Opinion ID: 222767
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Board’s Broad Remedial Order

Text: Regency Grande next argues that the Board abused its discretion in issuing a broad cease-and-desist order. In devising a remedy, the ALJ explained that “[b]ecause [Regency Grande] has a proclivity for violating the Act, and because of the serious nature of the violations, I find it necessary to issue a broad Order requiring [Regency Grande] to cease and desist from infringing in any other manner on rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.” (A-452 (internal citations omitted).) The Board agreed, stating 8 that a remedial order was warranted because Regency Grande “has engaged in persistent attempts, by varying methods, to interfere with its employees’ protected rights.” (A-441, n.10.) Regency Grande now argues that its conduct at the Dover facility does not support the issuance of this type of broad order. We disagree. A broad order is appropriate “when a respondent is shown to have a proclivity to violate the Act or has engaged in such egregious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general disregard for the employees’ fundamental statutory rights.” Hickmott Foods, Inc., 242 N.L.R.B. 1357, 1357 (1979). As the Board noted, Regency Grande was found to have committed two unfair labor practices in Regency Grande I. Then, “[a]lmost immediately after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals enforced that Board Order, [Regency Grande] renewed its unlawful conduct in support of Local 300S and against Local 1199; only the means changed.” (A-441, n.10.) As discussed above, Regency Grande proceeded to commit several additional unfair labor practices. We agree with the Board that, by this course of unlawful conduct, Regency Grande “has demonstrated both a general disregard for fundamental statutory rights, i.e., the right of employees to select their own representatives, and the likelihood of future and varying efforts to frustrate those rights.” (Id.) This attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act provides an appropriate basis for a broad remedial order. See Five Star Mfg., Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. 1301, 1302 (2006) (stating that a broad cease-and-desist order is warranted when “respondent’s specific unlawful conduct manifests an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally, providing an objective basis for enjoining a reasonably anticipated future threat to any of those Section 7 9 employee rights”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, we will not disturb the Board’s order. See Quick v. N.L.R.B., 245 F.3d 231, 254 (3d Cir. 2001) (“The NLRB’s choice of a remedy must be given special respect by reviewing courts, and must 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 the policies of the Act.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).