Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of December 16 - 20, 2024
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
USC Care Medical Group, Inc., Keck Medicine of USC (31-CA-307034 and 31-RC-299354; 374 NLRB No. 2) Pasadena, CA, December 16, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and engaged in objectionable conduct by threatening employees that they would lose their benefit of flexibility in scheduling time off if they voted to unionize. The Board modified the judge’s recommended remedies consistent with its traditional remedies. Member Prouty dissented in part, stating that he would have affirmed the judge’s notice reading and employee training remedies.
Charge filed by National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW). Administrative Law Judge Kenneth W. Chu issued his decision on February 16, 2024. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Nexstar Media Group, Inc., for their Station, KDVR-TV/KWGN-TV (27-CA-342708; 374 NLRB No. 5) Denver, CO, December 16, 2024.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground that the Respondent failed to raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding in which the Union was certified as the bargaining representative. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.
Charge filed by National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians-Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Brown-Forman Corporation d/b/a Woodford Reserve Distillery (09-CA-307806, et al.; 373 NLRB No. 145) Versailles, KY, December 16, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that, upon learning of the extent of the Union’s support among the Respondent’s employees prior to a Board-conducted election, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by granting employees the following benefits: 1) modifying its “pay progression” policy to allow new hires and recently promoted employees to be eligible for the Respondent’s annual wage increase; 2) rescinding its policy requiring employees to use at least five vacation days during the Respondent’s annual end-of-the-year shutdown; 3) granting a $4-per-hour across-the-board wage adjustment; and 4) distributing to employees a $30 bottle of bourbon. The Board also unanimously adopted the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by announcing the wage adjustment. To remedy the violations, the Board ordered the Respondent to bargain with the Union pursuant to Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023). Member Kaplan noted that, for institutional reasons, he joined his colleagues in issuing a remedial bargaining order under Cemex but that he continues to adhere to his view that such a bargaining order is not an appropriate remedy, as explained in his dissent in Cemex.
Charges filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 651. Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on April 8, 2024. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Preferred Building Services, Inc. and Rafael Ortiz d/b/a Ortiz Janitorial Services, Joint Employers (20-CA-149353; 374 NLRB No. 11) South San Francisco, CA, December 16, 2024.
On remand from the Ninth Circuit, a Board majority (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting in part) affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s findings and conclusions that the Respondents are joint employers, that their affirmative defenses lack merit, and that they committed numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3).
The Board affirmed the judge’s conclusion that the Respondents are joint employers and imputed liability to both Respondents. Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty rejected the Respondents’ affirmative defenses that picketers lost the protection of the Act because they had a secondary object prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) or a recognitional object prohibited by Section 8(b)(7)(C). Passing only on the latter defense, Member Kaplan found that the picketers had a prohibited organizational object and their conduct was not protected by Section 8(b)(7)(C)’s publicity proviso. The Board unanimously rejected the Respondents’ affirmative defense that the picketers lost the protection of the Act by making defamatory statements.
In addition, the Board unanimously found that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) by asking two employees to verify their immigration status and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging two employees and by cancelling their cleaning contracts with Harvest Properties in order to chill union activity at their other locations. A Board majority (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting) affirmed the judge’s recommendation for restoration of the Respondents’ contract and subcontract, with allowance for the Respondents to establish undue burden at the compliance stage. Dissenting, Member Kaplan found that the restoration remedy would be unduly burdensome.
The Board further unanimously found that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating employees, threatening employees, and engaging in unlawful surveillance.
Charge filed by Service Employees International Union Local 87. Administrative Law Judge Mary Miller Cracraft issued her decision on September 9, 2016. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
***
Starbucks Corporation (03-CA-296757, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 8) Albany, NY, December 16, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by creating an impression that it had placed employees’ union activities under surveillance by dramatically increasing management presence at its Stuyvesant store during the Union’s campaign and that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by threatening Stuyvesant employees with the loss of benefits if they selected the Union or by denying a request by an employee at its Latham store for union representation during an investigatory interview. The Board reversed the judge to find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by creating an impression of surveillance of Latham store employees’ union and protected concerted activities by refusing, upon request, to disclose the source of its information about those activities and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by issuing a final written warning to an employee for using profanity, issuing a documented coaching to the same employee for store closing errors, and discharging the same employee for opening a letter not addressed to him. A Board majority (Members Prouty and Wilcox) found it unnecessary to decide whether the Respondent also independently violated Section 8(a)(1) by disciplining the employee for use of profanity in the course of protected concerted activity that did not lose the protection of the Act because finding that the discipline independently violated Section 8(a)(1) would not affect the remedy. Chairman McFerran would have affirmed the judge’s finding that the employee’s use of profanity lost the protection of the Act, and, accordingly, would have affirmed the judge’s dismissal of the independent 8(a)(1) allegation.
Charges filed by Workers United. Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas issued his decision on August 25, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Grill Concepts Services, Inc. d/b/a The Daily Grill (31-CA-126475, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 15) Los Angeles, CA, December 16, 2024.
On remand from the D.C. Circuit, the Board remanded the case to the Administrative Law Judge for analysis in light of the Court’s opinion, including reopening the record, if necessary, and for the issuance of a supplemental decision. The Court remanded several of the work-rule allegations implicated by Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023) as well as additional issues for reasons of judicial economy. The Board remanded the work-rule allegations for further consideration under Stericycle and adopted its prior findings regarding the additional issues not affected by Stericycle.
Charges filed by UNITE HERE, Local 11. Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on August 6, 2015. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
***
Hospital Español Auxilio Mutuo de Puerto Rico, Inc. (12-CA-285457 and 12-CA-298868; 374 NLRB No. 6) San Juan, PR, December 16, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally implementing a “star system” of mandatory overtime. Applying Endurance Environmental Solutions, LLC, 373 NLRB No. 141 (2024) retroactively, the Board held that the Union had not clearly and unmistakably waived its right to bargain over the assignment of overtime.
The Board also reversed the judge and found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) via a four-week delay in responding to an information request from the Union. The Board observed that the Union’s time-sensitive request did not seek voluminous or complex information, and that delays of four weeks or shorter have been deemed unlawful under similar circumstances.
Charges filed by Unidad Laboral de Enfermeras (os) y Empleados de la Salud. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on December 21, 2022. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Refresco Beverages US, Inc. (22-CA-294330 and 22-CA-294642; 373 NLRB No. 148) Wharton, NJ, December 16, 2024.
The Board, reversing the Administrative Law Judge, found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by instructing an employee to remove his union sticker from his coveralls. The Board found that the Respondent failed to establish that its broad prohibition on the employee’s union coverall sticker was justified by special circumstances.
Charges filed by United Electric, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE), Local 115. Administrative Law Judge Kenneth W. Chu issued his decision on June 2, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Southwest Florida Symphony Orchestra and Chorus Association, Inc. (12-CA-272243 and 12-CA-278936; 373 NLRB No. 150) Fort Myers, FL, December 16, 2024.
The Board, reversing the Administrative Law Judge, found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by prematurely declaring impasse and implementing its last offer. The Board found that certain statements by the Union negotiator after a failed ratification vote, including that the Union would survey the members as to their reasons for voting down the proposal, alongside recent progress at the table and the fact that a previous member survey had helped the Union generate new proposals which led to progress at the bargaining table, demonstrated that the parties were not at impasse and that the Respondent had failed to meet its burden to show otherwise.
Charges filed by American Federation of Musicians, Local 427-721, AFL-CIO. Administrative Law Judge Arthur Amchan issued his decision on February 1, 2022. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Power Up Electrical Contractors, LLC and Habco Partnership, Inc. (14-RC-318586 and 14-RC-318552; 374 NLRB No. 12) St Louis, MO, December 16, 2024.
The Board granted the Petitioners’ Request for Review, reversed the Regional Director, and reinstated the petitions, finding that the Employers had not met their burden to demonstrate a controlling history of multiemployer bargaining that would render the petitioned-for single-employer units inappropriate. Member Kaplan would have remanded the consolidated case for the Regional Director to reopen the hearing and issue a supplemental decision, instead of reinstating the petitions.
Petitioners—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Nos. 1 and 124, AFL-CIO, a/w International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
***
Amentum Services, Inc. f/k/a AECOM Management Services, Inc. (28-CA-276524; 374 NLRB No. 16) Las Vegas, NV, December 16, 2024.
The Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Wilcox; Member Kaplan, dissenting) adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s credibility resolutions and affirmed the judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening an employee grievant that his job might be in jeopardy due to his filing and prevailing on his grievance and that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by retaliating against the pursuit of this grievance by assigning the employee grievant and another employee to perform certain duties on standard shift schedules that included weekend work rather than on an alternate schedule that would have excluded weekend work.
Dissenting, Member Kaplan would have reversed the judge’s credibility resolutions—which were not based on the witness’ demeanor—and would have credited the testimony of the Respondent’s witnesses over the testimony of the employee grievant. Absent the employee grievant’ s unreliable testimony, Member Kaplan concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the violations found, and he therefore would have reversed the judge’s findings and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on May 26, 2022. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
***
United States Postal Service (07-CA-299320, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 7) Colon, Big Rapids, and Grand Rapids, MI, December 16, 2024.
In the absence of exceptions, the Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unreasonably delaying in furnishing relevant information and by failing and refusing to provide relevant information. The Board declined the General Counsel’s remedial exceptions, instead finding that an order requiring the Respondent to cease and desist from its unlawful actions and to post an appropriate notice at each of the facilities where the violations occurred is a sufficient remedy. The Board also declined the General Counsel’s request to update its standard for electronic distribution of notices at this time.
Charges filed by Local 143, American Postal Workers Union, Local 281, American Postal Workers Union, and an individual. Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision on May 23, 2024. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Union Tank Car Company (08-CA-240492 and 08-CB–-243472 374 NLRB No. 3) Marion, OH, December 16, 2024.
The Board, reversing the Administrative Law Judge, found that the Respondent Union did not breach its duty of fair representation in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it denied the Charging Party’s requests for the notes taken by a union representative during an investigatory meeting called by the Respondent Employer. The meeting was a precursor to the Charging Party’s subsequent discharge and the Respondent Union’s filing of a grievance on her behalf. The Board found that the Respondent Union acted consistent with its established practice of not disclosing its internal documents, including its representatives’ notes, which predated the Charging Party’s discharge. Accordingly, the Board concluded that the General Counsel failed to establish that the Respondent Union acted arbitrarily, in breach of its duty of fair representation, by refusing to provide the requested notes to the Charging Party and dismissed the related Section 8(b)(1)(A) allegation.
Charges filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter issued his decision on August 3, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Nexstar Media, Inc. (Denver Hub) (27-CA-342707; 374 NLRB No.1) Denver, CO, December 16, 2024.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground that the Respondent failed to raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding in which the Union was certified as the bargaining representative. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.
Charge filed by National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians-Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Kirin Transportation, Inc. d/b/a Kirin Transportation (29-CA-270485, et al; 374 NLRB No. 4) Queens, NY, December 16, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent’s drivers are Section 2(3) employees, not independent contractors excluded from coverage by the Act, but declined the General Counsel’s request to overrule Velox Express, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 61 (2019), and, thus, dismissed the allegation that the misclassification of employees was unlawful. The Board also adopted the judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening, interrogating, suspending, and discharging several employees. The Board severed and retained the issue of whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by filing a partially baseless and retaliatory lawsuit. The Board majority (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting in part) ordered additional remedies including an explanation of rights, and reading and mailing of the notice and explanation of rights.
Charges filed by individuals. Administrative Law Judge Benjamin W. Green issued his decision on June 21, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
***
Starbucks Corporation (31-CA-299464, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 9) Sylmar, CA, December 16, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by: (1) telling an employee that the company-wide benefit increases it had announced would be put “on pause” for stores that were engaged in union organizing campaigns; (2) making threats of futility; and (3) making an implied invitation to quit by telling an employee, who had just asked for better wages and working conditions, that there were jobs at other companies that offered better pay. The Board also adopted the judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging an employee in response to his union activity.
The Board, reversing the judge, found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with a loss of benefits for selecting the Union as their collective-bargaining representative and by interrogating an employee about his union support. The Board adopted the judge’s dismissal of the allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating an employee, and by verbally counseling and later terminating an employee for his protected concerted activity.
Further, the Board affirmed the judge’s dismissal of the allegation that the Respondent unlawfully held captive audience meetings and noted that the dismissal was based on the Board’s decision in Babcock & Wilcox Co., 77 NLRB 577 (1948), which held that an employer may lawfully require employees to attend meetings where the employer expresses its views on unionization. In Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (2024), the Board overruled Babcock & Wilcox, but it did so prospectively only. Accordingly, that overruling is inapplicable to cases, like this one, that were pending when Amazon.com Services was decided.
In addition, the Board adopted the judge’s recommended narrow cease-and-desist order and traditional remedies. Dissenting as to the remedy, Member Prouty would have found that the Respondent’s numerous unfair labor practices nationwide were more than sufficient to establish the Respondent’s propensity to violate the Act, and would find that the Respondent’s recidivism necessitated a broad cease-and-desist order. Finally, the Board adopted the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent’s unfair labor practices constituted objectionable conduct during the critical period and necessitate the direction of a second election.
Charges filed by Workers United. Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision on October 19, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Starbucks Corporation (14-CA-300065; 374 NLRB No. 14) Wichita, KS, December 16, 2024.
The Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting in part) adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) during a union organizing campaign by creating the impression that its employees’ union-related activities were under surveillance, by threatening employees with loss of benefits if they chose a union to represent them, by telling an employee that it had closed the store’s hiring portal because of union organizing, and by telling an employee that it had reduced the store’s operating hours due to the union campaign.
Dissenting in part, Member Kaplan would not have found the impression of surveillance violation and found it unnecessary to pass on the alleged violation related to the closure of the hiring portal. Member Prouty dissented from the Board’s rejection of the judge’s recommendations that the remedies include a broad cease-and-desist order, an Explanation of Rights posting, and a reading of the Explanation of Rights and order to employees.
Charge filed by Service Employees International Union Local 513. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on May 30, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
***
Starbucks Corporation (03-CA-285671, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 10) Buffalo, NY, December 16, 2024.
The Board summarily affirmed many of the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5) by various actions that it took during a union organizing campaign involving 21 of its stores in the Buffalo, New York area. The Board also affirmed some of the judge’s findings on clarified grounds and reversed other of the judge’s findings. A substantial number of the Respondent’s violations arose from its promise and provision of benefits intended to dissuade its employees from engaging in union organizing activity and from the stricter disciplinary enforcement of its work rules and policies that it commenced only after the employees’ union organizing activity had started and, at least in substantial part, to discourage its employees from engaging in union organizing activity.
The Board issued a bargaining order applicable to one store because of the particular violations committed at that store and that store’s employees’ reasonable awareness of the other serious violations committed at other nearby stores that would frustrate a fair rerun representation election. In view of the severity and pervasiveness of the Respondent’s violations, in addition to customary remedies, the Board also issued a broad cease and desist order applicable across the impacted stores and ordered that in those stores the Respondent post an Explanation of Rights, leave the Notice to Employees and Explanation of Rights posted for one year, distribute those documents to its supervisors and managers, and read those documents at a meeting with its employees. In view of the sufficiently ameliorative impact of those remedies, the Board declined to issue other remedies that were recommended by the judge.
Charges filed by Workers United. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on March 1, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Brent Electric Co., Inc. (14-RD-353895) Pryor, OK, December 17, 2024. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Blocking Petition and Postponing Hearing, finding that the Petitioner’s request raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board found that the Regional Director acted in accordance with Section 103.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. Member Kaplan agreed that the Regional Director’s decision was consistent with the current version of Section 103.20 and noted his dissent from enacting the current version. Petitioner—an individual. Union—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 584. Chair Wilcox and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
C Cases
Community Organized Relief Effort (31-CA-272228) Los Angeles, CA, December 16, 2024. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and Order Remanding, reported at 373 NLRB No. 106 (2024). The Board found that the Respondent had not identified any material error or demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. Charge filed by an individual. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
Starbucks Corporation (32-CA-292897 and 32-CA-292899) Santa Cruz, CA, December 18, 2024. No exceptions having been filed to the October 10, 2024 decision of Administrative Law Judge Lisa D. Ross’ 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 Workers United a/w Service Employees International Union.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
ArrMaz Products, Inc., Board No. 12-CA-294086 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 12) (11th Cir. decided December 16, 2024)
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s bargaining order that issued against this manufacturer of specialty chemical additives that operates out of a facility in Mulberry, Florida. In March 2020, employees at the facility voted in an election that resulted in a tally of 20 to 18 ballots in favor of representation by International Chemical Workers Union Council of The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. In addressing the merits, the Court held that the Board acted within its discretion in overruling two ballot challenges and certifying the Union.
In the underlying representation case, the Regional Director approved a stipulated election agreement, which listed ArrMaz as “the Employer” by its then-current corporate name (Arr-Maz Products, Limited Partnership), and described the unit as including those employees “employed by the Employer” at its Mulberry facility. After the election, the Union challenged two ballots that had been cast by maintenance technicians who worked at the facility but were employed by AMP Trucking, Inc., a company managed and controlled by Arkema, which is the parent organization of both ArrMaz and AMP Trucking. After a hearing, the Hearing Officer issued a report finding that the ballots should be excluded. ArrMaz filed exceptions, which the Regional Director overruled, and ArrMaz then filed a Request for Review. In its order denying review, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Ring) explained that the stipulated election agreement clearly and unambiguously excluded employees of AMP Trucking from the bargaining unit. In the subsequent unfair-labor-practice case, the Board issued a bargaining order, and severed and retained for later decision a request by the General Counsel that the Board overrule Ex-Cell-O Corp., 185 NLRB 107 (1970), and adopt a compensatory remedy making employees whole for the lost opportunity to bargain. ArrMaz refused to bargain in order to seek court review.
As a preliminary matter, the Court rejected the Employer’s argument that the Board’s order was not final under Section 10(f) of the Act because the Board had severed and retained the remedial issue for later consideration. In doing so, the Court agreed with its sister circuits that have uniformly rejected that challenge, citing Longmont United Hospital v. NLRB, 70 F.4th 573 (D.C. Cir. 2023), NLRB v. Siren Retail Corp., 99 F.4th 1118 (9th Cir. 2024), and NLRB v. United Scrap Metal PA, LLC, 116 F.4th 194 (3d Cir. 2024).
On the merits, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the Board’s overruling of ArrMaz’s exceptions to the two ballot challenges. As the Board had done, the Court looked at the express terms of the stipulated election agreement and determined that it unambiguously demonstrated the parties’ intent to exclude from the unit the two maintenance technicians employed by AMP Trucking. Thus, the Court concluded that the ballots were properly excluded from the count, and upheld the Board’s certification of the Union.
The Court’s opinion is here.
VTCU Corp., Board No.27-CA-320744 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 148) (D.C. Cir. decided December 17, 2024)
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s bargaining order that issued against this manufacturer of electrical transformers at a facility in Pocatello, Idaho, where its production and maintenance employees voted 66 to 45 in a September 2022 mail-ballot election to be represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302. In doing so, the Court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in overruling the Employer’s election objections without holding a hearing.
In the underlying representation case, the mail-ballot election was conducted under the terms of a stipulated election agreement. After the election, the Employer filed objections, including claims that the Union threatened employees regarding their immigration status, and that the regional office mishandled the election by having too short of a polling period, failing to mail ballots to all eligible employees, mailing ballots to individuals not on the voter list, failing to respond to employee requests for duplicate ballots, counting ballots that were void by law, and counting ballots of employees who did not vote. Thereafter, the Regional Director issued a decision finding that the proffered evidence, even if assumed true, would be insufficient grounds for setting aside the election, overruled the objections, and certified the Union. The Employer filed a Request for Review, which was denied by the Board (Members Kaplan, Prouty, and then-Member Wilcox). After the subsequent unfair-labor-practice order issued, the Employer refused to bargain in order to seek court review.
The Court held that the Board’s decision was consistent with applicable law and supported by established precedent. Regarding the allegations that the Union threatened employees, the Court noted that the Employer’s arguments changed during the course of the representation case and that the offers of proof did not match the claims, causing the Court to conclude that the claims were either barred from review or otherwise forfeited or meritless. On the allegations that the regional office mishandled the election, the Court found no error in the Board’s application of the reasonable-doubt test. Under that test, the Court recognized that the Board will invalidate an election based on such misconduct only where a party shows that the alleged irregularities raised a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election, and that the party suffered prejudicial, and not merely speculative, harm, citing GHG Mgmt. LLC v. NLRB, 106 F.4th 1166 (D.C. Cir. 2024), and Guardsmark, LLC, 363 NLRB 931 (2016)).
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Starbucks Corporation (19-CA-313649; JD-80-24) Seattle, WA. Administrative Law Judge Donna N. Dawson issued her decision on December 16, 2024. Charge filed by Workers United Labor Union International, a/w Service Employees International Union.
Mom’s Siam, Inc. (05-CA-321197, et al.; JD-81-24) Richmond, VA. Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter issued his decision on December 17, 2024. Charges filed by individuals.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.