RAV Trucking Corporation d/b/a RAV Truck & Trailer Repairs Inc., a Single/Joint Employer

372 NLRB No. 59 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. RAV Truck & Trailer Repairs, Inc. and Concrete Ex- press of NY, LLC and Teamsters Local 456, In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters. Case 02– CA–220395 February 22, 2023 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND PROUTY On March 3, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding.1 The Board, among other things, adopted the administrative law judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by dis- charging one employee and laying off a second employee because they engaged in union activities, and by closing RAV Truck and Trailer Repairs, Inc. with the intent to chill union activity at Concrete Express of NY, LLC. The Board ordered the Respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices, offer the two employees reinstate- ment to their former jobs or substantially equivalent posi- tions, make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, bargain with the Union upon request, and reopen and restore RAV’s business operation as it existed on May 14, 2018. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit enforced the Board’s Order with respect to the unlawful discharge and layoff violations, including the reinstatement and make-whole remedies, and the broad cease-and-desist order requiring the Respondent to refrain from violating the Act “in any other manner,” but the court remanded to the Board for further consideration the question whether the closure of RAV was unlawful and, if so, whether the Board’s restoration and bargaining orders were appropriate.2 On December 14, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order on re- mand.3 The Board reaffirmed its conclusion that the Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by closing RAV, but found that its prior restoration and 1 369 NLRB No. 36. 2 997 F.3d 314 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 3 RAV Truck & Trailer Repairs, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 25 (2022). Member Prouty, dissenting in part, would have reaffirmed the restoration and bargaining orders. bargaining orders were no longer appropriate. As relevant here, the Board also noted that the court enforced the Board’s proposed remedies other than the restoration and bargaining orders, and stated that it would “not repeat those court-enforced provisions.” RAV Truck, 372 NLRB No. 25, slip op. at 1 fn. 3 (citing Fluor Daniel, Inc., 350 NLRB 702, 702 fn. 5 (2007), and Bryan Adair Construc- tion Co., 341 NLRB 247, 247 fn. 4 (2004)). On January 9, 2023, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Clarification of the Board’s Decision and Order.4 In her motion, the General Counsel argues that the Order in the Board’s “supplemental decision fails to set forth the full remedies included in the first Board Order that relate to the discharge of the two employees, which were en- forced and not part of the Court of Appeals’ remand.” The General Counsel requests that the Board clarify its Sup- plemental Order to direct the Respondent to remedy its un- lawful discharges. We find no merit in the General Counsel’s contention that we should clarify our Supplemental Decision and Or- der to include remedies from our initial March 2020 Or- der. Those remedies continue to be required by the court’s judgment enforcing our previous Order. The Board spe- cifically noted in its Supplemental Decision and Order that it would not be repeating them. We conclude that such an Order would be redundant. See Ryder System, 302 NLRB 608, 610 fn. 9 (1991), enfd. 983 F.2d 705 (6th Cir. 1993). Thus, the General Counsel’s Motion for Clarification of the Board’s December 14, 2022 Supplemental Order and Decision is denied, as the General Counsel has not demon- strated that further clarification is warranted.5 Dated, Washington, D.C. February 22, 2023. ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Chairman ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member ________________________________________ David M. Prouty, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. 5 Chairman McFerran did not participate in the March 3, 2020 or De- cember 14, 2022 decisions in this case, but she joins her colleagues in denying the General Counsel’s motion for clarification. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/02-CA-220395 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.