Pottsville Bleaching Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1991

301 N.L.R.B. 1095 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

1095
301 NLRB No. 136
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 On November 1, 1987, the Teamsters International Union was readmitted
to the AFL–CIO. Accordingly, the caption has been amended to reflect that
change.
2 It is undisputed that the settlement agreement fully remedies the com-
plaint’s allegations and that the notice tracks the allegations of the complaint.
3 The General Counsel relies on Independent Shoe Workers (U.S. Shoe), 203
NLRB 783 (1973), in which the Board rejected a settlement that included a
nonadmissions clause in the Board’s notice.
4 Since 1985, the Board has issued three decisions and orders involving Re-
spondent: 275 NLRB 1236 (1985); 277 NLRB 988 (1985); 283 NLRB 359
(1987). In addition, on June 26, 1990, Administrative Law Judge Karl
Buschmann issued a recommended decision in Case 4–CA–17211 finding that
the Respondent unlawfully discharged employee Joseph Sullivan for the sec-
ond time. This case is presently pending before the Board.
5 By an unpublished Board order dated December 20, 1990, the parties were
advised that the General Counsel’s appeal had been granted and that a fully
articulated decision would follow.
6 See Independent Stave Co., 287 NLRB 740, 741 (1987), and cases cited
therein.
7 The phrase ‘‘nonadmissions clause,’’ as used here, means any language
which suggests that the respondent’s conduct may have been lawful. Although,
in a settlement context, such a statement is correct, we find that its inclusion
in the notice detracts from the very purpose of the notice. That purpose is to
give employees an unequivocal assurance that the conduct will not occur.
8 Contrary to the Respondent, we note that the Board’s holding in Inde-
pendent Shoe Workers was not dependent on the Respondent’s withdrawal of
its answer to the complaint in that case. Neither is our holding here dependent
on the Respondent’s alleged proclivity to violate the Act.
Pottsville Bleaching and Dyeing Company and
Teamster Union Local No. 115 a/w Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL–CIO.1 Case 4–CA–18695
February 28, 1991
ORDER REMANDING
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
During the hearing before Administrative Law Judge
Claude R. Wolfe, the Respondent offered to enter into
an informal settlement agreement with a non-
admissions clause contingent on the inclusion of the
nonadmissions clause in the Board’s notice. Counsel
for the General Counsel and the Charging Party did
not object to a nonadmissions clause in the settlement
agreement but opposed its inclusion in the notice. Over
the objections of both the General Counsel and Charg-
ing Party, the judge accepted the informal settlement
agreement.2
The General Counsel has filed a motion for special
permission to appeal the judge’s ruling. The General
Counsel argues that: (1) the Board has opposed efforts
to include nonadmissions language in its notices;3 (2)
no exception should be made here because of the Re-
spondent’s proclivity to violate the Act;4 (3) the
Board’s policy of encouraging settlements should not
override other important policies and objectives; and
(4) the judge’s ruling will lead to future efforts to di-
lute the remedial language in Board notices. The Gen-
eral Counsel moves the Board to reverse the judge’s
ruling and remand this matter to the judge for a hear-
ing on the merits.
On November 28, 1990, the Respondent filed an op-
position to the General Counsel’s motion. The Re-
spondent notes that the only objection to the settlement
agreement is to including a nonadmissions provision in
the Board’s notice. The Respondent urges that the non-
admissions provision will not undermine the purposes
and policies of the Act. The Respondent further argues
that Independent Shoe Workers, supra, relied on by the
General Counsel, is not controlling, because in that
case the respondent had withdrawn its answer to the
complaint and the Board’s refusal to sanction non-
admissions language in the notice was based on its
view that withdrawal of an answer is inconsistent with
a clause disclaiming the commission of unfair labor
practices. The Respondent also contends that, because
the settlement agreement provides a full and complete
remedy for every substantive allegation in the com-
plaint, the Board should deny the General Cousel’s
motion for special permission to appeal.5
As noted by the General Counsel, the Board has a
longstanding policy of encouraging the voluntary set-
tlement of labor disputes.6 Settlement is not an end in
and of itself, however. Of primary importance is the
broad authority vested in the Board under Section
10(c) of the Act to prevent and remedy unfair labor
practices. In exercising this authority, the Board has re-
quired respondents to post an appropriate notice ‘‘to
assure employees that their statutory rights shall be re-
spected’’ Bingham-Williamette Co., 199 NLRB 1280,
1281 (1972). The Board has steadfastly condemned ef-
forts to minimize the notice’s message or effect. See,
e.g., Bingham-Williamette Co., supra, and cases cited
therein at fn. 2.
The Board’s notice, in most cases, is the principal
means by which the Board communicates to those af-
fected by a respondent’s unfair labor practices what
conduct the Board is requiring of the respondent. Thus,
the notice should be a strong and affirmative statement
of a respondent’s promise not to engage in unlawful
conduct and, where applicable, to take the affirmative
steps specified in the notice. In our opinion, the inclu-
sion of a nonadmissions clause in the Board’s notice
could be confusing to those reading the notice and
could undermine its effectiveness.7 See Independent
Shoe Workers, supra. Further, if we were to set a
precedent whereby those respondents who insisted
could routinely secure a nonadmissions clauses in the
notice as a price of settlement, the General Counsel
and charging parties might have little incentive in
cases without affirmative remedies to agree to settle
the case.8 We have decided, therefore, that we will not
1096 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
9 To the extent that dictum in State County Employees AFSCME Local 47,
274 NLRB 1434 (1985), might be read to suggest that the Board might ap-
prove a settlement with an official Board notice that contained a nonadmis-
sions clause, we disavow it.
permit the inclusion of a nonadmissions clause in a
Board notice under any circumstances.9
Accordingly, counsel for the General Counsel’s ap-
peal is granted, the judge’s order approving the infor-
mal settlement agreement is vacated, and this matter is
remanded to the administrative law judge for further
appropriate action.