Pennsylvania Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1989

293 N.L.R.B. 358 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

358 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pennsylvania Electric Company and Violet L Shu-
gerts Case 6-CA-17557
March 20, 1989
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
By CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS
On July 27, 1988, the Board issued its Decision
and Order in this proceeding' in which it found
that Respondent Pennsylvania Electric Company
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminatorily
failing and refusing to retain or rehire certain
named periodic temporary employees because of
union and concerted activities On August 24, 1988,
the General Counsel filed a motion for reconsider-
ation requesting the Board remand the case to the
judge "for the purpose of taking additional evi
dence in the unfair labor practice proceeding as to
the allegations in the Complaint of discriminatory
conduct by Respondent subsequent to the Unit No
3 and Unit No 1 outages in 1984 " The Respond-
ent filed a response opposing the General Counsel's
motion
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three
member panel
At the underlying hearing, the General Counsel
moved to amend the complaint to allege further
acts of discrimination subsequent to the Unit No 3
and Unit No 1 outages in 1984 with the under
standing that questions concerning the allegations
would be left to the compliance stage" At that
time, the Respondent did not oppose the General
Counsel's motion and the motion was granted by
the judge In the Board's previous decision, the
Board stated
1 289 NLRB 1200 (1988)
No agreement by the parties to litigate alleged
discrimination in future outages permits
the litigation of unfair labor practice allega-
tions in compliance proceedings
289 NLRB 1200 at fn 3 2 In so finding, the Board
did not discuss the fact that the judge had granted
a motion to amend the complaint, nor did it dismiss
the amended complaint insofar as it alleged viola-
tions not specifically found in the Board's decision
Because the complaint, as amended at the hear
ing, contains outstanding unfair labor practice alle
gations that have not been actually litigated by the
parties or decided by the judge or the Board, we
shall grant the General Counsel's motion and
remand the proceeding to the administrative law
judge to reopen the record for the taking of addi
tional evidence regarding the remaining complaint
allegations, concerning further acts of discrimina
tion subsequent to the Unit No 3 and Unit No 1
outages in 1984, and for the preparation of a sup-
plemental decision by the judge Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the General Counsel's
motion for reconsideration is granted and this
matter is remanded to Administrative Law Judge
Marvin Roth to reopen the unfair labor practice
proceeding for the submission of evidence on alle-
gations of discriminatory hiring in outages subse-
quent to those previously litigated On the conclu
sion of the reopened hearing, Administrative Law
Judge Roth shall prepare and serve on the parties a
supplemental decision containing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations Follow-
ing service of the supplemental decision on the par-
ties, the provisions of Section 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations shall govern
2 In her motion the General Counsel does not ask the Board to recon
seder its ruling that litigation of the alleged subsequent unfair labor prac
tices cannot properly be left to the compliance stage
293 NLRB No 36