Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of December 26 - 29, 2023

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

MV Transportation, Inc.  (21-UC-279131; 373 NLRB No. 8)  Oceanside, CA, December 22, 2023.

The Board granted the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order Clarifying Unit and reversed the Regional Director’s conclusion that the Employer's maintenance supervisors did not share a sufficient community of interest with employees in the existing unit.  The Board concluded that the maintenance supervisors shared a community of interest with the employees in the existing unit and clarified the bargaining unit to include the maintenance supervisors.  The Board also stated that when a unit clarification petition seeks to resolve the unit placement of a classification that voted subject to challenge, but whose placement was unnecessary to resolve prior to the issuance of the certification of representative, the applicable standard is the same standard that would have been applied had the issue been litigated prior to the underlying election.  Dissenting, Member Kaplan would have denied review because, in his view, the Regional Director correctly concluded that the maintenance supervisors did not share a community of interest with the employees in the existing unit.

Petitioner—Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1309.  Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.

***

Twinbrook OpCo, LLC  (06-CA-283709; 373 NLRB No. 6)  Erie, PA, December 28, 2023.

On a stipulated record, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty; Member Kaplan, concurring) found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally eliminating the shift differential payments—a mandatory subject of bargaining—for certain bargaining unit employees without giving the Union notice or an opportunity to bargain.  The Board rejected the Respondent’s arguments that various provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement either terminated the shift differential payments or entitled the Respondent to terminate them unilaterally, because the collective-bargaining agreement was silent about the shift differential payments.  The Board further found that because the parties never mentioned shift differential payments during collective-bargaining agreement negotiations, the Union did not waive its right to bargain over them.  Member Kaplan, concurring in the result, wrote separately agreeing that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).

Charge filed by SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania, CTW, CLC.  Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

No Unpublished R Cases Issued.

C Cases

No Unpublished C Cases Issued.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Glacier Northwest, Inc., d/b/a CalPortland  (19-CA-203068 and 19-CA-211776; JD(SF)-44-23)  Seattle, WA. Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind issued his decision on December 27, 2023.  Charges filed by Teamsters Union Local 174.

Starbucks Corporation  (28-CA-301602; JD(SF)-45-23)  Sante Fe, NM.  Administrative Law Judge Sharon Levinson Steckler issued her decision on December 27, 2023.  Charge filed by Workers United a/w Service Employees International Union.

Virginia Hospital Center Arlington Health System  (05-CA-304834; JD-85-23)  Arlington, VA.  Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on December 29, 2023. Charge filed by an individual.

***

To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.