledge either in the settle-
ment agreement through specific reservation or in the complaint through
amendment thereof. Accordingly, we held that the litigation in Case 10 C'A
13348 was precluded by virtue of the settlement agreement in Case 10 CA
12939
238 NLRB No. 121
888