Broadcast Employees NABET (Osprey Productions)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST EMPLOYEES National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO and Osprey Productions, Inc. National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO; and National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL- CIO, Local 31 and CBS, Inc. Cases 5-CC-828 and 5-CC-829-1, 2 December 2, 1977 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On October 29, 1976, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in the above- entitled proceeding ' in which it adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Adminis- trative Law Judge as contained in his Decision of June 17, 1976, and ordered that the Respondents take the action set forth in the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge. In Case 5-CC-828 (Osprey Productions, Inc.) the complaint was issued only against National Associa- tion of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL- CIO, NABET. However, when it became clear at the hearing that NABET's Local 31 was involved, the General Counsel made a motion at the close of his case to amend the complaint to allege that the misconduct attributed to NABET be also attributed to Local 31. It appeared from the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, wherein violations of the Act were found against both NABET and its Local 31, that the General Counsel's motion was granted. In any event the Board in its Decision found that conduct of NABET and its Local 31 was closely intertwined and that they in effect acted as a single entity with the same illegal objectives, and that no showing was made that Local 31 would be thereby prejudiced by amending the complaint. Thereafter, Respondent NABET moved the Board to reconsider its Decision in Case 5-CC-828, contending that the record does not support a finding that the Administrative Law Judge granted the General Counsel's motion to amend the com- plaint, and further contending that an agreement had been made among the parties not to amend the complaint. The Board, having considered the plead- ings of the parties, remanded the case to Administra- tive Law Judge Thomas A. Ricci for further findings. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the 233 NLRB No. 137 National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Supplemental Decision which formally granted the General Counsel's motion to add Local 31 as a respondent in Case 5-CC-828 and reopened the hearing to afford Local 31 opportunity to offer evidence in opposition to the motion and evidence in defense to the complaint. Local 31 chose to offer no evidence. In these circumstances, and in view of our original Decision in which the issue as to Local 31's responsibility for the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint was fully litigated and considered, the Board has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, and reaffirms its Order as set forth in its Decision in 226 NLRB 641 issued on October 29, 1976. 226 NLRB 641. SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION THOMAS A. RICCI, Administrative Law Judge: Following issuance of the Board's Decision and Order (226 NLRB 641) in this consolidated proceeding, Respondent Nabet, as distinguished from Respondent Local 31, subordinate to Nabet, filed a motion with the Board to delete from the Board's Order certain unfair labor practice findings made against Local 31. The basis of the motion was that a motion by the General Counsel, made during the course of the hearing, to add Local 31 as a Respondent in Case 5- CC-828, was not granted on the record by the Administra- tive Law Judge. Nabet asserts that the General Counsel withdrew the motion, while the General Counsel and CBS, the Charging Party in that case, contradict the assertion. On April 11, 1977, the Board remanded the case to the Administrative Law Judge "for consideration of the issues." By order dated May 6, 1977, 1 formally granted the General Counsel's motion to add Local 31 as a Respon- dent, and reopened the hearing to afford Local 31 full opportunity to offer evidence in defense to the complaint. The hearing was held on June 20, 1977, at Washington, D.C. All parties participated. At the reopened hearing Local 31 chose to offer no evidence in defense. I find no merit in its contention, made at the hearing, that in these circumstances it was denied due process. The question of Local 31's responsibility for the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint was fully litigated at the original hearing, and it offered no further evidence in defense despite full opportunity to do so now. I 915 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD also find without merit the further argument that Section 10(b) of the Statute requires denial now of the General Counsel's motion to add Local 31 as a Respondent in Case 5-CC-828. ORDER I hereby reaffirm verbatim the findings, conclusions, and recommendations set out in my Decision issued on June 17, 1976. 916