Opinion ID: 405345
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Present Proceedings in this Court

Text: 19 On October 23, 1981, the Board petitioned this court to enforce its orders in the Supplemental Proceeding, 252 N.L.R.B. 922, and the Separate Proceeding, 252 N.L.R.B. 904. The respondents filed an opposing brief. 8 The charging party, Local 455, filed no petition to review portions of the Board's decision unfavorable to it, e.g., the refusal to enter bargaining orders against Kuno and Cervenka, to treat employees to Class III respondents as unfair labor practice strikers, and to enter a full reinstatement order against Peelle. However, on February 4, 1982, Local 455 submitted a motion and supporting brief requesting this court pursuant to its traditional equitable powers and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen and reconsider its prior decision in this case in light of Bonanno Linen Service. Its brief, filed on February 16, 1982, said that (i)n addition to the questions presented by the NLRB, the following question is presented: 20 Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. NLRB (--- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 720, 70 L.Ed.2d 656), 109 LRRM 2257 (January 12, 1982) must be applied in the instant case, making all of the Respondents guilty of violations of § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, by virtue of their unilateral withdrawal from multi-employer bargaining predicated on an alleged impasse in negotiations. 21 and is filled with argument predicated on the Bonanno decision. The Board, on April 5, 1982, filed a response to the motions. Referring to the adequacy and effectiveness of present remedies provided by Board orders, and consideration of judicial interest in a final resolution of the issues, the Board does not support the Union's motion to reopen and set aside the Court judgment in (this case). (footnote omitted). 9 22