The Catalyst

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 23, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 904 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Randall P. Kane, Inc., d/b/a The Catalyst and Hotel,
Motel, Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Inter-
national Union Local 483. Case 32-CA-81 (for-
merly 20-CA-1 1333)
February 23, 1979
SUPPLEMENTAL, DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MEMBERS PNI.I()
AND Ml RPttY
On June 21, 1977, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceed-
ing.' The Board, in agreement with Administrative
Law Judge Richard J. Boyce. found that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by, inter alia,
threatening employees with various reprisals in the
event they persisted in union activities or selected the
Union as their representative, creating the impres-
sion of surveillance, interrogating employees about
their union activities, and making unlawful promises;
and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
discriminatorily discharging employee Peter Puhl.
The Board also found, in agreement with the Admin-
istrative Law Judge, that by April 13, 1976, the
Union had secured valid authorization cards from a
majority of unit employees and concluded that, be-
cause of Respondent's unfair labor practices com-
mencing on April 5, 1976, these cards were a more
accurate measure of the employees' free and un-
coerced desire on the issue of representation than an
election would be. Accordingly. the Board agreed
with the Administrative Law Judge that the circum-
stances of the case warranted an order directing Re-
spondent to recognize and bargain with the Union 2
and found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (I) of the Act by refusing to do so.
Thereafter, on August 28, 1978, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a deci-
sion 3 in which it granted enforcement of the Board's
230 NLRB 355
2 The Board modified te date of the hargaining order to the date f the
Union's demand, April 19. 1976.
581 F.2d 215.
4 The 15 signatures referred to include those of ee Jacksourl Jonallthan
E!ckert. Samuel (asson. and Sue Phillips. who testified at the hearing, and
Ihose ,of I I emplosees whose anticpalted teinilon was stipul;ated to, h the
pailihcs
240 NLRB No. 128
Order relating to the violations of Section 8(a)( 1) and
(3) of the Act. The court, however, refused to ap-
prove the bargaining order or to enforce the alleged
8(a)(5) violation of the Act, and remanded that por-
tion of the proceeding to the Board with instructions
to receive evidence regarding the circumstances sur-
rounding the signing of 15 challenged authorization
cards counted b the Board as valid 4 and to again
examine the issue of whether or not the Union had a
card majority at the time of its demand for recogni-
tion.
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 issue out-
standing in the light of the decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit re-
manding the proceeding, and the statements of posi-
tion on remand of the Charging Party, Respondent,
and the General Counsel, has decided that the record
contains insufficient evidence to enable it to de-
termine the validity of the 15 challenged authoriza-
tion cards. We shall therefore remand this proceed-
ing to Administrative Law Judge Richard J. Boyce to
take any additional evidence which the parties may
wish to present as to the validity of the 15 cards in
question and to thereafter issue a Supplemental De-
cision in this matter.'
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that this proceeding be, and it
hereby is, remanded to Administrative Law Judge
Richard J. Boyce for further action, including re-
opening the hearing for the limited purpose of allow-
ing the parties to supplement the record regarding
the circumstances surrounding the signing of 15 au-
thorization cards and the preparation and issuance of
a Supplemental Decision setting forth findings, in-
cluding credibility resolutions if necessary, and con-
clusions of law on the validity of the challenged
cards, and that thereafter Section 102.46 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
shall apply to such Supplemental Decision.
As the Administrative .aw Judge noted and the court implied. the stipu-
latiion entered into by the parties as t}i the testimmonN of II of the card
signers is of little meaning in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly.
the B ard no longer accepts that stipulation