Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 29 - May 3, 2019
The Summary of NLRB Decisions is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for the opinions of the NLRB. Inquiries should be directed to the Office of the Executive Secretary at 202‑273‑1940.
Summarized Board Decisions
Pacific Maritime Association (21-CA-197882 and 21-CA-198530; 367 NLRB No. 121) Long Beach, CA, May 2, 2019.
The Board (Members McFerran and Emanuel; Member Kaplan, dissenting) adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by both modifying the collective-bargaining agreement and making a unilateral change when they applied to an alleged harasser a harassment-complaint procedure from another bargaining unit’s agreement and implemented against him the discipline ordered from that procedure’s arbitration. Member Kaplan would have dismissed the complaint. He disagreed that the Respondents “applied” the procedure invoked by the victim from the other unit and that anything in the alleged harasser’s agreement or any past practice in his unit prevented the Respondents from implementing the discipline that the other unit’s agreement mandated.
Charges filed by ILWU, Warehouse, Processing and Distribution Workers’ Union, Local 26. Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on July 9, 2018. Members McFerran, Kaplan, and Emanuel participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (16-RC-229214) Houston, TX, April 29, 2019. A Board majority (Chairman Ring and Member Kaplan; Member McFerran, dissenting) granted, in part, the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election, as it raised a substantial issue regarding whether the petitioned-for Employer’s Service Area Assistants (SAAs) share a sufficient community of interest with the current bargaining unit to warrant inclusion of SAAs in that unit. The majority denied review in all other respects. Member McFerran would have denied review altogether. Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 66. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Kaplan participated.
Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC (10-RC-239234) Chattanooga, TN, May 3, 2019. A Board majority (Chairman Ring and Member Kaplan; Member McFerran, dissenting) granted the Employer’s Request to Stay all proceedings. Member McFerran would have denied the Request to Stay. Petitioner—International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Kaplan participated.
C Cases
LME, Inc. and Lakeville Motor Express, as alter egos (18-CA-192154, et al.) New Brighton, MN, April 30, 2019. In this case alleging Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) violations, the Board approved a formal settlement stipulation between the Respondent LME, Inc., the Charging Parties, and the General Counsel, and specified actions that the Respondent LME, Inc. must take to comply with the Act. The Respondent Lakeville Motor Express is not a party to the formal settlement because it is in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings that will eventually result in its complete liquidation. Charges filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Locals 120, 662, and 695. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Emanuel participated.
Baystate Franklin Medical Center (01-CA-199030, et al.) Greenfield, MA, April 30, 2019. No exceptions having been filed to the March 11, 2019 decision of Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas’ finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices in Cases 01-CA-199030, 01-CA-205215, and 01-CA-210329, the Board dismissed the complaint in those cases. Charges filed by Baystate Franklin Security Officers Union a/w Law Enforcement Officers Security Union and individuals.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Kitsap Tenant Support Services, Inc., Board Case No. 19-CA-074715 (reported at 366 NLRB No. 98) (D.C. Cir. decided April 30, 2019)
In an unpublished judgment, the Court enforced the Board’s order issued against this provider of residential living facilities to individuals with developmental disabilities for unfair labor practices committed before and after its care-giving employees voted 44 to 14 in a 2012 election to be represented by Washington Federation of State Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 28, AFL-CIO. Dispensing with oral argument, the Court upheld the Board’s unfair labor practice findings, as well as the special remedies ordered for the violations committed during first-contract bargaining. The Court also held that a challenge to the ratified complaint was jurisdictionally barred for review under Section 10(e) of the Act.
The Board (Chairman Ring and Members Pearce and McFerran) found that the Employer, prior to the election, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging a key organizer, by placing two others on administrative leave and discharging them, by taking a series of adverse actions against and demoting a fourth organizer, and by enforcing work rules more strictly in response to union organizing. Further, the Board found that, after the election, the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to meet and bargain with the Union at reasonable times, by refusing to furnish or by delaying the provision of requested information, and by engaging in overall bad-faith bargaining for the entire first year of the parties’ collective-bargaining relationship. Among the special remedies ordered, the Board required the Employer to meet and bargain with the Union within 15 days of a bargaining request, to bargain in good faith and at reasonable times, to meet for a minimum of 15 hours per week or on an alternative schedule to which the Union agrees, and to submit written bargaining progress reports every 15 days to the regional office.
On review, the Court held that the Employer’s challenges all lacked merit. Regarding application of the Wright Line standard, the Court agreed with the Board that the Employer had failed to carry its burden proving its affirmative defenses, or, with respect to one violation, that the Employer’s stated reasons were pretextual. Noting that the factual determination of whether a party has bargained in good or bad faith is a matter within the Board’s special expertise, the Court held that the record supported the Board’s findings that, among other actions, the Employer’s negotiator engaged in regressive bargaining tactics, repeatedly failed to respond to Union scheduling requests, and canceled or cut short several meetings. On the remedial issues, the Court summarily enforced the special bargaining remedies after determining that the Employer failed to challenge them before the Board. Further, the Court rejected the argument that reinstatement was inappropriate because the employees were discharged “for cause,” noting the contention is contrary to the Board’s settled interpretation Section 10(c) of the Act.
The Court’s unpublished judgment may be found here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Huron Valley-Sinai Hospital (07-CA-201332, et al.; JD-37-19) Commerce Charter Township, MI. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on April 29, 2019. Charges filed by Michigan Nurses Association.
Coffman Specialties, Inc. (28-CA-223779; JD-38-19) Phoenix, AZ. Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on April 30, 2019. Charge filed by an individual.
Capitol Transportation, Inc. (12-CA-180495, et al.; JD-40-19) San Juan, PR. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on April 30, 2019. Charges filed by individuals and Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Volvo Group North America, LLC (15-CA-179071, et al.; JD-39-19) Byhalia, MS. Administrative Law Judge Sharon Levinson Steckler issued her decision on April 30, 2019. Charges filed by an individual.
United States Postal Service (02-CA-219434; JD(NY)-05-19) New York, NY. Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey P. Gardner issued his decision on May 3, 2019. Charge filed by National Association of Letter Carriers.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.