Craw & Son

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