Suzy Curtains

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1993

310 N.L.R.B. 1245 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

1245
310 NLRB No. 215
SUZY CURTAINS
1 The charge was amended on November 23, 1992.
2 The charge was amended on November 13 and December 9,
1991, and on November 23, 1992.
3 Suzy Curtains, 309 NLRB 1287.
4 On March 22, 1993, Fashions filed a motion in support of and
clarification of the General Counsel’s motion. In its motion, Fash-
ions expressly reserved its right under the stipulation to present addi-
tional evidence.
Suzy Curtains, Inc. and Lorraine Home Fashions of
China and Charlotte Curtains, Inc., successor
to Suzy Curtains, Inc. and Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL–
CIO, CLC. Cases 11–CA–14596 and 11–CA–
14706
May 6, 1993
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS OVIATT
AND RAUDABAUGH
On charges filed by the Union on August 281 and
October 25, 1991,2 the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issued a consolidated
complaint on December 31, 1991, against the Re-
spondents, Suzy Curtains, Inc. (Curtains), Lorraine
Home Fashions of China (Fashions), and Charlotte
Curtains, Inc. (Charlotte), alleging that the Respond-
ents had violated Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the
Act in numerous respects. The Respondents filed an
answer to the consolidated complaint.
On March 8, 1993, the General Counsel filed a mo-
tion to transfer proceeding to the Board, with exhibits
attached. In the motion, the General Counsel states that
about November 9, 1992, Respondents Curtains and
Charlotte entered into a partial settlement agreement
with the Union which would dispose of all unfair labor
practice allegations in the consolidated complaint per-
taining to those two Respondents. Fashions was not a
party to the settlement agreement. However, according
to the motion, all the Respondents and the Union
agreed through a stipulation that, unless a settlement
was arrived at, on the issuance of the Board’s Decision
and Order in Cases 11–CA–13913, 11–CA–13980, 11–
CA–14114, and 11–CA–14219, the complaint allega-
tions and facts concerning Fashions would be sub-
mitted directly to the Board for resolution. A copy of
the stipulation is attached to the motion as an exhibit.
The Board issued its Decision and Order in the cases
just mentioned on December 16, 1992.3 On March 3,
1993, the Regional Director for Region 11 approved
the partial settlement agreement.
All parties have agreed that the stipulation, charges,
complaint, consolidated complaint, answer, and amend-
ed answer constitute the entire record in these cases,
and that no oral testimony is necessary or desired by
any party. The parties also waive a hearing before an
administrative law judge and the issuance of a judge’s
decision, and agree to submit the complaint allegations
pertaining to Fashions to the Board for findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and an order directed by the
Board. Further, in view of the partial settlement agree-
ment between the Union and Respondents Curtains and
Charlotte, the Union, through the stipulation, waives
all other rights and claims it may have against those
two respondents that might arise from the Board’s dis-
posal of the allegations concerning Fashions in the
captioned cases.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has duly considered the matter and has
decided to reject the stipulation and to deny the Gen-
eral Counsel’s motion to transfer proceedings to the
Board.
We base our decision on paragraph 20 of the stipu-
lation, which states that ‘‘The parties reserve the right
to present additional facts by stipulation or otherwise
to the Board regarding the status of said parties in this
case.’’ That statement indicates that, contrary to para-
graph 2 of the stipulation, the stipulation, exhibits, and
enumerated pleadings may not constitute the entire
record in the case. Instead, further information may be
presented to the Board ‘‘regarding the status of the
parties.’’4 Indeed, paragraph 20 even suggests that in-
formation may be presented other than by stipulation,
thus indicating that some party may adduce facts that
the other parties dispute. It is unclear what the Board’s
appropriate response would be in such a situation,
given that stipulated cases are meant to be decided on
the basis of facts to which the parties all agree, yet the
parties in this case appear to have left themselves in
the position of allowing each other to present disputed
facts to the Board. We cannot approve such an ap-
proach. We think that when parties wish to present a
case to the Board on a stipulated record, they should
wait to submit their stipulation until they can agree on
the entire record on which they wish the Board to
make its decision. When that has been done, the Board
will know that it has all the information the parties de-
sire to present, and can proceed to decide the case.
Under the approach taken by the parties here, if the
Board were to accept the stipulation, it still would not
know when to begin its deliberations, because it could
not be sure that other pertinent facts would not be ad-
duced at some time in the future.
1246 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 We do not mean that parties that have entered into a stipulation
may never seek to present (by stipulation) additional facts later on
if newly discovered relevant evidence comes to light. Our dis-
approval of the parties’ approach in this case is based on their at-
tempt to present the Board with an open-ended stipulation which the
parties reserve the right to modify without limit, and perhaps even
unilaterally.
6 We call the parties’ attention to the fact that, although the stipu-
lation refers to the answer and the amended answer, the exhibits
contain nothing styled an ‘‘amended answer,’’ and the only answer
to the consolidated complaint found among the exhibits is that of
Charlotte.
If the parties here wish the Board to decide these
cases pursuant to a stipulation, they should first agree
among themselves as to the entire record they wish to
present to the Board, and stipulate to the facts making
up that record once and for all.5 This they have not
done and therefore we do not accept their stipulation.6
ORDER
The stipulation is rejected, and the General Coun-
sel’s motion to transfer proceeding to the Board is de-
nied.