Lodge No. 1129

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 630 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lodge No. 1129, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and
Victoria Horwath and Sunbeam Appliance
Company, Division of Sunbeam Corporation, Party
to the Contract
Lodge No. 1129 , International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and
International Association of Machinists and Aeros-
pace Workers, District No. 8, AFL-CIO and
Elizabeth Gaudry and Sunbeam Appliance Compa-
ny, Division of Sunbeam Corporation, Party to the
Contract. Cases 13-CB-5038 and 13-CB-5039
February 18, 1975
ORDER REMANDING PROCEEDING TO
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On November 4, 1974, a hearing was held before
Administrative Law Judge Lowell M. Goerlich, upon
the complaint issued in the above-entitled proceed-
ing. At the close of the hearing the Administrative
Law Judge, over the objection of the Charging
Parties, granted a motion by the Respondents to
waive the preparation and issuance of a decision by
him and to transfer the proceeding directly to the
National Labor Relations Board in Washington,
D.C., for decision.
Thereafter, on November 27, 1974, the Board
issued and served on the parties a Notice To Show
Cause why it should not affirm the ruling of the
Administrative Law Judge on the Respondents'
motion and transfer this proceeding directly to the
Board for decision. In response thereto, the Charging
Parties and the General Counsel filed statements in
opposition to the transfer of this proceeding to the
Board, and the Respondents filed a statement in
' The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge ," effective August 19, 1972
support of the ruling of the Administrative Law
Judge.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Having duly considered the matter, we conclude
that under the statutory scheme of the Act the
Administrative Law Judge was without the authority
to grant the Respondents ' motion, absent agreement
of all the parties. Section 10(c) of the Act, the
applicable provision, reads in pertinent part:
In case the evidence is presented before a member
of the Board, or before an examiner or examiners
thereof, such member , or such examiner or
examiners , as the case may be, shall issue and
cause to be served on the parties to the proceed-
ing a proposed report, together with a recom-
mended order, which shall be filed with the Board
.... [Emphasis supplied.]'
The mandatory language of this section of the Act,
therefore, clearly requires that an Administrative
Law Judge issue a decision once evidence is
presented before him. Accordingly, the Administra-
tive Law Judge having failed to comply with the
requirements of Section 10(c) of the Act, we shall
remand this proceeding to him for the purposes of
preparing and issuing a decision.
It is hereby ordered that the above-entitled
proceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded to
Administrative Law Judge Lowell M. Goerlich for
the purposes of preparing and issuing a decision
containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a
recommended Order. Following service of said
decision on the parties, the provisions of Section
102.46 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, shall be applicable.
216 NLRB No. 127