Summarized Board Decisions
No Published Board Decisions Issued.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Berkeley Bowl Produce, Inc. (32-RC-103811) Berkeley, CA, January 13, 2015. No exceptions having been filed to the Regional Director’s recommendation that the objections to a rerun election held October 9, 2014 be overruled in their entirety, the Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots were not cast for Petitioner United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 5, and that the Union is not the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees.
Suiza Dairy Corporation (24-RC-090254 and 12-CA-121746) San Juan, PR, January 14, 2015. The Board adopted the Acting Regional Director’s findings and recommendations regarding the disposition of objections and determinative challenged ballots in an election held on February 4, 2014. Accordingly, the Board ordered that the matter be remanded to the Regional Director for further appropriate action. Petitioner—Central General de Trabajadores. Incumbent Union—Union Insular de Trabajadores Industriales Y Construcciones Electricas (UITICE). Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra and Johnson participated
FedEx Freight, Inc. (09-RC-140912) Nitro, West Virginia, January 16, 2015. 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 City and Road Drivers employed at the Employer’s Charleston Terminal. Member Johnson agrees that the unit is appropriate, but would rely on the Board’s traditional community of interest analysis and not express a view on the correctness of Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011). Petitioner— International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 175. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and Johnson participated.
FedEx Freight, Inc. (06-RC-140779) Parkersburg, West Virginia, January 16, 2015. 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 City and Road Drivers employed at the Employer’s Parkersburg Terminal. Member Johnson agrees that the unit is appropriate, but would rely on the Board’s traditional community of interest analysis and not express a view on the correctness of Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011). Petitioner— International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 175. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and Johnson participated.
C Cases
Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 872, AFL-CIO (28-CB-118809) Las Vegas, NV, January 12, 2015. The Board granted the Charging Party’s request for special permission to appeal a ruling of an Administrative Law Judge approving a unilateral Settlement by Consent Order, but the Board denied the appeal on the merits. The Board found that the Settlement by Consent Order substantially remedies the violations alleged in complaint, and satisfies the factors set forth in Independent Stave Co., 287 NLRB 740 (1987). Charge filed by an individual. Chairman Pearce, Members Miscimarra and Hirozawa participated.
United States Postal Service (10-CA-124311, et al.) Gadsden and Huntsville, AL, January 12, 2015. Decision and Order approving a formal settlement stipulation between the Respondent Employer, the Charging Party Unions, and the General Counsel, and specifying actions the Employer must take to comply with the National Labor Relations Act. Charges filed by American Postal Workers Union, Gadsden Area Local 537 and American Postal Workers Union, North Alabama Area Local 359. Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra and Hirozawa participated.
Palm Beach Metro, LLC and its alter ego Metro Mobility Management Group, LLC (12-CA-025842) West Palm Beach, FL, January 13, 2015. No exceptions having been filed to the September 16, 2014 supplemental decision of Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions, and ordered the Respondent to take the action set forth in the judge’s recommended Order. Charge filed by Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, Local 1577.
Impremedia and its subsidiary, El Diario, LLC (29-CA-131066) Brooklyn, NY, January 14, 2015. Order denying the Employer’s petition to revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum. The Board found that the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought. Further, the Board held that the Employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. In addition, the Board denied the Employer’s request to the extent that its reference to a protective order can be construed as a request for a protective order, because it has not demonstrated good cause under Rule 26, FRCP, or that disclosure would cause clearly defined and serious harm. The Board also observed that, to the extent the Employer’s petition asserts confidentiality concerns, the instructions accompanying the subpoena specify a procedure by which the Employer may address those concerns with respect to particular documents.
Member Johnson agreed that the petition to revoke should be denied and joined in the order, with one exception. He noted that, contrary to the Employer’s representation, the Region clearly limited the scope of the documents sought to less than a two-year period. Concerning confidentiality, he further presumed the “instructions” referenced in footnote 2 are the Region’s offer to “enter into stipulations concerning the contents of the subpoenaed documents,” and that this process will be used accordingly. Member Johnson found no general issue of burdensomeness, stating that many of the Region’s requests are cabined to ask for “such documents” as would show a particular fact, rather than “all documents” related to that fact, and the Employer did not argue any particularized showing of burden. However, he would grant the petition on the ground of burdensomeness, in regard to paragraph 4 as applied to El Diario. Because that employer is a newspaper, he inferred that showing the customer identities for “all customers” will be a burdensome undertaking, even though the request is relevant. He would have the parties attempt to work out an accommodation before ruling on a new subpoena request. Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and McFerran participated.
***
World Color (USA) Corp., a wholly-owned Subsidiary of Quad Graphics, Board Case No. 32–CA–062242 (reported at 360 NLRB No. 37) (D.C. Circuit decided January 16, 2015)
In a published opinion, the Court granted the Employer’s petition for review and remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration of its finding that the Employer at its printing facility in Fernley, Nevada, unlawfully maintained an overbroad hat policy prohibiting employees from wearing baseball caps bearing union insignia. The NLRB’s Administrative Law Judge found that the hat policy violated Section 8(a)(1) by requiring employees to wear only caps bearing the company logo: “Baseball caps are prohibited except for Quad/Graphics baseball caps . . . .” The judge rejected the Employer’s claims of special circumstances and its contention that the hat policy was not unlawful because it was part of its uniform policy. Specifically, the Employer had argued that its uniform policy, which specified that employees were permitted to accessorize “in good taste and in accordance with the safety rules,” would permit employees to wear union insignia on their caps. The judge found the hat policy was separate and distinct from the uniform policy. On review, the Board (Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and Johnson) agreed with the judge, and added that the hat policy was explicitly overbroad because “[i]t is undisputed that the policy on its face prohibits employees from wearing caps bearing union insignia.” On review, the Court granted the Employer’s petition for review because it concluded that the Board had relied on a faulty premise. Specifically, the Court stated that the Board’s overbreadth analysis was flawed because, contrary to the Board’s statement that the matter was not in dispute, the record showed that the Employer had “consistently argued that the hat [policy] is part of its uniform policy and that [its] policies therefore facially allow an employee to adorn [a company] hat with union insignia.”
The Court’s opinion is here (link is external).
***
Columbia Memorial Hospital (03-CA-120636, et al.; JD(NY)-02-15) Hudson, NY. Administrative Law Judge Kenneth W. Chu issued his decision on January 12, 2015. Charges filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East.
United States Postal Service (07-CA-117584; JD-02-15) Grand Rapids, MI. Administrative Law Judge Thomas M. Randazzo issued his decision on January 12, 2015. Charge filed by Local 307, National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), a Division of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, AFL-CIO.
TGF Management Group Holdco, Inc. (22-CA-123003; JD(NY)-05-15) Carteret, NJ. Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito issued her decision on January 15, 2015. Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 469.
Novel Service Group, Inc. (02-CA-113834 and 02-CA-118386; JD(NY)-04-15) New York, NY. Administrative Law Judge Raymond P. Green issued his decision on January 15, 2015. Charges filed by Local 32BJ, Service Employees International Union.
Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc., d/b/a WETM-TV (03-CA-125618; JD(NY)-03-15) Elmira, NY. Administrative Law Judge Steven Davis issued his decision on January 15, 2015. Charge filed by International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its Territories and Canada, AFL-CIO.
Ace Heating and Air Conditioning Company, Inc. (08-CA-133965, et al.; JD-03-15) Cleveland, OH. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on January 15, 2015. Charges filed by Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 33.
United States Postal Service (10-CA-129726; JD(ATL)-01-15) Columbia, SC. Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his decision on January 16, 2015. Charge filed by National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 233.
Source: NLRB.gov
No comments:
Post a Comment