Pacific Coast Sightseeing Tours & Charters, Inc., a wholly owned Subsidiary of Coach USA, Inc., and Megabus West, LLC, an indirectly owned Subsidiary of Coach USA, Inc. (21-CA-168811 and 21-RC-167379; 365 NLRB No. 131) Anaheim, Bakersfield, and Van Nuys, CA, September 27, 2017. Errata to Decision and Order issued September 18, 2017. Errata Amended Decision.
***
R Cases
Brightside Academy, Inc. (08-RC-185999) Toledo, OH, September 28, 2017. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Objections and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner – Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO. Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
C Cases
Tito Contractors, Inc. (05-CA-149046) Washington, DC, September 26, 2017. Upon remand from the D.C. Circuit Court, the Board remanded this case to the Regional Director for further analysis in light of the Court’s opinion. The Court found that the Board failed to adequately consider “at least” three categories of evidence included in the Employer’s offer of proof when the Board found that the petitioned-for unit of all the Employer’s employees is an appropriate unit. Because the Court’s opinion was based on the Employer’s offer of proof, the Board, in remanding, instructed the Regional Director to reopen the record to receive the categories of evidence identified by the Court as well as any additional evidence the Regional Director deems relevant in determining the appropriateness of the unit. Petitioner – International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 51, AFL-CIO. Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
Asarco, LLC (28-CA-154886, et al.) Phoenix, AZ, September 29, 2017. Having granted a Joint Motion to Withdraw Exceptions to the June 28, 2017 Decision of Administrative Law Judge John T. Giannopoulos’ 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 United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, and an individual.
Anthony & Associates, Inc. (05-CA-153220) Washington, DC, September 29, 2017. No exceptions having been filed to the August 18, 2017 Supplemental Decision of Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas determining the amount of backpay due the discriminatee pursuant to the Board’s June 30, 2016 Order, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions and ordered the Respondent to pay the amount set forth in the judge’s recommended Order. Charge filed by an individual.
***
Creative Vision Resources, LLC, Board No. 15-CA-020067 (reported at 364 NLRB No. 91) (5th Cir. decided September 25, 2017)
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this labor contractor that was established to provide Richard’s Disposal in New Orleans, Louisiana, with “hoppers”—workers who ride on the back of garbage trucks and empty garbage cans. Prior to June 2, 2011, those services had provided by contractor Berry III, whose unit employees were represented by Local 100, United Labor Unions.
The Board (then-Chairman Pearce and Member Hirozawa, then-Member Miscimarra dissenting in part) found that Creative Vision violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to recognize and bargain with the Union by announcing and implementing unilateral changes in the hoppers’ existing terms and conditions of employment, including promulgating new work rules and changing the manner in which the hoppers were paid. Those findings were based on the Board’s determination that Creative Vision was a “perfectly clear” successor to Berry III, and thus not permitted to unilaterally change employment terms without reaching agreement or impasse with the Union. This was because, prior to June 2, 2011, Creative Vision made it clear to the hoppers that they would be retained, and it did not notify the hoppers of new employment terms before that time.
Before the Court, Creative Vision did not contest its status as the successor of the hoppers’ prior Employer, Berry III. Rather, it contested the Board’s finding that it was a “perfectly clear” successor that was not permitted to unilaterally change employment terms. After a thorough review of the relevant principles, the Court rejected Creative Vision’s arguments and held that the Board’s determination was supported by law and the record evidence. Further, the Court explained that Creative Vision’s additional argument—that it was not required to bargain because the Union had not demanded bargaining—was contrary to precedent, which provides that in “perfectly clear” successor cases, the composition of the successor’s work force alone is the triggering fact for the bargaining obligation, and no demand is required. Finally, the Court concluded that Creative Vision’s late-breaking challenge to the validity of the complaint, which had been issued under the tenure of the Acting General Counsel, was jurisdictionally barred from review under Section 10(e).
The Court’s opinion is here (link is external).
Southern Bakeries, LLC, Board Case No. 15-CA-101311 (reported at 364 NLRB No. 64) (8th Cir. decided September 27, 2017)
In a published opinion, the Court enforced, in substantial part, the Board’s order issued against this commercial bakery in Hope, Arkansas, where a unit of 200 production and sanitation workers is represented by the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco and Grain Millers Union, Local 111.
The Board (then-Chairman Pearce and Member Hirozawa; then-Member Miscimarra, concurring in part and dissenting in part) found that the Employer committed myriad unfair labor practices. The Board’s findings upheld by the Court (Circuit Judges Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judge Gruender concurring in part and dissenting in part) included violations of Section 8(a)(1) for coercively interrogating employees about their union activities, threatening employees with plant closure if they supported the Union, promising to reward employees with higher wages and better benefits, making a statement disparaging the Union, installing cameras that created an impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance, and promulgating a rule requiring employees to report their coworkers’ union activities to management. The Court further upheld the Board’s findings that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by investigating and disciplining three employees for talking about the Union, and violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) for failing to bargain with the Union before installing surveillance cameras in the Union’s meeting area, unilaterally restricting space set aside for union meetings on company premises, unilaterally granting employees a wage increase, and withdrawing recognition from the Union based on a tainted employee petition it received in June 2013. The Court, however, did not agree with the Board that two additional statements were coercive, or that the Employer had unlawfully threatened the employees with discipline, job loss, or other reprisals.
Upholding the withdrawal of recognition violation, the panel majority concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that the petition was tainted by “the nature and extent” of the Employer’s unfair labor practices in the months leading up to the June 2013 withdrawal petition. The panel majority further rejected the Employer’s claim that two earlier employee petitions—one in December 2011 and another in May 2012—were additional evidence of lack of majority support. The Court explained that the Employer’s unremedied unfair labor practices had tainted both earlier petitions, and that the December 2011 petition had been further tainted by the Employer’s unlawful assistance.
Judge Gruender wrote separately to express his disagreement with the bulk of the panel majority’s decision, but stated that his “primary concern with the Board’s decision is that, based on a number of questionable findings, it imposes [the Union] on an unconsenting group of workers who have repeatedly indicated a desire to be free from its representation.”
The Court’s opinion is here (link is external).
***
Velox Express, Inc. (15-CA-184006; JD-76-17) Little Rock, AR. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on September 25, 2017. Charge filed by an individual.
Michigan Bell Telephone Company and AT&T Services, Inc. (07-CA-182505; JD-77-17) Lansing, MI. Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl issued his decision on September 27, 2017. Charge filed by Local 4034, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO.
Securitas Security Services USA (16-CA-176006 and 16-CA-183494; JD-78-17) Austin, TX. Administrative Law Judge Donna N. Dawson issued her decision on September 28, 2017. Charges filed by an individual.
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Consolidated Communications of Texas Company (16-CA-187792 and 16-CA-192050; JD-79-17) Conroe, TX. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on September 28, 2017. Charges filed by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 6218.
George J. Martin & Son, Inc. (03-CA-188649; JD-73-17) Rensselaer, NY. Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his decision on September 29, 2017. Charge filed by an individual.
Taylor Motors, Inc. (10-CA-141565, et al.; JD-80-17) Fort Campbell, KY. Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his supplemental decision on September 29, 2017. Charges filed by American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO, Local 2022.
EYM King of Missouri, LLC, d/b/a Burger King (14-CA-188832; JD-82-17) Kansas City, MO. Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued her decision on September 29, 2017. Charge filed by Workers Organizing Committee – Kansas City.
River Bend Crane and Rigging, Inc. (28-CA-182666; JD-83-17) El Paso, TX. Administrative Law Judge Melissa M. Olivero issued her decision on September 29, 2017. Charge filed by International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local 263.
Source: NLRB
No comments:
Post a Comment