Spann Building Maintenance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1987

284 N.L.R.B. 470 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

470 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Spann Building Maintenance Co. and Veronica
Lewis. Case 14-CA-16799
24 June 1987
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
BABSON AND ST'EPHENS
On 28 June 1985 the National Labor Relations
Board, by a three-member panel, issued a Decision
and Order in this proceeding. 1 The complaint al-
leged that the Respondent had committed unfair
labor practices by suspending and later discharging
employee Veronica Lewis, the Charging Party. In
its decision, the Board found that the contentions
raised by Lewis could be resolved under the griev-
ance and arbitration provision of the collective-bar-
gaining agreement between the Respondent and the
Union that represented the bargaining unit of
which Lewis was a member. The Board further
found that the Union had invoked the grievance
procedure on Lewis' behalf and that the procedure
had not run its course, as the grievance had not
been withdrawn or submitted to arbitration. The
Board concluded that under the principles set forth
in United Technologies Corp., 268 NLRB 557 (1984),
it would be inappropriate for the Board to enter
the dispute prior to completion of the grievance-ar-
bitration process. The Board dismissed the com-
plaint but retained jurisdiction
for the limited purpose of entertaining an ap-
propriate and timely motion for further consid-
eration upon a proper showing that either (a)
the Respondent is resisting or impeding
prompt processing, through the contractual
grievance and arbitration procedure, of the
grievance over Lewis' discharge, or (b) the
grievance or arbitration procedures have not
been fair or regular or have reached a result
that is repugnant to the Act.
275 NLRB at 972-973 (footnote omitted).
Thereafter, Lewis petitioned the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for review
of the Board's Order. On 17 September 1986 the
court issued its decision denying Lewis' petition for
review. 2 However, the court noted Lewis' conten-
275 NLRB 971.
2 Lewis v. NLRB, 800 F.2d 818 (8th Cir 1986).
tion that the portion of the Board's Order retaining
jurisdiction was by its terms limited only to in-
stances when the Respondent resists or impedes ar-
bitration. The court expressed concern over wheth-
er the retention of jurisdiction language applied
likewise to the conduct of the Union in the arbitra-
tion proceeding. Accordingly, the court remanded
the case for the Board "to consider the limited
issue of the propriety and extent of the Board's re-
tention of jurisdiction." 3
On 12 January 1987 the Board notified the par-
ties that it had accepted the remand from the court
of appeals and invited the parties to file statements
of position with respect to the issues raised by the
remand.4 Lewis and the General Counsel filed
statements of position. Asserting that the Respond-
ent and the Union have made no further efforts to
resolve her grievance, Lewis argues that the Board
is now required to consider the merits of the al-
leged unfair labor practice. The General Counsel
contends that the Board should revise its Order to
provide for further consideration of the case in the
event that either the Respondent or the Union re-
sists or impedes prompt processing of Lewis' griev-
ance.
Having considered the parties' statements of po-
sition and the decision of the court, including the
terms of the remand order, we conclude that the
previously issued Order in this proceeding should
be modified to conform to the language customari-
ly used in similar cases. See, e.g., United Beef Co.,
272 NLRB 66 (1984). Accordingly, we shall pro-
vide the following Order.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed, provided that juris-
diction is retained for the limited purpose of enter-
taining an appropriate and timely motion for fur-
ther consideration upon a proper showing that
either (a) the dispute has not, with reasonable
promptness after the issuance of this Supplemental
Decision and Order, either been resolved by amica-
ble settlement in the grievance procedure or sub-
mitted promptly to arbitration, or (b) the grievance
or arbitration procedures have not been fair and
regular or have reached a result that is repugnant
to the Act.
3 Id. at 821. Lewis thereafter petitioned the court for rehearing en
basic. On 13 November 1986 the court denied this petition.
4 The Board thereafter extended the period for submission of state-
ments of position to 6 March 1987
284 NLRB No. 53