Vorpal Galleries

VORPAL GALLERIES 485 Michael Muldoon Elder, d/b/a Vorpal Galleries and Lesley M. Flesch, Lilab Thayer Toland, Susan M. Elsass, Shiwa Kartso Harris, John W. Jaccard, Michael Terry Jones, Michael Mulcahy, Mariett Muller, Kathryn Burke, Lynn Kearcher, Thomas J. Wing Wo, Jr. Cases 20-CA-11047-1,-2,-3,-4, - 5,-6,-7,-8,-9, -10, and -11 March 1, 1977 ORDER On December 20, 1976, the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued a Decision and Order' in the above-entitled proceedings in which the Board found that the Respondent had unlawfully discharged striking employees and ordered him, inter alia, to reinstate them upon their proper application therefor and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their discharges and to notify such employees of their right to reinstatement. Thereafter the General Counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board's Order, requesting that it be revised to permit an interpretation that the question of whether the discharged strikers made an unconditional offer to return to work on January 26, 1976, may properly be deferred to the compliance stage of these proceedings. The Respondent has filed an opposition to this motion. We find nothing in the General Counsel's motion to warrant reconsideration of our previous Order. How- ever, in the interest of resolving the issue joined by the motion and the opposition, we shall treat the motion as one for clarification of our Order. The Order was not intended, nor should it be construed, as precluding the consideration of any matters affecting the remedy, including any uncondi- tional offer to return to work made before the issuance of the Decision and Order, in the compli- ance stages of these proceedings. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the Board's Order dated December 20, 1976, be, and it hereby is, clarified to provide that any issues normally litigable in the compliance stages, including the matters raised by the General Counsel in the instant motion, are preserved for the compliance stages of these proceed- ings.2 1 227 NLRB No. 65, Members Fanning and Jenkins dissenting in part . unlawfully discharged strikers to apply for reinstatement , they concur in this 2 Although Members Fanning and Jenkins would not require the treatment of the motion for reconsideration and construction of the Order. 228 NLRB No. 58