Centra, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-5481,95-5482,95-5481 |
| Citation | 110 F.3d 63 |
| Parties | 156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2480 NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. CENTRA, INC., Central Transport Inc., and Central Cartage, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Before: MERRITT, KENNEDY and GUY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Centra, Inc., Central Transport, Inc., and Central Cartage (collectively referred to as "Central") seek review and respondent National Labor Relations Board ("Board") seeks enforcement of a Board decision and order determining the amount of contributions Central must pay to union benefit funds as a result of its prior judicially determined unfair labor practice. Because we find that material new evidence exists which the Board did not consider, we remand this case to the Board for reconsideration.
This court detailed the factual and procedural history of the unfair labor practice portion of this case in a previous opinion. See NLRB v. Centra, 954 F.2d 366 (6th Cir.1992). Therefore, for our present purposes, we will restate only the facts necessary to present the issue now under consideration. In May 1986, in an agreement known as the "White Paper Agreement," Central and Teamster's Local Union No. 964 established the wages and other terms of employment of 59 employees who were jointly employed by Central and D & S Leasing and were working on Central's premises. The White Paper granted covered employees fewer benefits and wages than received by Central employees covered in the Teamsters National Master Freight Agreement. This court upheld in its 1992 decision the Board's findings in an August 1990 hearing that Central had violated §§ 8(a)(1), (5) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1), (5), by refusing to recognize and bargain with Local 964 over Central's decision to cancel its contract with D & S Leasing and that this refusal resulted in the lay off of the 59 jointly employed workers, 26 of whom were eventually rehired.
Because the parties disagreed over the amount of compensation and benefits owed to the 59 employees who were laid off, an administrative law judge conducted a "compliance hearing" to resolve the issues raised regarding the amount of contributions that Central was required to make. Under an informal settlement agreement on the back pay issues involved in this case, all counsel agreed, with full knowledge of the administrative law judge, that the number of witnesses and the amount of testimonial evidence presented at the hearing would be limited, and that the parties would confine their presentations to their positions on their legal arguments. The administrative law judge found Central liable for approximately $1.28 million, plus interest, in back pay contributions to the employees' pension and welfare funds. Central chose not to comply with the informal back pay settlement agreement after it learned that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial