Miller & Anderson, Inc. (05-RC-079249; 364 NLRB No. 39) Franklin County, PA, July 11, 2016.
A Board majority, consisting of Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran, found merit to the Petitioner’s request for review of the Regional Director’s administrative dismissal of the petition, and concluded that employer consent is not necessary for collective-bargaining units that combine jointly employed and solely employed employees of a single user employer. Instead, the majority held that it would apply the traditional community of interest factors to decide if such units are appropriate. The Board thereby overruled Oakwood Care Center, 343 NLRB 659 (2004), and returned to the holding of M.B. Sturgis, Inc., 331 NLRB 1298 (2000). The majority reasoned that Sturgis is consistent with Section 9(b) of the Act, and that Sturgis effectuates fundamental policies of the Act that Oakwood frustrates. The Board remanded the case to the Regional Director for further action.
Member Miscimarra dissented based on his view that the Act renders inappropriate a bargaining unit where one employer-participant has no “employer” relationship with some or most unit employees. In his view, the Act and sound policy considerations preclude the Board from certifying such combined units absent employer consent.
Petitioner ‒ Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 19, AFL-CIO.
***
In this Decision on Review and Order, the Board addressed whether an incumbent union’s representative status may be challenged within 6 months of the employer’s having entered into an informal Board settlement agreement admitting that it had engaged in bad-faith bargaining. This issue had been specifically left open in Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp., 334 NLRB 399, 399 fn. 7 (2001), enfd. 310 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The Regional Director, applying Poole Foundry and Machine Co., 95 NLRB 34 (1951), enfd. 192 F.2d 740 (4th Cir. 1951), cert. denied 342 U.S. 954 (1952), found that the petition was filed after a reasonable period of time for bargaining had elapsed following the parties’ post-settlement resumption of bargaining, and therefore directed an election. The Board, guided by Lee Lumber, reversed the Regional Director and found that a settlement agreement containing an admission of unlawful bargaining behavior shall be treated in the same manner as a Board-adjudicated finding of unlawful conduct, and that it will apply the Lee Lumber reasonable standard of bargaining (no less than 6 months) in cases where, as here, the employer has admitted in a settlement agreement that it unlawfully refused to bargain. Applying this standard to this case, the Board found that it was undisputed that less than 6 months had elapsed between the parties’ resumption of bargaining and the filing of the decertification petition; accordingly, there had not been a reasonable period of time for bargaining when the petition was filed and the Union’s majority status could not be questioned at that time.
Petitioner ‒ An Individual. Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra and Hirozawa participated.
***
A Board panel unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally changing its formula for calculating unit employees’ holiday pay. A panel majority consisting of Chairman Pearce and Member McFerran affirmed the judge’s finding that the Respondent established a practice of paying unit employees non-prorated holiday pay, and found that, even assuming the record fell short of demonstrating that the Respondent established a practice for holiday pay, the Respondent clearly implemented a term of employment and acted unlawfully by unilaterally changing it. Member Miscimarra, agreeing that the Respondent violated the Act when it unilaterally changed one of its initial terms and conditions of employment, did not reach or pass on the majority’s finding that paying non-prorated holiday pay had become an established practice at the time Respondent made the change. In addition, the panel unanimously affirmed the judge’s finding, to which no exceptions were filed, that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by unlawfully refusing to furnish information requested by the Union. However, the Respondent argued that the judge erred by ordering it to produce the information based on the General Counsel’s statement in its post-hearing brief to the judge that the Respondent no longer employed the employees; accordingly, the Board, consistent with its decision in Boeing Co., 364 NLRB No. 24 (2016), ordered the Respondent to produce the requested information, unless the Respondent establishes in the compliance proceeding, under the procedure set forth in Boeing Co. that the Union has no need for the information.
Charges filed by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge W-24. Administrative Law Judge John J. McCarrick issued his decision on February 4, 2015. Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra and McFerran participated.
***
A unanimous Board panel adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and(1) by eliminating the LPN position from the bargaining unit and transferring LPN work to nonunit RNs in retaliation for the LPNs’ union activity and to evade its responsibility to reinstate its unlawfully discharged LPNs. A Board panel majority consisting of Members Hirozawa and McFerran found that the Respondent, by eliminating the LPN classification, unilaterally altered the scope of the bargaining unit without the Union’s consent or a Board order, thereby also violating Section 8(a)(5). Member Miscimarra found it unnecessary to reach or pass on the Section 8(a)(5) issues, reasoning that finding that these same acts also violated Section 8(a)(5) would not materially affect the remedy.
Charges filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, New Jersey Region. Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito issued her decision on January 15, 2013. Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, and McFerran participated.
***
A Board panel majority consisting of Chairman Pearce and Member Hirozawa affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by announcing the temporary shutdown of its Wisne facility and the transfer of Union-represented employees and their work to its Novi and Royal Oak facilities without providing the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain over the effects of the shutdown and transfer. The majority also affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that, by applying the Novi and Royal Oak shop rules to the Wisne employees temporarily working at those facilities, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) both by failing to continue in effect the Union’s collective-bargaining agreement and by unilaterally changing employees’ terms and conditions of employment without notice to the Union. Finally, the panel majority adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s finding of four independent Section 8(a)(1) violations stemming from these events, including an interrogation and threat of layoffs.
Member Miscimarra dissented from the majority’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) based on an alleged failure to satisfy its effects-bargaining obligations (regarding the temporary shutdown/transfer); he disagreed with the majority’s finding that the Respondent announced and implemented changes as a “fait accompli” that precluded effects bargaining. Member Miscimarra concurred with his colleagues in finding that the Respondent’s unilateral application of Novi and Royal Oak shop rules to transferred Wisne employees constituted an unlawful unilateral change in violation of Section 8(a)(5), but dissented from any finding that this constituted an unlawful “mid-term modification” of the Wisne collective-bargaining agreement. Finally, although Member Miscimarra joined his colleagues in finding that the Respondent unlawfully threatened a Union-represented employee during a discussion of that employee’s protected activity, he would not additionally find that the Respondent unlawfully interrogated the employee during this same conversation.
Charge filed by Wisne Automation Employees Association. Administrative Law Judge Mark Carissimi issued his decision on December 26, 2012. Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra and Hirozawa participated.
***
The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment when it denied union representatives access to its facility to post a notice.
Charge filed by Teamsters Local 760. Administrative Law Judge Ariel L. Sotolongo issued his decision on January 28, 2016. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran participated.
***
The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging an employee for criticizing a supervisor’s abusive treatment and by threatening employees with discharge after another employee criticized the same supervisor.
However, the Board reversed the judge’s findings that the Respondent had not unlawfully discharged two other employees. Contrary to the judge, the Board held that the Respondent had actually fired a second employee when it unambiguously told him that he was fired after he had criticized his supervisor’s yelling; the fact that the Respondent quickly reversed the discharge and the employee worked the next day bore only on the remedy (no make-whole relief). As to the third employee, who had aligned himself with his colleagues’ criticism, the Board found, contrary to the judge, that the General Counsel had met his initial Wright Line burden and that the Respondent had failed to meet its rebuttal burden of proving that it would have discharged that employee even in the absence of his protected concerted activity.
Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Amita Baman Tracy issued her decision on July 20, 2015. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran participated.
***
The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of a Section 8(a)(3) allegation that the Respondent had unlawfully discharged an employee for his union activity. In so doing, the Board noted the extent and nature of the employee’s disciplinary history, much of which raised serious safety concerns. Additionally, in the absence of exceptions, the Board affirmed the judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining certain work rules and by threatening employees with discharge for violating one of those rules, and did not violate Section 8(a)(3) by disciplining, transferring, and discharging another employee.
Charges filed by individuals. Administrative Law Judge Joel. P. Biblowitz issued his decision on October 22, 2015. Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra and Hirozawa participated.
***
The Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order in this unfair labor practice case pursuant to a court remand. Previously, the Board had issued a Decision and Order, reported at 361 NLRB No. 34, adopting the judge’s findings in the unfair labor practice matter, finding that the Respondent’s refusal to bargain and unilateral actions violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1), and rejecting the Respondent’s claim, raised for the first time, that the Regional Director lacked authority to certify the Union in Case 31-RC-080046 because the certification issued at a time when the Board lacked a quorum. The Board did not address the merits of the Respondent’s quorum-based argument, finding that the Respondent waived its right to challenge the certification when it entered into negotiations with the Union. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the Board filed a cross-application for enforcement. On April 29, 2016, the court granted the Respondent’s petition for review, finding that the Respondent did not waive its argument that the Regional Director lacked delegated authority to certify the Union during a time when the Board lacked a quorum. The court remanded the case to the Board “to enable the Board to render an interpretation as to whether, under the quorum statute, Regional Directors retained power over representation elections notwithstanding the lapse of a Board quorum in the circumstances presented by this case.” Hospital of Barstow, Inc. v. NLRB, 820 F.3d 440, 441 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Thereafter, the Board accepted the remand, and the parties filed statements of position.
In its supplemental decision, the Board accepted as the law of the case the court’s finding that the Respondent did not waive its argument that the Regional Director lacked delegated authority to certify the Union during a time when the Board lacked a quorum, and it considered de novo the Respondent’s quorum-based challenge to the authority of the Regional Director. The Board discussed the history of the 1961 delegation of its decisional authority in representation cases to regional directors, as well as Subpart X of the Board’s Rules and Regulations concerning the processing of representation cases when the Board lacks a quorum, and cited cases holding that NLRB Regional Directors remain vested with the authority to conduct elections and certify their results, regardless of the Board’s composition at any given moment. The Board then cited several cases arising in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in which the court upheld this analysis in the context of stipulated election agreements, including UC Health, 360 NLRB No. 71, slip op. at 1, fn. 2 (2014), enfd. 803 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
Next, the Board addressed the question presented in this case — “whether the parties’ ‘choice to leave the Regional Director’s decisions unchallenged’ is any less valid when it is manifested through a consent election agreement, in which the parties agree that the Regional Director’s decisions will be final.” The Board concluded that there is no “meaningful distinction between the ‘finality’ accorded to the Regional Director’s certification of representative based on the parties’ consent election agreement and the ‘finality’ accorded to the Regional Director’s certification of representative in UC Health based on the parties’ choice not to seek Board review to which they otherwise were entitled under their stipulated election agreement.” The Board emphasized that “it is the parties’ agreement, not the Board’s delegation, which gives a regional director’s decisions finality in the context of a consent election agreement.” Accordingly, the Board rejected the Respondent’s challenge to the validity of the certification in Case 31-RC-080046 and found that the Regional Director retained the authority to process the underlying representation proceeding, and to issue a certification pursuant to the parties’ consent election agreement, notwithstanding the lapse of a Board quorum. The Board further found no basis to disturb the rulings of the Regional Director in the representation case.
On the merits of the unfair labor practice allegations, the Board considered the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and agreed with the rationale set forth in its earlier Order, vacated by the court. Accordingly, the Board adopted and reissued the Board’s Decision and Order reported at 361 NLRB No. 34, which it incorporated by reference. In addition, while noting that the Respondent had not raised before the Board its argument concerning Acting General Counsel Solomon’s authority under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345 et seq., the Board nonetheless observed that the Notice of Ratification that General Counsel Richard F. Griffin, Jr. issued on June 29, 2016 effectively moots any possible FVRA challenge in this matter.
Charges filed by California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC), AFL-CIO. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran participated.
***
R Cases
Wright Tree Service, Inc. (09-UC-154481) South Williamson, KY, July 11, 2016. The Board denied review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order dismissing the Petitioner’s unit clarification petition. Petitioner ‒ International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 369, AFL-CIO (IBEW). Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra and Hirozawa participated.
C Cases
Bakery Confectionary Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers Union (21-CA-171340) Los Angeles, CA, July 11, 2016. The Board denied 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, and that the Employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charge filed by an individual. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran participated.
United States Postal Service (09-CA-161711) Jackson, OH, July 11, 2016. No exceptions having been filed to the May 27, 2016 decision of Administrative Law Judge Joel P. Biblowitz’ finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions, and dismissed the complaint. Charge filed by an individual.
Community School of Excellence (18-CA-145860, 18-CA-151198 and 18-CA-165594) Saint Paul, MN, July 12, 2016. The Board approved a formal settlement stipulation between the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel, and specified actions the Respondent must take to comply with the Act. Charges filed by Education Minnesota: Federation of Charter School Employees. Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, and McFerran participated.
Local 660, United Workers of America (Alstate Maintenance, Inc.) (29-CB-103994 and 29-CB-126867) Brooklyn, NY, July 12, 2016. No exceptions having been filed to the May 9, 2016 decision of Administrative Law Judge Raymond P. Green’s 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. Charges filed by Local 32BJ, Service Employees International Union.
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 18 (Nerone & Sons, Inc.) (08-CD-135243, 08-CD-143412 and 08-CD-147697) Cleveland, OH, July 12, 2016. The Board denied the Respondent’s request for special permission to appeal the May 3, 2016 order of the Administrative Law Judge, finding that the Respondent failed to establish that the judge abused his discretion. Charges filed by Nerone & Sons, Inc.; R.G. Smith Company, Inc.; and KMU Trucking & Excavating, Inc.; Shirmer Construction Co.; Platform Cement, Inc.; 21st Century Concrete Construction, Inc.; and Independence Excavating, Inc. Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, and McFerran participated.
DT Management LLC d/b/a Doubletree by Hilton Ontario Airport Hotel and Extreme Services, Inc., a joint employer (31-CA-160946, et al.) Ontario, CA, July 12, 2016. The Board denied the petition to revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum filed by DT Management LLC. The Board found that the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and that DT Management failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Member Miscimarra, dissenting in part, found that a subpoena seeking documents pertaining to an alleged joint-employer and/or single employer status requires the General Counsel to articulate an objective factual basis supporting the inquiry. Charges filed by UNITE HERE Local 11. Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, and McFerran participated.
DT Management LLC d/b/a Doubletree by Hilton Ontario Airport Hotel and Extreme Services, Inc., a joint employer (31-CA-160946, et al.) Ontario, CA, July 12, 2016. The Board denied the petition to revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum filed by Extreme Services. The Board found that the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and that Extreme Services failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Member Miscimarra, dissenting in part, found that a subpoena seeking documents pertaining to an alleged joint-employer and/or single employer status requires the General Counsel to articulate an objective factual basis supporting the inquiry. Charges filed by UNITE HERE Local 11. Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, and McFerran participated.
United States Postal Service (20-CA-157411 and 20-CA-161987) San Francisco, CA, July 12, 2016. The Board denied the Employer’s petition to partially revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum as untimely, noting that Section 11(1) of the Act and Sections 102.31(b) and 102.111 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations require that a petition to revoke an investigative subpoena must be filed within 5 days after the date of service of the subpoena. Moreover, the Board stated that, even assuming the petition had been timely filed, it was lacking in merit, as the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and the Employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charges filed by individuals. Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa and McFerran participated.
Fedex Freight East, Inc. (13-CA-166350) Chicago, IL, July 13, 2016. The Board denied 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, and that the Employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. The Board indicated that it evaluated the subpoena as modified by the Region’s limitation of certain information requests to the Employer’s Midwest Region. The Board also evaluated the subpoena in light of the Region’s clarification that certain requests regarding alert line calls and any ensuing investigations are limited to just those alert line calls similar to the call lodged against the Charging Party. Finally, the Board found that, to the extent that the Employer has provided some of the requested material, it is not required to produce that information again. Charge filed by an individual. Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, and McFerran participated.
Rochester Regional Joint Board Local 14A (03-CC-137244 and 03-CE-137252) Rochester, NY, July 14, 2016. The Board denied the Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of a decision reported at 363 NLRB No. 179 (2016) because the Respondent’s motion did not identify material error or demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration under Section 102.48(d)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. In relevant part, the Board in the underlying decision adopted, in the absence of exceptions, the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) by seeking to force the charging party Employer into an agreement that would require its subcontractor to assume the obligations of the collective bargaining agreement with the Respondent. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran participated.
CSC Holdings, LLC and Cablevision Systems Corporation (29-CA-097013, 29-CA-134419 and 29-CA-154544) Brooklyn, NY, July 14, 2016. The Board granted the parties’ motion to approve a non-Board settlement agreement and remanded the case to the Region for appropriate action.
***
MasTec Services Company, Inc., Board Case No. 16-CA-086102 (reported at 363 NLRB No. 81) (5th Cir. decided July 11, 2016)
In an unpublished per curiam order, the court granted the Employer’s motion for summary reversal of the Board’s decision that found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining an arbitration agreement, as a condition of employment, that waived employees’ right to pursue class or collective actions in employment-related claims in all forums, whether arbitral or judicial. The order issued two months after the Fifth Circuit denied the Board’s petition for rehearing en banc in Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015), in which the court held it was bound by its prior decision in D.R. Horton v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013), denying enforcement in relevant part 357 NLRB No. 184 (Jan. 3, 2012), petition for reh’g en banc denied, 5th Cir. No. 12-60031 (April 16, 2014).
The court’s July 11, 2016 order may be found here.
Latino Express, Inc., Board Case No. 13-CA-077678 (reported at 360 NLRB No. 112) (D.C. Cir. decided under the name Lopez v. NLRB July 15, 2016)
In an unpublished per curiam judgment, the court dismissed as moot the petition for review filed by employee Ramiro Lopez which had remained on the court’s docket after a post-briefing settlement was reached between the Board and this provider of bus-transportation services in the Chicago area.
In April 2011, the Board certified Teamsters Local Union No. 777 to represent a unit of the Employer’s drivers, and the parties began negotiations for a first contract. The Board (Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and Schiffer) found that the Employer engaged in various forms of bad-faith bargaining, unilaterally implemented terms and conditions of employment, provided support for a petition to decertify the union, and eventually withdrew recognition from the Union, all in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In reaching its decision, the Board also affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s denial of a motion to intervene that had been filed by employee Lopez, who had been active in the decertification campaign.
The Employer and Lopez each filed a petition for review and the Board cross-applied for enforcement against the Employer. After briefing, the Board and the Employer reached a settlement and filed a joint motion to dismiss. In its decision, the court held that the settlement had mooted Lopez’s petition for review. The court explained that “[a]n unfair labor practice case is, at bottom, a dispute between the Board and the charged party,” and therefore “only the charged party is a necessary signatory to any informal or formal [Board] settlement.” The court concluded that Lopez “thus has no cognizable legal interest in or ability to block the conclusive resolution of the unfair labor practice proceeding,” and dismissed his petition.
The court’s July 15, 2016 order may be found here.
VCNCL, LLC, d/b/a Vineyard Court Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Board Case No. 15-CA-144945 (reported at 362 NLRB No. 147) (5th Cir. decided July 11, 2016)
In an unpublished opinion issued in this test-of-certification case, the court upheld the Board’s bargaining order issued against this non-acute care retirement and assisted living facility in Columbus, Mississippi, after a unit of its service and maintenance workers voted in a secret-ballot election in January 2014 to be represented by Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO. In doing so, the court relied on its recent decision in Macy’s, Inc. v. NLRB, 2016 WL 3124847 (5th Cir. June 2, 2016), upholding the Board’s standard for determining whether a proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate unit as clarified in Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011), enforced sub nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013).
In the underlying representation case, the Union petitioned to represent a unit of certified nursing assistants, and dietary, laundry, and housekeeping employees. A hearing was held to gather evidence to determine the appropriate unit, and at one point, the Employer’s counsel stated that employees waiting to testify might not be protected under the Act, and the Union filed a charge alleging an unlawful threat. The Region investigated, found cause to issue a complaint, but the parties subsequently resolved the matter. In the resulting decision, the Regional Director determined that the petitioned-for unit was not an appropriate unit because it was not “an identifiable group separate from other employees” given that “most, if not all, of the employees at the facility have those same terms and conditions of employment in common.” The Regional Director then held that, in order to constitute an appropriate unit, the activity employees, social services director, and the maintenance employees must also be included in the unit, thereby constituting “an appropriate service and maintenance unit.” The Regional Director, however, rejected the Employer’s contention that the smallest appropriate unit must include the business manager, registered nurses, and licensed practical nurses, finding that the Employer had not shown they shared an “overwhelming community of interest” with the employees in the unit found appropriate. The Employer requested review, which the Board denied. After the election, the Employer filed objections, including a claim that the Region’s actions in finding merit in the Union’s charge regarding the Employer’s counsel’s statement at the hearing were improper and had interfered with the election.
On review, the court concluded that the Board did not abuse its discretion in applying the Specialty Healthcare test and rejected the Employer’s challenge as premised on a misstatement of the standard. Regarding the election objection, the court agreed with the Board and held that the Employer had failed to proffer any evidence to suggest that the Board’s investigation of the charge and issuance of the complaint had any tendency to interfere with employee free choice.
The court’s opinion is here (link is external).
***
In-N-Out Burger, Inc. (16-CA-156147 and 16-CA-163251; JD-62-16) Austin, TX. Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his decision on July 11, 2016. Charges filed by Mid-South Organizing Committee.
Roy Spa, LLC (19-CA-083329; JD-66-16) Great Falls, MT. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued his decision on July 12, 2016. Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2.
Matrix Equities, Inc. (29-CA-168345; JD(NY)-25-16) Brooklyn, NY. Administrative Law Judge Raymond P. Green issued his decision on July 12, 2016. Charge filed by an individual.
Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (AT&T Wisconsin) (18-CA-147635 and 18-CA-163323; JD-67-16) Fond du Lac and Sheboygan, WI. Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl issued his decision on July 12, 2016. Charges filed by Communications Workers of America, Local 4622.
Sazerac Distillers, LLC d/b/a Barton Brands of California, Inc. (21-CA-162489; JD(SF)-30-16) Carson, CA. Administrative Law Judge Ariel L. Sotolongo issued his decision on July 13, 2016. Charge filed by Food, Industrial & Beverage Warehouse, Drivers and Clerical Employees, Local 630, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 181 (Maxim Crane Works) (25-CB-150584; JD-68-16) Evansville, IN. Administrative Law Judge David I. Goldman issued his decision on July 13, 2016. Charge filed by an individual.
Ekhaya Youth Project, Inc. (15-CA-155131 and 15-CA-162082; JD-69-16) New Orleans, LA. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on July 15, 2016. Charges filed by an individual.
Source: NLRB
No comments:
Post a Comment