The Heil Co., Inc. d/b/a Heil Environmental

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 2014

10-CA-114054 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 20, 2014)

1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE HEIL CO., INC.
d/b/a HEIL ENVIRONMENTAL
and Cases 10-CA-114054
10-CA-114919
UNITED STEEL, PAPER & FORESTRY, 10-CA-116293
RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
ALLIED INDUSTRIAL & SERVICE WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC
ORDER1
The General Counsel’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal Administrative
Law Judge William N. Cates’ ruling approving a unilateral Settlement by Consent Order
is denied.2 Although we have grave concerns about approval of a settlement
agreement over the objections of the General Counsel and Charging Party, in this case
we note that a recent non-Board settlement entered into by the Respondent and the
Charging Party which no party seeks to set aside and a 30-year old unrelated unfair
labor practice case are insufficient bases for concluding that the Respondent has a
history of violations of the Act. We find that the Settlement by Consent Order
substantially remedies the violations alleged in the consolidated complaint.3 See

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 As noted by Judge Cates, the resolution of an unfair labor practice by a unilateral
agreement proffered by a respondent and approved by a judge is in the nature of a
consent order, and not a true “settlement” between parties to the dispute. See Electrical
Workers IUE Local 201 (General Electric Co.), 188 NLRB 855, 857 (1971). When
evaluating proposed consent orders, the Board has applied the factors set forth in
Independent Stave Co., 287 NLRB 740 (1987). See, e.g., Food Lion, Inc., 304 NLRB
602, 602 fn. 4 (1991); Copper State Rubber, 301 NLRB 138, 138 (1991).
3 Chairman Pearce and Member Schiffer believe that Board Settlement Agreements
and Consent Orders settling complaint allegations that include the default language
referenced in this case best conserve Board resources, prevent duplicative expenses
2
Independent Stave Co., 287 NLRB 740, 741 (1987).
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2014
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III, MEMBER
NANCY SCHIFFER, MEMBER

and delay, and ensure that a charged party/respondent will comply with the provisions
of the settlement agreement.
In the circumstances of this case, Member Johnson does not share the “grave
concerns” expressed by his colleagues about approving the unilateral settlement
agreements or consent decrees over the objections of the General Counsel and a
charging party. He also finds no need to comment generally about the need for
inclusion of default language in such settlement agreements and consent orders.