The following invitations for briefs are no longer active:
D.R. Horton, Inc.
The Board seeks briefs on the following issue: did the respondent violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining and enforcing its Mutual Arbitration Agreement, under which employees are required, as a condition of employment, to agree to submit all employment disputes to individual arbitration, waiving all rights to a judicial forum, where the arbitration agreement further provides that arbitrators will have no authority to consolidate claims or to fashion a proceeding as a class or collective action?
The Board granted an extension of time to file briefs.Accordingly, briefs shall be filed with the Board in Washington, D.C. on or before July 27, 2011. The Board has extended the deadline to file briefs. The parties may now file responsive briefs on or before August 24, 2011. Click here to view the Notice and Invitation to File Briefs for more information.
Stephens Media, LLC d/b/a Hawaii Tribune-Herald
Click here to view this invitation for briefs. In its invitation to file briefs, the Board stated that the case presented the question of whether the Respondent had a duty to provide the Union with a statement provided to it by an employee or any other statements that it obtained in the course of its investigation of another employee’s alleged misconduct. The Board explained that:
Board precedent establishes that the duty to furnish information “does not encompass the duty to furnish witness statements themselves.” Fleming Cos., 332 NLRB 1086, 1087 (2000), quoting Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 237 NLRB 982 (1978). Compare Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 347 NLRB 210 (2006) (employer notes of investigatory interviews of employees held confidential). This case illustrates, however, that Board precedent does not clearly define the scope of the category of “witness statements.” This case also illustrates that the Board’s existing jurisprudence may require the parties as well as judges and the Board to perform two levels of analysis to determine whether there is a duty to provide a statement: first asking if the statement is a witness statement under Fleming and Anheuser-Busch and then, if the statement is not so classified, asking if it is nevertheless attorney work product. We have therefore decided to sever this allegation from the case and to solicit briefs on the issues it raises.
Accordingly, the parties and interested amici are invited to file briefs with the Board in Washington, D.C. on or before April 1, 2011 addressing the aforementioned issues. The parties may file responsive briefs on or before April 15, 2011. Note: This revised description clarifies the issues on which the Board is seeking briefs (revised 3/23/11). The deadline to file briefs has passed.
Chicago Mathematics & Science Academy Charter School, Inc.
Seeks briefs on the question of whether an Illinois charter school should fall under the jurisdiction of the NLRB or the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board. In this case, the Chicago Alliance of Charter Teachers and Staff sought a representation election for the school’s teachers, social workers and counselors through the state board, while the School maintains the NLRB should conduct the election. Government entities or wholly-owned government corporations are exempt from NLRB coverage. The parties and interested amici are invited to file briefs with the Board in Washington, D.C. on or before March 11, 2011 addressing the issue. The parties may file responsive briefs on or before March 25, 2011. The deadline to file briefs has passed.
Seeks briefs on the question of what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit in long-term care facilities. The United Steelworkers petitioned for an election of certified nursing assistants at a nursing home, while the employer argued the appropriate unit should include all non-professional employees, not just the CNAs. The Board agreed to take the case in order to revisit its 1991 decision in Park Manor Care Center, 305 NLRB 872 on what constitutes an appropriate unit in long-term care facilities. The invitation poses eight questions, including what the interested parties' experience has been under the Park Manor decision and whether its application has hindered or encouraged employee choice and collective bargaining.
The Board granted an extension of time to file briefs. Accordingly, briefs shall be filed with the Board in Washington, D.C. on or before March 8, 2011. The parties may file responsive briefs on or before March 22, 2011. Click here to view data sets related to this case requested through FOIA.
The deadline for additional briefs has been extended to March 22, but only in the case of those who filed previous briefs and only to address information contained in newly-released data sets regarding elections. Click here to view the extension of time. The deadline to file briefs has passed.
Click here to view briefs filed in this case:
In cases alleging unlawful employer discrimination in nonemployee access, should the Board continue to apply the standard articulated in Sandusky Mall Co. (329 NLRB 618, 623), and if not, what standard should the Board adopt to define discrimination in this context? Also, what bearing, if any, does Register Guard (351 NLRB 1110) have on the Board's standard for finding unlawful discrimination in nonemployee access cases? An extension of time to file briefs was granted, and the deadline to file was January 7, 2011. The deadline to file briefs has passed.
Seeks review of the Board's 2007 decision in Dana Corp. (351 NLRB 434), which found that employees and other unions should have a 45-day period in which to file for an election following an employer's voluntary recognition of a union. Briefs must be received by November 1, 2010, and all parties should be served with the brief. The deadline to file briefs has passed.
Note: On September 17, the employer in Rite Aid Store #6473, which is cited as the lead case in the Notice and Invitation to File Briefs, withdrew its request for review. Therefore, briefs should not be filed under RiteAid, but instead under Lamons Gasket Co. This change does not affect the scope of the review.
Seeks review of the Board's 2002 decision inMV Transportation(337 NLRB 770), on the duties of a successor employer toward an incumbent union. The deadline to file briefs has passed.