Barton Brands, Ltd.

416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Barton Brands, Ltd. and Edward Humes Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers' In- ternational Union of America, Local 23, AFL-CIO and Edward Humes. Cases 9-CA-7816- 1 and 9-CB-2286 December 9, 1974 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On September 27, 1974, the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued a Decision and Order in the above- entitled proceeding' finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, and ordering that Respondents cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to remedy such unfair labor practices. The Board corrected its Decision and Order by an order dated October 4, 1974. Thereafter, on October 17, 1974, the Respondent Union filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Oral Argument. On October 18, 1974, the Respond- ent Employer filed a motion, requesting that the Board reconsider and modify its Decision and Order in cer- tain respects. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- 1 213 NLRB No. 71. tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board having duly considered the matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent Union's re- quest for oral argument before the Board be, and it hereby is, denied, as the record and the briefs ade- quately set forth the issues and positions of the parties. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent Union's Motion for Reconsideration be, and it hereby is, denied as it contains nothing not previously considered by the Board. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent Employer's Motion be, and it hereby is denied as it lacks merit. We note that the Respondent Employer did not raise an issue in its answer to the complaint allegations that the complaint should be dismissed because of Section 10(b) of the Act, nor was the statute of limitations issue litigated by the Respondent Employer in the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge. The Respondent Employer raised the 10(b) issue for the first time in its brief to the Administrative Law Judge. However, the Administrative Law Judge rules on the merits of the case, and thus, did not accept Respondent Employer's 10(b) contention. The Respondent Employer filed no exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Deci- sion, nor any brief to the Board. Therefore, Respondent Employer did not raise any issue concerning this case before the Board. Accordingly, we reject the Respond- ent Employer's belated contention that the complaint against it is barred by the statute of limitations. MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting in part: For the reasons set forth in my previous dissenting opinion in these cases, I would grant the Motions for Reconsideration filed by the Respondents. 215 NLRB No. 82