Opinion ID: 392028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Revocation of Settlement Agreements

Text: 174 With respect to the Regional Director's June 14, 1977 decision to revoke the three informal settlement agreements he had previously approved, the ALJ concluded: 175 In view of all the findings of violations of the Act, I find that all the actions of the Regional Director in setting aside the settlement agreements, reopening Cases 1-CA-11856 and 1-CA-11964, and consolidating those cases for trial was a proper exercise of his discretion and authority. 176 The company argues, alternatively to its substantive arguments against the above unfair labor practice findings, that the Regional Director's revocation of the settlement agreements was an abuse of discretion. We find no merit to this argument. 177 In Wallace Corp. v. NLRB, 323 U.S. 248, 254-55, 65 S.Ct. 238, 241-242, 89 L.Ed. 216 (1944), the Supreme Court, after noting the strong policy favoring the settlement of labor disputes, approved the Board's practice of disregarding settlement agreements it had previously approved where subsequent events have demonstrated that efforts at adjustment have failed to accomplish their purpose, or where there has been a subsequent unfair labor practice. In such cases, the Board is justified in considering evidence as to (the employer's) conduct, both before and after the settlement. Id. This doctrine was later articulated as follows: (T)he Board may not consider matters properly disposed by a settlement agreement 'unless there is a breach of the agreement or subsequent independent violation of the Act by the parties to the agreement.'  Rogers Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 486 F.2d 644, 648 (6th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 937, 94 S.Ct. 1937, 40 L.Ed.2d 288 (1974), quoting Lincoln Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 311 F.2d 48, 50 (6th Cir. 1962). 178 By letter of June 14, 1977 the Regional Director informed the company that his investigations of various pending charges had disclosed that certain terms of the settlement agreement(s) ... have been violated. Such a finding justifies the Regional Director in setting aside his approval of the settlements and proceeding to issue a complaint on the underlying charges which he had previously found after investigation to have probable merit. There is no allegation that the Regional Director did not act in good faith or that he manipulated the settlement agreements to achieve purposes contrary to the Act. The fact that this court now reverses the Board's findings on several of the relevant unfair labor practices does not make the Regional Director retroactively guilty of abuse of discretion.