Mi Pueblo Foods

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 2014

32-CA-064836 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 12, 2014)

1
PHJ
Northern California
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MI PUEBLO FOODS
and Case 32-CA-064836
THE UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 5
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On May 28, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and
Order1 affirming the judge's findings, to which no exceptions were filed, that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening an employee that he
would likely not be promoted if the Union came in and by interrogating two employees
on separate occasions about their union sympathies. The Board also denied certain
additional remedies sought by the Charging Party. On June 23, 2014, the Charging
Party filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and Order.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding
to a three-member panel.
In its motion, the Charging Party argues generally that delay, “the large turnover
at retail stores like [the Respondent],” and the Respondent’s filing of a bankruptcy
petition warrant reconsideration of the remedies provided. It requests additional
remedies, including a broad order and an extended posting period, which the judge and

1 360 NLRB No. 121.
2
the Board rejected in the underlying case. We find no circumstance that would require
a different result now. We also deny the Charging Party’s request that the Board mail
the decision and notice to employees, because the Charging Party has failed to proffer
any evidence showing that this remedy is warranted or that it could not have been
requested in the earlier proceedings.
Section 102.48(d)(1) of the Board's Rules and Regulations requires a party to
show “extraordinary circumstances” to justify reconsideration of a Board decision, and
also requires a party to show that any new evidence it seeks to introduce “would require
a different result.” Having duly considered the matter, we find that the Charging Party
has failed to show that such extraordinary circumstances exist. Accordingly, we shall
deny the Respondent’s motion.
IT IS ORDERED that the Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated, Washington, D.C.,
___________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
___________________________________
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member
___________________________________
Harry I. Johnson, III, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD