Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 8 - 12, 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
Quicken Loans, Inc. (28-CA-146517; 367 NLRB No. 112) Scottsdale, AZ, April 10, 2019.
The Board dismissed the complaint, reversing the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging an employee following a profane conversation in the Respondent’s public restroom complaining about a client. The Board found that the conversation amounted to mere griping and was not concerted activity. The Board therefore found the discharge lawful. A Board majority (Members Kaplan and Emanuel) also found that the General Counsel failed to prove that the conversation was protected and the judge improperly used an adverse inference to fill the hole in the General Counsel’s case.
Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Dickie Montemayor issued his decision on March 17, 2016. Members McFerran, Kaplan, and Emanuel participated.
***
UNY LLC d/b/a General Super Plating (03-CA-152609; 367 NLRB No. 113) Syracuse, NY, April 11, 2019.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the complaint. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by closing its business without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain over the effects of the closing on unit employees and by failing and refusing to provide the Union requested information that was relevant and necessary for bargaining. Charge filed by Local 81319, IUE-CWA. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Kaplan participated.
***
Barnard College (02-CA-200574; 367 NLRB No. 114) New York, NY, April 12, 2019.
The Board dismissed the complaint, affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to disclose all of the relevant information requested by the Union. In so ruling, the Board affirmed the judge’s finding that, to the extent that the Respondent had not provided all of the requested information, its omission was the result of a good-faith misunderstanding of the request. The Union could have clarified the scope and nature of its request but chose not to do so.
Charge filed by UAW Local 2110. Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter issued his decision on September 14, 2018. Chairman Ring and Members Kaplan and Emanuel participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Renzenberger Inc. d/b/a Hallcon, Inc. (13-RC-223822) Chicago, IL, April 10, 2019. The Board denied the Intervenor’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE). Intervenor—Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 707. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Emanuel participated.
Surf-Prep, Inc. (18-UC-226905 and 18-UC-226908) Waukesha, WI, April 11, 2019. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s dismissal of the unit clarification petitions as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. In denying review, the Board agreed with the Regional Director that the unit clarification petitions raised a dispute over the assignment of unit work to non-unit employees, as opposed to a representational claim over the non-unit employees, and that, accordingly, the dispute is not appropriate for a unit clarification proceeding. Unions—Local 802, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades and District Council No. 7. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Emanuel participated.
C Cases
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 10 (Pacific Maritime Association) (20-CB-216170) San Francisco, CA, April 8, 2019. No exceptions having been filed to the February 22, 2019 decision of Administrative Law Judge Gerald Michael Etchingham’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 an individual.
SSA Pacific, Inc. (20-CA-151433, et al.) Port of West Sacramento, CA, April 11, 2019. No exceptions having been filed to the February 27, 2019 decision of Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone’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. Charges filed by individuals.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Hendrickson Trucking Company, Board Case No. 07-CA-086624 (reported at 365 NLRB No. 139) (D.C. Cir. decided April 12, 2019)
In an unpublished judgment, the Court enforced the Board’s order issued against this trucking company that hauls aggregate materials, such as sand and gravel, on a seasonal basis from a facility in Jackson, Michigan, where the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 1038, represents a unit of 20 of its drivers and mechanics. The Board’s order remedies unfair labor practices committed during the parties’ negotiations for a successor collective-bargaining agreement in 2012. Specifically, the Board found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally implementing the terms of its final offer without bargaining to a valid impasse, by refusing to provide the Union with requested information, and by later refusing to bargain when the Union requested that negotiations be reopened. The Board also found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by refusing to reinstate employees who engaged in an unfair labor practice strike that resulted from the Employer’s unlawful implementation of its final offer.
Without hearing oral argument, the Court upheld the Board’s unfair labor practice findings, noting that, “[a]s explained in the Board’s thoroughgoing and persuasive briefing, the Board’s decision hewed to settled law and its factual findings and credibility judgments were amply supported in the record.”
The Court also rejected the Employer’s claims that the Administrative Law Judge, whom the Board appointed when it lacked a quorum, did not have authority to preside over the hearing, and that her ratification of her earlier decision, after a properly constituted Board had ratified her appointment, could not cure any defect caused by her initially invalid appointment. The Court held that neither the law nor the record supported those claims. Rather, the Court held that, after her appointment was ratified and the Board remanded the case for her reconsideration, the judge “carefully reviewed the evidence and formulated a reasoned opinion, without displaying any bias toward the parties or pre-judgment as to the outcome.” As supporting precedent, the Court cited Wilkes-Barre Hospital Co. v. NLRB, 857 F.3d 364, 371 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (holding an invalidly appointed Regional Director could lawfully ratify his own prior actions after a properly constituted Board ratified his appointment).
The Court’s unpublished judgment is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Blue Earth Digital Printing, Inc. (31-CA-133542; JD(SF)-13-19) Culver City, CA. Administrative Law Judge Ariel Sotolongo issued his decision on April 9, 2019. Charge filed by Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 140-N.
AT&T Mobility Services, LLC (20-CA-215835; JD(SF)-11-19) Sacramento, CA. Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham issued his decision on April 9, 2019. Charge filed by an individual.
Marquez Brothers Enterprises, Inc. (21-CA-039581 and 21-CA-039609; JD(SF)-12-19) City of Industry, CA. Administrative Law Judge Lisa D. Ross issued her decision on April 12, 2019. Charges filed by individuals.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.