Right-to-work holdouts face new efforts to change labor laws

Backers of so-called right-to-work laws are focusing on changing labor laws in a handful of holdout states in the Midwest.

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) — Hemmed in by a growing number of states that block mandatory union fees in workplaces, holdout states in the Midwest are facing renewed attempts to enact so-called right-to-work laws.


Missouri's new law will go to a statewide referendum in November, while a pair of Republican lawmakers in Ohio announced last month they want to put the issue before voters in two years.

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of December 11 - 15, 2017

UPMC and its subsidiary, UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, single employer, d/b/a UPMC Presbyterian Hospital and d/b/a UPMC Shadyside Hospital  (06-CA-102465, et al.; 365 NLRB No. 153)  Pittsburgh, PA, December 11, 2017.

A full Board majority consisting of Chairman Miscimarra and Members Kaplan and Emanuel affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s supplemental decision granting UPMC’s partial motion to dismiss a single-employer allegation against UPMC, based on UPMC’s offer to guarantee the performance by Presbyterian Shadyside of any remedy ultimately ordered against Presbyterian Shadyside.  This case involves a complaint against UPMC and its subsidiary Presbyterian Shadyside, based on unfair labor practices allegedly committed by Presbyterian Shadyside.  The majority found, as did the judge, that UPMC’s offer to act as guarantor of any remedies ultimately awarded against Presbyterian Shadyside effectuates the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act and that the judge properly accepted the proffered terms in settlement of the single-employer allegation against UPMC.  In doing so, the majority overruled United States Postal Service, 364 NLRB No. 116 (2016) (Postal Service), where a divided Board held that the appropriate

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of December 4 - 8, 2017

R Cases

Garda CL Atlantic, Inc.  (29-RC-197242)  Queens, NY, December 6, 2017.  The Board denied the Intervenor’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  The Board agreed that documents proffered by the Intervenor did not serve to bar an election.  Petitioner – Special and Superior Officers Benevolent Association.  Intervenor – United Federation of Special Police and Security Officers.  Members Pearce, McFerran, and Emanuel participated.

C Cases

Emerald Correctional Management, L.L.C.  (28-CA-188682 and 28-CA-192201)  San Luis, AZ, December 4, 2017.  No exceptions having been filed to the October 19, 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 an individual and International Guards Union of America.

Good Shepherd Manor, Inc.  (25-CA-191404, et al.)  Bradley, IL, December 4, 2017.  No exceptions having been filed to the October 23, 2017 decision of Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas’ 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 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31, AFL-CIO.

Lundeen Simonson, Inc.  (19-CA-195000)  Spokane, WA, December 4, 2017.  No exceptions having been filed to the October 17, 2017 decision of Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind’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.  Charge filed by Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Association, Local No. 72.

Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center  (21-CA-190102)  Pomona, CA, December 4, 2017.  No exceptions having been filed to the October 23, 2017 decision of Administrative Law Judge Lisa D. Thompson’s 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 Service Employees International Union – United Healthcare Workers – West.

Heartland Coca-Cola Bottling Company, LLC  (14-CA-195320)  St. Charles, MO, December 4, 2017.  No exceptions having been filed to the October 23, 2017 decision of Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin’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.  Charge filed by an individual.

Roy Spa, LLC  (19-CA-083329)  Great Falls, MT, December 5, 2017.  The Board denied Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and Order reported at 365 NLRB No. 114.  The Board found that Respondent had failed to identify any material error or demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration.  In the underlying decision, the Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the General Counsel’s position on the merits was substantially justified and therefore adopted his order denying Respondent’s application for an award under the Equal Access to Justice Act.  Chairman Miscimarra dissented from the underlying decision based on his view in the Board’s first consideration of this case (363 NLRB No. 183) that the judge abused his discretion by accepting the General Counsel’s untimely filed Motion to Dismiss.  Nevertheless, Chairman Miscimarra agreed that Respondent had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration.  Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 2.  Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued his supplemental decision on July 12, 2016.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

Bethany College  (14-CA-201546 and 14-CA-201584)  Lindsborg, KS, December 6, 2017.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment, finding that the Respondent failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Members Kaplan and Emanuel joined in the denial of the motion but expressed no opinion on whether Pacific Lutheran University, 361 NLRB 1404 (2014), was correctly decided.  Charges filed by an individual.  Members McFerran, Kaplan, and Emanuel participated.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Masonic Temple Association of Detroit and 450 Temple, Inc., a Single Employer, Board Case 07-CA-144521 (reported at 364 NLRB No. 150) (6th Cir. decided December 4, 2017)
In an unpublished order, the Court enforced the Board’s bargaining order issued against these two entities, the Masonic Temple Association of Detroit, Michigan, and its for-profit business arm, 450 Temple, Inc., as a single employer, in their operation hosting events, such as weddings, parties, and concerts, at the complex’s 20-story tower that contains a 4,000-seat theater, a ballroom, and restaurants.  For over 50 years, Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, and its predecessor, have represented the maintenance engineers, boiler operators, and operating engineers at the complex under a series of collective-bargaining agreements with various operators.

In January 2011, while negotiations for a successor contract were underway, the association’s general manager told a unit employee that the association president planned to refuse to recognize the Union.  After learning of that statement, the Union filed an unfair-labor-practice charge, which the parties then settled and continued bargaining.  In December 2012, the then-operator ended its relationship with the association and was replaced by 450 Temple, but the association president continued to oversee collective bargaining.  After negotiations stalled, and over the course of the next two years, the Union made repeated demands for bargaining and attempted to reach the president to schedule further negotiations.  Meanwhile, the Employers, despite not responding to the Union’s bargaining requests, continued to remit union dues and to pay medical and insurance payments to the Union.  On January 13, 2015, when the Union finally spoke with the president on the phone, the president refused to bargain, stated that the companies would never again be a union employer, and hung up.  On the basis of that refusal to bargain, and its rejection of a claim that the underlying charge was time-barred, the Board (then-Chairman Pearce, and Members Miscimarra and McFerran) found that the companies, as a single employer, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).

On review, the companies presented two arguments to the Court.  First, they argued that the complaint was time-barred under Section 10(b) because the Union had notice of their refusal to bargain back in January 2011.  Rejecting that contention, the Court adopted the Board’s explanation that although the companies had failed to respond to the Union’s repeated demands to negotiate, “they continued to remit dues and medical and insurance payments,” and that “it was not until January 13, 2015, that [they] clearly and unequivocally informed the Union that they would not recognize or bargain with it.”  Second, the companies claimed that they were privileged to refuse to bargain because they had a good-faith doubt that the Union still enjoyed the support of a majority of unit employees.  As evidence, the companies cited the association president’s testimony that none of the employees told him that “they were currently or wanted to be union members.”  In response, the Court cited Board authority holding that the issue of majority support “turns on whether most unit employees wish to have union representation, not on whether most unit employees are [union] members.”

The Court’s judgment order may be found here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Anderson Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Royal Motor Sales  (20-CA-187567; JD(SF)-51-17)  San Francisco, CA.  Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind issued his decision on December 4, 2017.  Charge filed by an individual.

Bexar County Performing Arts Center Foundation d/b/a Tobin Center for the Performing Arts  (16-CA-193636; JD-95-17)  San Antonio, TX.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on December 5, 2017.  Charge filed by Local 23, American Federation of Musicians.
Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC  (09-CA-199567; JD-96-17)  Birmingham, AL.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on December 8, 2017.  Charge filed by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (UBC), Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters.

***

Source: NLRB

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of November 27 - December 1, 2017

R Cases

Elaine Kaufman Cultural Center/Lucy Moses School for Music and Dance  (02-RC-181017)  New York, NY, November 29, 2017.  The Board (Members Pearce and McFerran; Chairman  Miscimarra, dissenting) denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order to Open Challenged Ballots as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  In denying review, the majority agreed with the Regional Director that the challenged voter in question was eligible, although the majority relied on a different rationale.  Dissenting, Chairman Miscimarra would have granted review because, in his view, the parties’ stipulation was unambiguous and the challenged voter was not eligible.  Petitioner – Associated Musicians of Greater New York Local 802, American Federation of Musicians.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

NLRB Establishes New Standard Governing Workplace Policies, and Upholds No-Camera Policy in Boeing

Washington, D.C.—In a 3-2 decision involving The Boeing Company, the National Labor Relations Board overruled Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), which articulated the Board’s previous standard governing whether facially neutral workplace rules, policies and employee handbook provisions unlawfully interfere with the exercise of rights protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Under the prior Lutheran Heritage standard, the Board found that employers violated the NLRA by maintaining workplace rules that do not explicitly prohibit protected activities, were not adopted in response to such activities, and were not applied to restrict such activities, if the rules would be “reasonably construed” by an employee to prohibit the exercise of NLRA rights.

In place of the Lutheran Heritage “reasonably construe” standard, the Board established a new test: when evaluating a facially neutral policy, rule or handbook provision that, when reasonably interpreted, would potentially interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights, the Board will evaluate two things: (i) the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and (ii) legitimate justifications associated with the rule.
The Board also announced that, prospectively, three categories of rules will be delineated to provide greater clarity and certainty to employees, employers, and unions.

• Category 1 will include rules that the Board designates as lawful to maintain, either because (i) the rule, when reasonably interpreted, does not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights; or (ii) the potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. 

Examples of Category 1 rules are the no-camera requirement maintained by Boeing, and rules requiring employees to abide by basic standards of civility. Thus, the Board overruled past cases in which the Board held that employers violated the NLRA by maintaining rules requiring employees to foster “harmonious interactions and relationships” or to maintain basic standards of civility in the workplace.

• Category 2 will include rules that warrant individualized scrutiny in each case as to whether the rule would prohibit or interfere with NLRA rights, and if so, whether any adverse impact on NLRA-protected conduct is outweighed by legitimate justifications.

• Category 3 will include rules that the Board will designate as unlawful to maintain because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. An example would be a rule that prohibits employees from discussing wages or benefits with one another.

Although the maintenance of particular rules may be lawful, the Board held that the application of such rules to employees who have engaged in NLRA-protected conduct may violate the Act, depending on the particular circumstances presented in a given case.

Applying the new standard, the Board concluded that Boeing lawfully maintained a no-camera rule that prohibited employees from using camera-enabled devices to capture images or video without a valid business need and an approved camera permit. The Board majority reasoned that the rule potentially affected the exercise of NLRA rights, but that the impact was comparatively slight and outweighed by important justifications, including national security concerns.

Board Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra was joined by Board Members Marvin E. Kaplan and William J. Emanuel in the majority opinion. Members Mark Gaston Pearce and Lauren McFerran dissented in the case.
Additional information on this case can be found here.

NLRB Overrules Browning-Ferris Industries and Reinstates Prior Joint-Employer Standard

Washington, D.C.—In a 3-2 decision, the National Labor Relations Board today overruled the Board’s 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015) (“Browning-Ferris”), and returned to the pre–Browning Ferris standard that governed joint-employer liability.

In all future and pending cases, two or more entities will be deemed joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) if there is proof that one entity has exercised control over essential employment terms of another entity’s employees (rather than merely having reserved the right to exercise control) and has done so directly and immediately (rather than indirectly) in a manner that is not limited and routine. Accordingly, under the pre–Browning Ferris standard restored today, proof of indirect control, contractually-reserved control that has never been exercised, or control that is limited and routine will not be sufficient to establish a joint-employer relationship. The Board majority concluded that the reinstated standard adheres to the common law and is supported by the NLRA’s policy of promoting stability and predictability in bargaining relationships.

Applying the reinstated pre–Browning Ferris standard, the Board agreed with an administrative law judge’s determination that Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd. (Hy-Brand) and Brandt Construction Co. (Brandt) were joint employers and therefore jointly and severally liable for the unlawful discharges of seven striking employees.

Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra was joined by Members Marvin E. Kaplan and William J. Emanuel in the majority opinion. Members Mark Gaston Pearce and Lauren McFerran dissented in the case.

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of November 20 - 24, 2017

HMR3-7141 LLC d/b/a Carl’s Jr.  (31-CA-192343, et al.; 365 NLRB No. 148)  Los Angeles, CA, November 21, 2017.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the consolidated complaint and compliance specification.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by prohibiting employees from speaking with union representatives, interrogating employees about their protected concerted activities, prohibiting employees from speaking with other coworkers about their terms and conditions of employment, threatening employees with job loss for engaging in protected concerted activities, soliciting grievances from employees, and instructing employees to speak with the Respondent’s owner concerning complaints about their terms and conditions of employment rather than speaking with others.  The Board also found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by reducing the scheduled hours of an employee because he engaged in union activity, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of November 13 - 17, 2017

Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., d/b/a Republic Services of Southern Nevada, and Republic Dumpco, Inc.  (28-RC-192859; 365 NLRB No. 145)  Las Vegas, NV, October 30, 2017.

The Board denied the Employers’ Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  The Board rejected the Employers’ argument that a self-determination election was not appropriate in the voting group directed by the Regional Director (a group broader than that originally sought by the Petitioner)—rejecting the Employers’ contention that the Board should apply its framework set out in Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011) and Odwalla, Inc., 357 NLRB 1608 (2011), and  noting that neither of those decisions involved self-determination elections.  The Board also rejected the Employers’ contention that a self-determination election was not appropriate because the unrepresented employees constituted a separate, appropriate unit.  The Board majority (Members Pearce and McFerran) found that the Regional Director acted appropriately under Section 3(b) and Section 10269 of the Board’s Election Rule in issuing a certification of representative prior to the Board’s final resolution of election-related issues.  Chairman Miscimarra disagreed, finding that the Election Rule contemplates only that a Regional Director should proceed to an election despite a pending request for review.  He also expressed his continuing disagreement with the Specialty Healthcare decision and the Board’s Election Rule.

Compliance Date for Crane Operator Certification Requirements Set for November 10, 2018

OSHA issued a final rule that sets November 10, 2018, as the date employers in the construction industry must comply with a requirement for crane operator certification. The final rule became effective on November 9, 2017. After issuing the final cranes and derricks rule in August 2010, stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the rule’s certification requirements. In response, the agency published a separate final rule in September 2014, extending by three years the crane operator certification and competency requirements. The additional one-year extension provides more time for OSHA to complete a rulemaking to address stakeholder concerns related to the Cranes and Derricks in Construction standard. Read the news release for more information.

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of November 6 - 9, 2017

R Cases

Indiana Voice and Data, Inc.  (25-RC-182936)  Bloomington, IN, November 9, 2017.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Supplemental Decision and Direction of Re-Run Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Chairman Miscimarra did not reach or pass on the Regional Director’s sustaining of certain objections.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

C Cases

United States Postal Service  (05-CA-180590)  Alexandria, VA, November 6, 2017.  The Board denied the Acting General Counsel’s Motion to Rescind Order Transferring Proceeding to the Board, without prejudice to her right to renew the arguments before the Board on any exceptions to the judge’s decision that she may choose to file.  Charge filed by an individual.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of October 30 - November 3, 2017

C Cases

B & H Foto & Electronics Corp.  (29-CA-191326)  Brooklyn, NY, October 31, 2017.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Motion to Hold Hearing in Abeyance Pending Outcome of Special Permission to Appeal.  The Board found that the Respondent failed to establish that the judge abused his discretion in denying the motions.  Charge filed by District 2, United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC.  Members McFerran, Kaplan, and Emanuel participated.

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of October 23 - 27, 2017

Transit Connection, Inc.  (01-CA-179805; 365 NLRB No. 143)  Edgartown, MA, October 25, 2017.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that there were no material issues of fact regarding the complaint’s allegations warranting a hearing.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to respond to the Union’s request for information that was relevant and necessary to the performance of its duties as the exclusive bargaining-representative of the unit and by failing to furnish the information.

Charge filed by Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1548, AFL-CIO.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and Kaplan participated.

***

How Right To Work Laws Are Making Inroads Even In Blue States

Earlier this year Missouri became the 28th state in the nation to enact a Right to Work law freeing workers from being forced to join a union as a condition of unemployment. Other states to enact Right to Work in recent years include union stronghold states like Michigan and Wisconsin, where the prospect of Right to Work legislation having a chance at passage seemed like a pipe dream only a few years ago.

Right-to-work laws give workers freedom from being forced to join a union and pay dues. Before the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which permitted states to enact Right to Work laws, all American workers could be forced to join a union as a condition of obtaining and maintaining employment.

Kentucky is another state to recently pass Right to Work, with Gov. Matt Bevin (R) signing it into law in January. Prior to statewide passage of Right to Work, 13 county governments across the Bluegrass State had already gone ahead and enacted local Right to Work laws in order to make those localities more attractive to employers, investment, and job creation. It’s a smart move for local governments that have state legislatures whose political composition precludes statewide passage of Right to Work.

Petitions turned in to repeal Michigan prevailing wage law

A group turned in more than 380,000 signatures Friday for veto-proof legislation to repeal Michigan's 52-year-old law that requires higher "prevailing" wages to be paid on state-financed construction work.

If state election officials certify that roughly 252,000 are valid, the bill will go to the Republican-controlled Legislature, whose leaders support it despite GOP Gov. Rick Snyder's backing of the existing law.

Legislators would have a 40-day window to vote or else the measure would receive a public vote in November 2018.

Snyder, who has opposed identical bills introduced in the Legislature, could not veto the initiated legislation.

FMI Construction Outlook 3rd Quarter, 2017

Download Print Version

Download Construction Put in Place Tables

Total Construction Put in Place, Estimated for the U.S.

• Total construction spending put in place for the U.S. is forecast to end up 4% in 2017 compared to 2016.
• Looking ahead to 2018, FMI continues to forecast a 5% increase in total construction spending over 2017.
• The primary growth segments in 2018 are expected to include residential, commercial, lodging, office and manufacturing—all with forecast growth of 5% or more. Most other segments are likely to grow roughly with the rate of inflation and may therefore be considered stable. Sewage and waste and water supply are the only segments expected to decline in 2018.

Union Improperly Used Strikes and Grievances to Obtain Disputed Work, Says Appeals Court

In May 2016, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that an International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) local unlawfully used strikes and grievances in an effort to obtain certain work on construction sites that had been given to members of another union. That decision was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which upheld the NLRB’s ruling on Oct. 31.

While the NLRB allows a union to utilize these mechanisms to preserve work that it had previously performed, that was not the issue here because the board had handled a previous dispute and had awarded the work in question to another union.

Source: Lexology

Stop, hammer time: Q&A with NYC construction boss Anthony Rinaldi: Rinaldi talks baseball, union labor and what it's like dealing with a death on a construction site

The world’s tallest modular hotel, according to its builder, is also the “worst nightmare” for union construction companies.

“Modular to the unions is hell on earth. It’s like their worst nightmare because everything’s being built in a factory faster, cheaper and without union labor,” said Anthony Rinaldi, head of his eponymous firm, the Rinaldi Group. “This project, CitizenM, is the epitome of everything they hate.”

Rinaldi, 52, who founded the Rinaldi Group in 2003, is a proponent of open-shop construction — meaning a labor force that includes both union and nonunion workers. Rinaldi recently became regional chairman of the open shop group, the Associated Builders and Contractors, which has been a vocal opponent of the construction safety bill passed by the City Council in September.

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of October 16 - 20, 2017

C Cases

Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (County Concrete Corporation)  (22-CC-083895 and 22-CE-084893)  Union City, NJ, October 17, 2017.  The General Counsel filed a renewed Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to the terms of an informal settlement agreement and the Board’s instructions in Teamsters Local 560 (County Concrete Corp.), 362 NLRB No. 183 (2015) (denying, without prejudice, the General Counsel’s motion to strike portions of the Respondent’s answer, for summary default judgment, and for the issuance of a Board decision and order, and permitting the General Counsel to file a renewed motion).  In its Order, the Board denied the General Counsel’s renewed Motion for Default Judgment and remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director for appropriate action consistent with the Board’s Order.  In reaching this determination, the Board stated that the General Counsel provided a sufficient explanation of how the violations in Teamsters Local 560 (County Concrete Corp.), 362 NLRB No. 183 (2015) breached the terms of the Performance provision in the settlement agreement.  However, the Board further explained, it was compelled to deny the renewed Motion for Default Judgment because the complaint fails to allege violations of Section 8(e), 8(b)(4)(ii)(A), and 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).  Charges filed by County Concrete Corporation.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of October 10 - 13, 2017

Midwest Terminals of Toledo International, Inc.  (08-CA-135971 and 08-CA-136613; 365 NLRB No. 138)  Toledo, OH, October 11, 2017.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally changing the selection process and criteria for adding employees to its contractual skilled employee list, and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminatorily denying an employee placement on the skilled list because of his union support and activities (while concurring in finding the Sec. 8(a)(3) violation, Chairman Miscimarra, unlike his colleagues, did not rely on any evidence of the Respondent’s contemporaneous unfair labor practice charges).  Specifically, the Respondent hires from an “Order of Call,” which is divided into a “skilled list” of employees who are generally expected to work on a daily basis and a “regular list” of laborers who work more sporadically.  The Board found that the Respondent departed from an established past practice of meeting with the Union to discuss and confer over the selection of employees for skilled list placement before placing them.  Further, the Board found that the Respondent improperly disregarded the contractual qualifications and seniority rules for skilled list placement by selecting certain employees over others.  Finally, as to one such employee, the Respondent’s denial of placement on the skilled list also violated the Act based on record evidence of antiunion animus.

FMI Industry Survey - 2017 Talent Development in the Construction Industry

In today’s fast-changing and competitive business landscape, engineering and construction firms are vying to attract and retain the best people more than ever. Findings from this year’s talent development study paint a mixed picture of how construction firms are addressing people development.

In many cases, the topics of human resources (HR) and talent development are still being tackled in a very tactical, piecemeal manner, at best. Leading firms, however, recognize the need for a systematic and strategic approach and are investing in the necessary people and resources to set up long-term talent management programs.

Key findings from our study include:

• 89% of participants reported talent shortages in this year’s survey.
• 75% of participants have made changes to their training programs in the last two years, with mixed results.
• 43% of survey participants reported that their firms don’t prepare a formal annual training and development budget.
• Training and development programs aren’t very effective (score of 5.8 out of 10).
• Most firms struggle with performance management (score of 5 out of 10).
• Organizations with the highest employee retention have committed to rich professional development cultures and have effective performance management processes.
• 55% of survey respondents don’t have any formal processes in place for identifying and developing high-potential employees. 

Download the Survey