LawMemo, First in Employment Law

LawMemo's reason for being: We publish Employment Law Memo - summaries of latest court decisions, one-click links to full text, three emails per week.   Try it. 


Ross Runkel


Employment Law Memo emails designed for lawyers. 

Click here for free 4-week subscription

NLRB Law Memo 
Also available by free emails

All Archives

« 12/08/2003 | Main | 12/22/2003 »

12/12/2003
by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

NLRB Law Memo 12/12/2003
by
LawMemo.Com - First in Employment Law

NLRB - Staff summarized 1 decision.

Yonkers Associates, 94 L.P. (2-CA-27156, 27564; 340 NLRB No. 147) Yonkers, NY Dec. 4, 2003.

Granting the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment, the Board deemed the allegations in the compliance specification to be admitted as true, concluded that the net backpay due the discriminatees is as stated in the compliance specification, and ordered the Respondent to pay Jose Borbon $46,220.29, Francisco Machado $19,151.73, and Ariel Rivera $16,294.38.

The Board had ordered at 319 NLRB 108 (1995) that the Respondent, among other things, make the three discriminatees whole for losses suffered as a result of the Respondent's unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the Act, and that the Respondent reestablish the status quo ante to remedy its unlawful changes in working conditions.

In this supplemental decision, the Board found that the Respondent's responses to the allegations of the compliance specification are general denials of matters within the Respondent's knowledge and that the Respondent failed to file an answer that complies with the Board's Rules and Regulations. It rejected the Respondent's affirmative defense that the status quo ante remedy sought here is unenforceable pursuant to the Second Circuit's opinion in NLRB v. Staten Island Hotel Limited Partnership, 101 F.3d 858 (2d Cir. 1996). The Board explained that the record the Respondent seeks to develop would not affect its ruling on the summary judgment motion and that the court's dicta, understood in context, have no bearing on this case.

(Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Schaumber participated.)

General Counsel filed motion for summary judgment Oct 17, 2001.



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.
LawMemo.Com

Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. It does not include the Caselaw Database.
  • Employment Law Memo emails designed for lawyers. 
  • Expert summaries of decisions from all federal and state appellate courts. 
  • Direct link to full text. 
  • Click here for free 4-week subscription 
 

Home | Free Trial | Products & Prices | Feeds | Caselaw Database | Sample   
EEOC
| NLRB | Nat'l Arbitration Ctr | Supreme Court | Articles | Lawyers
Employment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101    
Employment Law Memo | NLRB Law Memo | Arbitration Law Memo

Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.