Opinion ID: 363952
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: organizational costs and counsel fees

Text: 49 The administrative law judge concluded: In view of all of the circumstances of this case, including the unusually protracted, complex, and difficult nature of the proceedings . . . all growing out of Respondent's precipitate, unlawful recognition of Teamsters Local 806, in contrast to its refusal to even meet with Distributive Workers District 65 to enable that Union to demonstrate is alleged representation credentials, in my opinion fairness requires the reimbursement of Distributive Workers District 65 for its organizing expenses and reasonable counsel fees, and I shall so recommend. 50 In modifying the recommended order to delete the requirement for reimbursement of District 65's counsel fees and organizational expenses, the Board said in part: We conclude that Respondent's defenses in this proceeding are not patently frivolous and consequently, in accord with our usual policy, this extraordinary remedy is not warranted in this proceeding. Cf. Heck's, Inc., 215 NLRB 765 (1974). 51 In Heck's, Inc., following remand from the Supreme Court (NLRB v. Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, 417 U.S. 1, 94 S.Ct. 2074, 40 L.Ed.2d 612 (1974)), for clarification of the Board's policy with respect to extraordinary remedies, the Board made it clear that awarding organizational costs and fees was limited to cases where employees assert patently frivolous defenses, and that litigation expense is not recoverable where the defenses are 'debatable', that is, for example, where they are dependent upon resolutions of credibility. 28 Here the administrative law judge and the Board made numerous credibility determinations. We agree with the Board that the Hartz defense was not frivolous, 29 even though its conduct was found to be in violation of the Act.