Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of December 2 - 6, 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
Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative (14-UC-317439; 373 NLRB No. 139) Marshfield, MO, December 3, 2024.
The Board denied the Union’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order Clarifying Bargaining Unit as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Member Prouty would have granted review.
Petitioner—IBEW Local No. 53. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Kuraray, Inc. (16-RC-350268) La Porte, TX, December 4, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Motion to Reconsider Postponement of Hearing as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board also denied the Employer’s request to stay the hearing as moot. Member Kaplan joined his colleagues in denying review because the Regional Director’s decision was consistent with the current version of Section 102.63(a)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations but noted that he dissented from the enactment of that provision. Petitioner—Local 900C of the International Chemical Workers Union Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. (32-RC-352046) Mountain View, CA, December 4, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s request for extraordinary relief. Petitioner—International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers, Local 39, AFL-CIO. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
Hackensack Meridian Health Carrier Clinic (22-RC-340992) Belle Mead, NJ, December 6, 2024. The Board denied the Employer's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision on Objections finding no substantial issues warranting review. Member Kaplan would have ordered a hearing on the Employer's objection related to pro-union music to consider whether it amounted to a prohibited campaign practice. Petitioner—District 1199J, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
ArrMaz Products, Inc. (12-CA-294086) Mulberry, FL, December 6, 2024. The Board (Members Prouty and Wilcox; Member Kaplan, dissenting) denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the remedial issue previously severed and reserved by the Board. The Board found that the Respondent had not demonstrated that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dissenting, Member Kaplan would dismiss the remedial issue consistent with his view that the Board should adhere to Ex-Cell-O Corp., 185 NLRB 107 (1970). Charge filed by International Chemical Workers Union Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
R&J Group, LLC, d/b/a Sushi Masa (15-CA-310618) Baton Rouge, LA, December 6, 2024. No exceptions having been filed to the October 24, 2024 decision of Administrative Law Judge Sarah Karpinen’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.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
The Healing Healthcare 3, Inc, d/b/a Curaleaf Camelback Dispensary, Board Case No. 28-CA-329732 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 31) (D.C. Cir. decided December 3, 2024).
In an unpublished judgment, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this cannabis-related dispensary in Phoenix, Arizona, where, during the COVID-19 pandemic in July 2022, the store associates voted 8 to 5 in a mail-ballot election to be represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 99. In doing so, the Court dismissed the Employer’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction because the sole issue it raised had not been preserved for appellate review.
In the underlying representation case, after the Union filed a petition seeking to represent the store associates, the Regional Director held a hearing and issued a decision directing a mail-ballot election under the terms of Aspirus Keweenaw, 370 NLRB No. 45 (2020). The Regional Director then issued a notice of election that contained all relevant information except for the date, time, and location of the ballot count. After the election, the Employer filed four objections, one of which claimed that the Regional Director erred by failing to include the ballot-count information on the notice. Following an administrative investigation, another Regional Director issued a report on objections. She concluded that the Employer failed to describe sufficient evidence to support its claims of objectionable conduct, overruled the objections without a hearing, and certified the Union. The Employer filed a Request for Review of three of its four objections, but not its objection to the missing ballot-count information. The Request for Review was denied by the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty). The Employer then refused to bargain in order to seek court review. Before the Court, the Employer raised only its claim that the Regional Director erred in failing to provide the ballot-counting information on the notice of election. The Court explained that it was “without jurisdiction to consider objections that are not raised ‘in the time and manner that the Board’s regulations require,’” quoting Spectrum Health—Kent Community Campus v. NLRB, 647 F.3d 341 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Court then noted that the Board’s regulations require parties to raise all objections to the representation proceeding in their request for Board review if they wish to preserve the issues for consideration in a subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding. This means, the Court stated, that it had no jurisdiction to hear an objection to an unfair-labor-practice case that was premised on an objection to a representation proceeding, unless that objection was first presented to the Board in the representation proceeding itself, citing Pruitt Health-Virginia Park, LLC v. NLRB, 888 F.3d 1285 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition for review and enforced the Board’s order in full.
The Court’s judgment is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center (08-CA-280382 and 08-CA-287186; JD-75-24) Cleveland, OH. Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on December 2, 2024. Charges filed by an individual.
Starbucks Corporation (19-CA-310274; JD(SF)-32-24) Seattle, WA. Administrative Law Judge Dickie Montemayor issued his decision on December 3, 2024. Charge filed by Workers United Labor Union International, a/w Service Employees International Union.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 492, and its successor International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 399 (Various Employers) (28-CB-232327, et al.; JD(SF)-36-24) Albuquerque, NM. Administrative Law Judge Dickie Montemayor issued his decision on December 4, 2024. Charges filed by individuals,
Grow Op Farms, LLC (19-CA-309512, et al.; JD(SF)-38-24) Spokane Valley, WA. Administrative Law Judge Dickie Montemayor issued his Supplemental Decision on December 5, 2024. Charges filed by United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 3000, a/w United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO.
Gretna Racing, LLC, d/b/a Magic City Casino (12-CA-331395; JD-76-24) Miami, FL. Administrative Law Judge Sarah Karpinen issued her decision on December 6, 2024. Charge filed by UNITE HERE Local 355, AFL-CIO.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.