Cortland Transit, Inc.

372 324 NLRB No. 66 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 323 NLRB No. 207 (not reported in Board volumes). 2 Par. 3 of the Conclusions of Law inadvertently stated that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) instead of Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act. The decision will be corrected accordingly. 3 See Buck Creek Coal, 310 NLRB 1240 fn. 2 (1993), and cases cited therein. Furthermore, although the Respondent withdrew its an- swer to the complaint, the Board has the responsibility to determine an appropriate remedy. See Imperial Floral Distributors, 319 NLRB 147 (1995). Cortland Transit, Inc. and Teamsters, Local Union No. 317. Case 3–CA–19655 September 18, 1997 ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND HIGGINS On July 10, 1997, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-enti- tled proceeding1 in which the Board granted the Gen- eral Counsel’s Motion for Default Summary Judgment and found that the Respondent had implied that the employees’ selection of the Union as their collective- bargaining representative was the reason for the Re- spondent’s refusal to grant regularly scheduled wage increases to its employees; discriminatorily and unilat- erally withheld and refused to grant regularly sched- uled wage increases to its employees; discriminatorily issued written warnings to an employee; refused to fur- nish the Union with certain information regarding the Respondent’s termination of an employee; unilaterally implemented rules regarding employee limits on bus idling at its facility and employees’ responsibility for lost or missing monthly bus passes, an employee dress code providing for the wearing of sweatshirts as part of its employees’ uniform, and a drug and alcohol pol- icy; and unilaterally changed the established purpose and use of its vending machine proceeds and ceased providing a Christmas party and summer picnic to its employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.2 The Board di- rected the Respondent, inter alia, to cease and desist, rescind the unlawful warning, grant the withheld wage increases, provide the requested information, rescind the unilateral changes on request, and make the unit employees whole for any loss of wages or benefits in- curred as a result of the changes. On July 30, 1997, the General Counsel filed a mo- tion for reconsideration requesting that the Board’s De- cision and Order be modified to include an order re- quiring the Respondent to bargain in good faith with the Union, on request, for the period required by Mar- Jac Poultry, 136 NLRB 785 (1962). The General Counsel argues that such a remedy was requested in the complaint, that the Respondent has not contested the propriety of that remedy, and that such an addi- tional remedy is appropriate to alleviate the unfair labor practices found, in particular, the numerous uni- lateral changes. On July 29, 1997, the Charging Party filed a state- ment in support of the General Counsel’s motion. Having duly considered the matter, we find that the request for reconsideration should be denied. The com- plaint and Motion for Summary Judgment failed to al- lege facts that would warrant an extension of the cer- tification year in accord with the remedy set forth in Mar-Jac Poultry. There was no general allegation that the Respondent had failed or refused to recognize the Union or to meet and bargain with the Union in good faith following its certification and no indication how the Respondent’s failure to provide information regard- ing a discharge or unilateral changes affected the par- ties’ negotiations. A Mar-Jac remedy was therefore unwarranted.3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the General Counsel’s request for reconsideration is denied. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00372 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.049 APPS10 PsN: APPS10