Labriola Baking Company (13-RD-089891; 361 NLRB No. 41) Alsip, IL, September 8, 2014.
Decision and Direction of Second Election. A majority of the full Board, reversing the hearing officer, found merit to the Union’s Objection 1 to the decertification election.
Objection 1 involved a statement made one week before the election by the Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) to employees at a captive audience speech, and the translation of that statement to the predominately Spanish-speaking audience. According to the COO’s scripted remarks, he said, “If you chose Union Representation, we believe the Union will push you toward a strike. Should this occurs [sic], we will exercise our legal right to hire replacement workers for the drivers who strike.” The hearing officer found that the translated version ended with the statement that the Employer would replace the workers with “legal workers” or a “legal workforce.” The hearing officer held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Objection 1 because the translated version did not threaten that the Employer would report employees to immigration authorities if they supported the Union.
The majority held that the hearing officer erred by analyzing Objection 1 only in terms of whether the COO’s translated statement threatened to report employees to immigration authorities. The Board majority found that it was not precluded from considering whether the statement amounted to a more generalized threat. The majority then found that the translation was objectionable because the import of the reference in the translation to “legal workers” was that the Employer would use immigration, i.e., “legal” status, to take action against employees in the event of the strike that the Employer claimed the Union all but inevitably would cause. The majority further stated that the objectionable statement was highly coercive and widely disseminated at a captive audience meeting held shortly before a close election. Thus, the majority concluded that the threat interfered with employees’ freedom of choice, and warranted setting aside the election and holding a second election.
Members Miscimarra and Johnson, dissenting, would find that even under the majority’s interpretation of the language of Objection 1, there was no support for finding objectionable conduct based on the record or any reasonable interpretation of the Act.
Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, Johnson, and Schiffer participated.
***
Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas (28-CA-063550 and 067394; 361 NLRB No. 10) Tucson, AZ, September 10, 2014. Correction to August 8, 2014 decision.
***
United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 700 (Kroger Limited Partnership) (25-CB-008896; 361 NLRB No. 39) Crawfordsville, IN, September 10, 2014.The full Board revisited the appropriate timing of a union’s notification to employees (subject to a union-security clause) of the specific amount of reduced fees and dues they would pay if they became nonmembers and objected to paying for union activities not germane to its duties as their collective-bargaining representative. A Board majority, consisting of Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and Schiffer, observed that established Board precedent holds that a union is not required to calculate and provide such detailed information until an employee elects nonmember status and then takes the additional step of objecting to paying for nonrepresentational expenses. The majority held that the Union properly relied on that precedent when it advised the Charging Party of the specific amount of the reduced dues and fees applicable to nonmember objectors only after she resigned her membership and requested objector status. The General Counsel and the Charging Party conceded that the Union complied with extant Board law, but argued that the Board should overrule that precedent. They urged the Board to hold that the duty of fair representation requires every union to provide each one of its represented employees with specific reduced payment information when the union first informs the employee of her obligations to pay dues under a union-security clause, even in the absence of an employee request for information about or objection to the union’s regular fees and dues. The majority held, however, that the Board’s established rule is not only permissible, but also that it strikes the most reasonable balance between the competing interests at stake. Accordingly, the majority adhered to precedent. Members Miscimarra and Johnson dissented. In their view, the Board’s established rule is inconsistent with cases decided by the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, and, in any event, the balance of interests favors pre-choice notice.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Sutter Central Valley hospital d/b/a Memorial Medical Center (32-RC-128843) Modesto, CA, September 8, 2014. No exceptions having been filed to the Regional Director’s disposition of objections to an election held June 26 and 27, 2014, the Board remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director for further appropriate action consistent with his report. Petitioner – California Nurses Association/National Nurses United (CAN/NNU).
Watkins Security Agency of D.C. and Covenant Security Services, Ltd. (05-RC-104853) Washington, D.C., September 8, 2014. No exceptions having been filed to the Regional Director’s disposition of objections to an election held July 22, 2014, the Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots were cast for International Union, Security, Police & Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) and that it is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. Petitioner - International Union, Security, Police & Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA).
Jack Cooper Transport Company, Inc. (14-RC-132667) Wentzille, MO, September 8, 2014. Order denying the Employer’s request for review as not raising substantial issues regarding whether the Regional Director erred in directing an election in a unit consisting of the Employer’s dispatch supervisors, yard supervisors, loading supervisor, safety supervisor, payroll supervisor, and clerical. Member Johnson would grant review on the issues of whether the loading/yard supervisor and safety supervisor possess the authority to discipline under Sec. 2(11) of the Act. Petitioner - Automobile Transport Chauffeurs, Demonstrators, Helpers, Teamsters Local 604. Members Hirozawa, Johnson, and Schiffer participated.
Tri-County Refuse Services, Inc. d/b/a Republic Services of Pinconning (07-RC-122650) Pinconning, MI, September 9, 2014. The Board adopted the Regional Director’s findings and recommendations to overrule the Employer’s objection to an election held April 3, 2014, and certified the Petitioner - International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 406, as the representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. The objection concerned the Regional Director’s denial of the Employer’s emergency appeal to stay or reschedule the election to permit an eligible employee away on military leave to participate in the election. Members Hirozawa, Johnson, and Schiffer participated.
C Cases
Lansing-Louisiana, LLC (15-CA-117585) Delhi, LA, September 8, 2014. No exceptions having been filed to the July 25, 2014 decision of Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted his findings and dismissed the complaint. Charge filed by an individual.
The Conklin Group LLC, d/b/a Massage Envy (15-CA-117947 and 119538) Panama City, FL, September 9, 2014. No exceptions having been filed to the July 28, 2014 decision of Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas finding that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted his Decision and ordered The Conklin Group LLC, d/b/a Massage Envy to take the action set forth in his Order. Charges filed by individuals.
Oregon School Employees Association Chapter 204, American Federation of Teachers, Local 6732 (First Student, Inc.) (19-CB-106045) Gresham, OR, September 9, 2014. No exceptions having been filed to the July 28, 2014 decision of Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted her findings and dismissed the complaint. Charge filed by an individual.
Waterworks Plumbing & Backflow, Inc.; Comfortworks Heating & Cooling, Inc., single employer; DGR of WNY, Inc. d/b/a The Plumber and 72 Degrees, alter ego/single employer (02-CA-027665 and 064979) Tonawanda, NY, September 12, 2014. Following a May 14, 2012 Board Decision and Order and September 25, 2012 enforcement by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Region issued a compliance specification and notice of hearing on July 31, 2013. Upon the basis of the Stipulation, the Board ordered the Respondent within 14 day of this order to pay the initial installment of the amount owed, and for the following 28 months to pay monthly installments. Charge filed by an individual and United Association, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 22.
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, AFL-CIO (19-CC-082533, et al. and 19-CC-100903) Portland, OR, September 12, 2014. The Board denied Respondents’ motion to consolidate related cases as it neither effectuates the purpose of the Act nor is it necessary to avoid unnecessary costs and delays.
AC Specialists, Inc. (12-CA-076395) Tampa, FL, September 12, 2014. On September 11, 2014 having granted the joint motion to withdraw exceptions and cross-exceptions to Administrative Law Judge George Carson II October 12, 2014 decision, the Board has now adopted his findings and conclusions and ordered Respondent to take the action set forth in the Order. Charge filed by United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters & HVAC Refrigeration Mechanics, Local Union 123, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO.
Mi Pueblo Foods (32-CA-064836) Northern California, September 12, 2014. The Board denied the Charging Party’s motion for reconsideration requesting additional remedies. The Board rejected the Charging Party’s argument that delay, employee turnover in its retail stores, and the Respondent’s bankruptcy warranted a broad order and extended posting period because the Board had previously rejected a request for such remedies in the underlying case and the Charging Party cited no circumstance that would justify a different result at this stage of the case. In addition, the Board rejected the Charging Party’s request that the Board mail the decision and notice to employees, because the Charging Party failed to proffer any evidence showing that this remedy is warranted or that it could not have been requested in the earlier proceedings. Charges filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 5.
Administrative Law Judge Mary Miller Cracraft issued her decision on June 21, 2012 and the Board adopted the judge’s decision on May 28, 2014. 360 NLRB No. 121. Chairman Pearce, Members Hirozawa, and Johnson participated.
Novelis Corporation (03-CA-121293, et al.; 03-RC-120447) Oswego, NY, September 12, 2014. Order denying the General Counsel’s request for special permission to appeal a ruling of the ALJ granting a motion to intervene. The Board found that the judge’s limited grant of the motion to intervene was not an abuse of discretion. Charges filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers, International Union, AFL-CIO. Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, and Johnson participated
Multiband EC, Inc. (25-CA-018828) New Hope, MN, September 12, 2014. The Board granted the joint motion of Respondent and the General Counsel to waive a hearing and decision by an administrative law judge and transfer the proceeding to the Board for decision. The parties have 21 days to file initial briefs. Charges filed by Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 135.
United States Postal Service (10-CA-120885) Roswell, GA, September 12, 2014. Decision and Order approving a formal settlement stipulation between the Respondent Employer, the Charging Party Union, and the General Counsel, and specifying actions the Employer must take to comply with the National Labor Relations Act. Charges filed by National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 4862. American Postal Workers Union, Boston Metro Area Local 100. Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, and Johnson participated.
TGF Management Group Holdco, Inc. (22-CA-123003) Carteret, NJ, September 12, 2014. Order denying Respondent’s motion for summary judgment. Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 469. Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, and Johnson participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Tri-State Wholesale Building Supplies, Inc. (09-CA-125950; JD-51-14) Cincinnati, OH. Errata #2 to the September 2, 2014 decision of Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan. Charge filed by an individual.
Muse School CA (31-CA-108671; JD(SF)-43-14) Calabasas, CA. Administrative Law Judge Lisa D. Thompson issued his decision on September 8, 2014. Charge filed by an individual.
Edro Corporation d/b/a Dynawash (01-CA-116211 and 116225; JD(NY)-37-14) East Berlin, CT. Administrative Law Judge Raymond P. Green issued his decision on September 9, 2014. Charges filed by an individual and International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.
United States Postal Service (05-CA-122166; JD-53-14) Washington, DC. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on September 10, 2014. Charges filed by American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO.
Business Resource Security Services, USA, Inc. (BRSS) (05-CA-119728; JD-54-14) Washington, DC. Administrative Law Judge Eric M. Fine issued his decision on September 11, 2014. Charge filed by an individual.
Source: NLRB.gov
No comments:
Post a Comment