The testimony taken by such member, agent, or agency, or the board in such hearing shall be reduced to writing and filed with the board. Thereafter, in its discretion, the board, upon notice, may take further testimony or hear argument. If, upon the preponderance of the testimony taken, the board shall be of the opinion that any person named in the complaint has engaged in or is engaging in any such unfair labor practice, the board shall state its findings of fact and shall issue and cause to be served on such person an order requiring such person to cease and desist from such unfair labor practice, to take affirmative action, including reinstatement of employees with or without backpay, and making employees whole, when the board deems such relief appropriate, for the loss of pay resulting from the
employer’s refusal to bargain, and to provide such other relief as will effectuate the policies of this part. Where an order directs reinstatement of an employee, backpay may be required of the employer or labor organization, as the case may be, responsible for the discrimination suffered by the employee. Such order may further require such person to make reports from time to time showing the extent to which it has complied with the order. If, upon the preponderance of the testimony taken, the board shall be of the opinion that the person named in the complaint has not engaged in or is not engaging in any unfair labor practice, the board shall state its findings of fact and shall issue an order dismissing the complaint. No order of the board shall require the reinstatement of any individual as an employee who has been suspended or discharged, or the payment to the employee of any backpay, if such individual was suspended or discharged for cause. In case the evidence is presented before a member of the board, or before an administrative law officer thereof, such member, or such administrative law officer, as the case may be, shall issue and cause to be served on the parties to the proceedings a proposed report, together with a recommended order, which shall be filed with the board, and, if no exceptions are filed within 20 days after service thereof upon such parties, or within such further period as the board may authorize, such recommended order shall become the order of the board and become effective as therein prescribed. If exceptions have been filed and the board issues an order finding that the person named in
the complaint has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labor practice and directing payment of a monetary remedy, the board shall order further proceedings to determine the specific amount of the monetary remedy or, if the monetary remedy is continuing to accrue, the amount accrued as of the date of the board’s order. In these cases, the board’s order does not become final for purposes of Section 1160.8 until the board has issued its determination of the specific amount of the monetary remedy.
Until the record in a case shall have been filed in a court, as provided in this chapter, the board may, at any time upon reasonable notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any finding or order made or issued by it.
Notes of Decisions
Martori Bros. Distributors v. James-Massengale, 781 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1986).
· cites it 6× “The Employers also sought a declaration that California Labor Code § 1160.3, to the extent that it permits the ALRB to award the fringe benefit component of a “make-whole” order, is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Pub.”
Andrews v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 623 P.2d 151 (Cal. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Indeed, the appearance of bias standard may be particularly untenable in certain administrative settings.”
Jasmine Vineyards, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 113 Cal. App. 3d 968 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “) Although we might not agree wholeheartedly with the foregoing reasoning of the Board, we nonetheless conclude that it is grounded on policy considerations which are properly addressed to the Board and to the Legislature and not to the courts.”
J. R. Norton Co. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 603 P.2d 1306 (Cal. 1979).
“) Although it is inconsistent with both the NLRA and ALRA to foster the delays that result from judicial review of frivolous election challenges, the policies of neither act support the application of a blanket rule for the imposition of make-whole relief.”
Abatti Farms, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 107 Cal. App. 3d 317 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “405-8) "On the other hand, another fact finder seeing and hearing the same witness may conclude that he is just too good a testifier, that he is an expert actor, and that he is also a liar.”
Sandrini Bros. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 156 Cal. App. 3d 878 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 3× “” It should be noted that in addition to the provision of a make-whole award for an employer’s refusal to bargain, the Legislature added the following to the NLRA language: “and to provide such other relief as will effectuate the policies of this part” (Lab. Code, § 1160.3,…”
George Arakelian Farms, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 111 Cal. App. 3d 258 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “(Lab. Code, § 1160.3.) "The responsibility for decision thus placed on the Board is wholly inconsistent with the notion that it has power to reverse an examiner's findings only when they are `clearly *281 erroneous.”
Bertuccio v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 202 Cal. App. 3d 1369 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “55, proper? (3) Must the makewhole order in any event be remanded to the Board for further proceedings under new procedural rules stated in Dal Porto //? The ALRA’s provision for “making employees whole, when the board deems such relief appropriate, for the loss of pay resulting…”
SAM ANDREWS'SONS v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 763 P.2d 881 (Cal. 1988).
· cites it 4× “) Labor Code section 1160.3 provides in pertinent part that, if the Board finds an unfair labor practice, it "shall issue and cause to be served .”
Butte View Farms v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 95 Cal. App. 3d 961 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979).
“In its exceptions to the supplemental decision of the administrative law officer, petitioner did not except to the revocation of the subpoena.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.