Opinion ID: 6334217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Special Remedies Issue

Text: Finally, Noah’s Ark appeals the Board’s special remedies of notice reading and reimbursement of negotiation expenses, extraordinary remedies to which Member -16- Emanuel dissented. This contention is without merit. The Board has broad discretionary power under Section 10(c) to devise remedies to effectuate the policies of the NLRA. 29 U.S.C. § 160(c). Its remedial order “will not be disturbed unless it can be shown that the order is a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which can fairly be said to effectuate” those policies. Fibreboard Paper Prod. Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 216 (1964) (quotation omitted). Here, the Board majority concluded that Noah’s Ark’s “substantial unfair labor practices have infected the core of the bargaining process to such an extent that traditional remedies will not eliminate their effects.” Dec. & Order p.5. The dissent agreed that Noah’s Ark “conducted itself dismally with respect to its duty to bargain in good faith” but concluded the extraordinary remedies were not warranted. Dec. & Order p.10. The remedies in question are not beyond those that have been imposed in other extreme cases. See North Memorial Health Care, 364 N.L.R.B. No. 61, slip op. at 1 (2016) (public notice reading), enforced in relevant part, 860 F.3d 639 (8th Cir. 2017); Camelot Terrace, Inc. v. NLRB, 824 F.3d 1085, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (reimbursement of bargaining expenses). The Board did not abuse its substantial discretion or exceed its remedial authority by imposing these extraordinary remedies. Moreover, Noah’s Ark did not preserve these issues by challenging the special remedies before the Board, either in its objections to the ALJ’s recommended remedies, or by a motion for reconsideration when the Board sua sponte added the reimbursement remedy. As the Third Circuit held in upholding special remedies in a similar case: We hold that under the egregious facts of this case involving a recidivist employer, all of these remedial orders come within the broad discretionary authority of the Board. . . . The various additional remedies specifically ordered sua sponte by the Board . . . were not -17- challenged before the Board . . . and therefore, under Section 10(e), 29 U.S.C. § 160(e), may not be challenged before this court. United Dairy Farmers Co-op Ass’n v. NLRB, 633 F.2d 1054, 1064 (3d Cir. 1980).7