Craw & Son

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 388 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Leroy W. Craw, Jr., Vernon E. Craw, and Daniel G.
Leonard, d/b/a Craw & Son and Sheet Metal
Workers' International Association, Local Union
No. 19, AFL-CIO. Case 6 CA -7845
March 23, 1979
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO
AND MURPHY
On December 28, 1976, the Board issued its Deci-
sion and Order' in which it adopted the Administra-
tive Law Judge's Decision finding that Respondent
herein violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and
directed that Respondent take the action set forth in
the recommended Order of the Administrative Law
Judge. That Order included, inter alia, the direction
that Respondent bargain, upon request, with Sheet
Metal Workers' International Association, Local
Union No. 19, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive represent-
ative of the employees in the appropriate unit. On
November 15. 1977, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit enforced the Order of the Board except
insofar as it directed that Respondent bargain collec-
tively with the Union, notwithstanding that the
Board had adopted in toto the Administrative Law
Judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions, including
his analysis and statement of reasons why a bargain-
ing order was needed. The court therein remanded
the proceeding to the Board for a statement of its
reasons for granting that remedy.2
'227 NLRB 601.
2 565 F2d 1267.
Thereafter, on August 11, 1978, in Kenworth
Trucks of Philadelphia, Inc., v. N.L.R.B., 580 F.2d 55
(3d Cir.), the said court concluded that in light of the
Supreme Court's opinion in Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978), such an independent expla-
nation by the Board is unnecessary, provided that a
statement of reasons for such recommendation is
made by the Administrative Law Judge and is specif-
ically adopted by the Board. In footnote 3 of the
opinion on rehearing in Kenworth Trucks of Philadel-
phia, Inc., v. N.L.R.B., supra, the court stated:
In Craw, the Board "merely adopted en toto the
ALJ's "rulings, findings, and conclusions' and
did not engage in any independent anaylsis."
The Court concluded that "[s]uch a format con-
travenes our directions in NLRB v. Armcor In-
dustries, Inc., 535 F.2d 239 (3d Cir. 1976), and
Hedstrom Co. v. NLRB, 558 F.2d 1137. .. " Id.
at 1271. To the extent that Craw takes a position
that is inconsistent with Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power, supra, it of course is no longer viable.
In view of this statement by the court, the purpose
for which the instant case was remanded to the Board
has been eliminated. Accordingly, the Board, having
duly considered the matter, has determined that, as
the Board previously held, the bargaining Order rec-
ommended by the Administrative Law Judge was ap-
propriate for the reasons fully set forth by the Admin-
istrative Law Judge in his Decision.
For the above reasons, it is hereby ordered that the
Order previously issued herein be, and it hereby is,
affirmed in its entirety.
241 NLRB No. 59
388