Versi Craft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 1171 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

VERSI CRAFT CORPORATION 1171
Versi Craft Corporation and Clarence G. Lord. Case
23-CA-5131
December 16, 1975
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
On May 21, 1975, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 23 of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint and notice of hearing in the
above-entitled proceeding, alleging that the Respon-
dent, by its action in discharging Clarence G. Lord,
had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. Subsequently, the
Respondent timely filed an answer to the complaint
in which it affirmatively plead that the complaint
should be dismissed because "All issues raised by the
Complaint herein were previously deferred pursuant
to the Collyer Doctrine, to the arbitral process and
... the results of such arbitral process should be
honored."
On July 17, 1975, the Respondent filed with the
Board a Motion for Summary Judgment with
supporting exhibits, and a supporting brief. By said
motion, the Respondent moved that the Board enter
a summary judgment in its favor, based on the
defenses asserted in its answer to the complaint. It
also submitted a notary statement by its president, A.
E. Marchbanks, in support of its motion. In
summary, it contends that the aforesaid statement,
the pleadings, and brief demonstrate that all issues
raised by the complaint have been previously
adjudicated pursuant to the parties' own dispute
mechanism and that the resultant award is entitled to
deference and conclusive effect, and that Respon-
dent is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.
On August 6, 1975, the Board issued an Order
Transferring Proceeding to the Board and Notice To
Show Cause, giving notice that cause be shown why
Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment should
not be granted.
On August 29, 1975, counsel for the Acting
General Counsel, hereinafter referred to as the
General Counsel, filed a response to the Notice To
Show Cause, and a response to the Motion for
Summary Judgment. In its response, the General
Counsel contends that the results of the arbitration
proceeding should not be deferred to, and that
Respondent is not entitled to summary judgment.
More particularly, the General Counsel asserts that
(1) the arbitration proceeding was not fair and
regular, and (2) the unfair labor practice issues in the
case were not considered and decided by the
arbitration panel.
Thereafter, on October 2, 1975, the Respondent
filed a reply to the General Counsel's response. The
General Counsel filed a "Request for Special Leave
of the Board To File the General Counsel's Answer
to the Respondent's Reply to the General Counsel's
Response to Respondent's Motion for Summary
Judgment and the Board's Notice To Show Cause."
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.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
The documents submitted by the Respondent
allege that the dispute between the parties raised by
the allegations of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the
complaint has been resolved by an arbitration
proceeding, that all issues were before the arbitration
panel, that the proceeding was fair and regular, that
the award was favorable to the Respondent, and
that, consequently, on the basis of Spielberg Manu-
facturing Company 1 and Collyer Insulated Wire, 2 the
Board should grant its Motion for Summary Judg-
ment and dismiss the complaint. It further cites
Electronic Reproduction Service Corporation, et aL,3
and contends the General Counsel has not shown
that the statutory issues was not decided by the
arbitration panel.
The documents submitted by the General Counsel
in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment
assert that the proceedings resulting in the arbitra-
tion award did not meet the Spielberg requirements
of fairness and regularity and that the award should
not be honored. In this regard, the General Counsel
argues that the award was based in part on the
testimony of a witness whom the Charging Party had
no opportunity to cross-examine and, in part, on a
"To whom it may concern" unsworn letter bearing
the signatures of some 15 employees, none of whom
was presented for cross-examination. Finally, the
General Counsel contends that the award shows that
the arbitration panel based its decision only on its
interpretation of the "steward" clause of the contract
between the Respondent and the Union and did not
reach the issues raised by paragraphs 8 and 9 of the
complaint; i.e., whether the Charging Party was
1 112 NLRB 1080 (1955)
2 192 NLRB 837 (1971)
3 213 NLRB 758 (1974)
221 NLRB No. 190
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharged because he attempted to enforce the
Union's bylaws.
The Board, having considered the matter, and the
submissions of the parties, is of the opinion that the
allegations raised by paragraphs 8 and 9 of the
complaint may best be resolved by a hearing before
an Administrative Law Judge.
It is hereby ordered that the Respondent's Motion
for Summary judgment be, and it hereby is, denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be,
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 23 for the purpose of scheduling a hearing
before a duly designated Administrative Law Judge
on the issues raised by paragraphs 8 and 9 of the
complaint , and he is hereby authorized to issue
notice thereof.4
4 Member Penello is of the view that the Respondent should be
permitted to again raise its defense based on the arbitration award before
the Administrative Law Judge