Opinion ID: 564767
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ALJ's Erroneous Striking of Allegations in the General Counsel's Complaint

Text: 14 The Guild argues at the outset that the Board erred in finding immaterial the ALJ's purporting to strike the supposed allegation of a separate unfair labor practice grounded upon the Enquirer's simultaneous insistence that there be a no-strike clause and no arbitration. According to the Guild, the ALJ (and the Board) misunderstood the unfair labor practice complaint, with the result that the ALJ improperly excluded the Guild's evidence. 15 We agree with the Board that the ALJ's error was harmless. The ALJ agreed that the Employer's no arbitration/no-strike position might be relevant to the charge of an unfair labor practice based upon the Enquirer's insistence that it have control over wages. The General Counsel consistently treated the Enquirer's no-strike and no-arbitration positions in conjunction with its merit wage position; she never contended that the non-wage positions constituted a refusal to bargain in good faith apart, as counsel said at the hearing, from the context with the[ ] proposals with respect to minimum wages and merit wages. The real source of the Guild's dismay is not the ALJ's ruling but the General Counsel's theory of the case. 16 The Guild claims that the ALJ's erroneous ruling led him to exclude evidence related to the Employer's no-strike and no-arbitration positions, but the Union does not point to anything in particular that was excluded. In making his ruling, the ALJ explained that he was not barring evidence of the Enquirer's insistence upon the arbitration and no-strike issues. In any event, the Enquirer admitted that it insisted, throughout the period charged in the complaint, that there be a no-strike clause but no provision for arbitration of grievances. 17 The only matter that the Union invokes to prop up its argument is the ALJ's comment, made after the Enquirer's admission, that he was not going into the actual give and take on arbitration and no strike. He made that comment as he overruled the Enquirer's objection to the question, [W]hat was said with respect to those three subjects, wages, arbitrations and strikes? Indeed, the ALJ admitted virtually all of the Union's evidence related to those issues, often over the Employer's objection. (The only exclusion of which we are aware related to Union counsel's vague and cumulative query whether the no-strike position was a part of the background during other negotiations.) The General Counsel never objected to any evidentiary ruling, nor did she make any proffer of evidence that was apparently rendered irrelevant by the ALJ's ruling. As we find no reason to believe that the General Counsel was hampered in making her record, we reject the Guild's argument to the contrary. 18