Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Recent News
Home / Opinions / 99-4121, 00-3881 Beverly California Corp. v. NLRB

99-4121, 00-3881 Beverly California Corp. v. NLRB

“A review of NLRB decisions reveals that the agency considers a General Counsel’s and Charging Party’s opposition to a settlement to be a powerful reason to disregard the settlement unless the NLRB considers the reasons behind the opposition to be illegitimate. … Further, both the General Counsel and the Union were completely circumvented in this settlement process. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s and Board’s decision to weigh the first factor in favor of disregarding the settlement. The fact that the Union previously approved a settlement for $1,000 is evidence in Beverly’s favor, but does not undermine the basis for the Board’s decision.

“The ALJ also found the second factor, the reasonableness of the settlement in light of the risk involved, to weigh in favor of disregarding the settlement. Although the backpay hearing had not yet taken place, the issue of liability had already been decided in the employees’ favor. … The settlement provided the employees with a strikingly smaller amount of money than the Board decided they could collect, 15% of the Board-determined amount for Wiley and 17% for Glenn… In comparison to the amount the Board unanimously determined Glenn and Wiley could recover, the settlement provides a paltry amount. Given the reduced litigation risk the employees faced, (even Beverly’s attorney realized that the company would likely pay some backpay) the ALJ deemed the amount to be unreasonable. This decision was supported by substantial evidence.”

Order enforced.

Leave a Reply