Baker Manufacturing Co.

BAKER MFG CO, 193 Baker Manufacturing Company and United Steel- workers of America, AFL-CIO and Gary S. Thornton. Cases 23-CA-8532 and-23-CA-8602 31 October 1985 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS DENNIS AND BABSON On 30 March 1984 the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in the above- entitled proceeding' in which it adopted the ad- ministrative law judge's findings, inter alia, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. Subsequently, the Respondent filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir- cuit a petition for review of the Board's Order, and the Board filed a cross-petition for enforcement of its Order. Thereafter, in an opinion dated 9 May 1985, the court denied enforcement in part and re- mandled the case to the Board for further proceed- ings consistent with the court's opinion.2 By letter dated 22 July 1985, the Board notified the parties in this proceeding that it had decided to accept, the court's remand and that statements of position could be filed with respect to the issues raised by the court's opinion. On 5 August 1985 the General Counsel filed a statement of position contending that the issues raised by the court's remand were moot, and urging that the Board not remand the case for fur- ther consideration of the issues. No other party filed a response to the Board's request for state- ments of position. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. 1 269 NLRB 794 (1984). 2 Baker Mfg. Ca, v. NLRB, 759 F.2d 1219 In its Decision and Order, the Board ordered that the Respondent, inter alia, "reestablish the po- sition of toolroom attendant and maintenance elec- trician if Connie Lane and Jesus A. Canales, re- spectively, accept offers of reinstatement to their old jobs."a However, in denying enforcement of the Board's Order, the court found that the record did not support the conclusion that "the coerced re-creation and maintenance of these two positions has been shown to be necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act."4 Accordingly, the court held that the Respondent must be given "an opportunity to demonstrate that the re-creation and continu- ation of these positions at the time Lane and Can- ales accept reinstatement, if they choose to do so, would be economically inefficient."5 In her state- ment of position the General Counsel asserts that an investigation by the Compliance Officer for Region 23 shows that Lane and Canales previously declined offers of reinstatement to these positions. The General Counsel further asserts that the em- ployees' respective backpay was computed to 27 March 1983, the date that the employee hired to replace Lane was laid off due to lack of work and the date that the electrical work, which had been contracted out, ceased to exist. Having accepted the court's remand, and having duly considered the General Counsel's statement of position, we conclude that the issues raised by the court's opinion are now moot and, accordingly, we shall modify the Board's previous Order in this proceeding.6 ORDER It is ordered that the Board's Decision and Order in this proceeding (269 NLRB 794) be modi- fied as follows: Delete paragraph 2(b) from the Order. 3 269 NLRB at 817 4 759 F 2d at 1224. 5 Id. 6 We have been administratively advised by the General Counsel that the Respondent has previously posted the notice issued by the Board at 269 NLRB 794 277 NLRB No. 22