Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of January 16 - 20, 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
Macy’s, Inc. (20-CA-270047; 372 NLRB No. 42) San Francisco, CA, January 17, 2023.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by locking out bargaining unit employees without providing them with a timely, clear, or complete offer setting forth the conditions necessary to avoid the lockout.
Charge filed by International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers, Local 39. Administrative Law Judge John T. Giannopoulos issued his decision on April 6, 2022. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
***
Volvo Group North America, LLC (32-CA-276320; 372 NLRB No. 44) Reno, NV, January 19, 2023.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging an employee.
Charge filed by International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW. Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham issued his decision on March 31, 2022. Members Kaplan, Wilcox, and Prouty participated.
***
SEIU Healthcare Michigan (07-CG-284431 and 07-RD-282049; 372 NLRB No. 43) West Bloomfield, MI, January 20, 2023.
In the absence of exceptions, the Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the Respondent Union violated Section 8(g) by picketing at the Employer’s facility without providing 10 days’ written notice to the Employer and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The Board also adopted the judge’s recommendation to overrule the Employer’s election objections. Accordingly, the Board issued a Certification of Representative.
Charge filed by Maple-Drake Real Estate, LLC d/b/a Notting Hill of West Bloomfield. Petitioner—an individual. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on June 17, 2022. Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox 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Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases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No Unpublished R Cases Issued.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No Unpublished C Cases Issued.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
The Painting Contractor, Board Case No. 09-CA-250898 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 60) (6th Cir. decided January 20, 2023).
In an unpublished opinion, the Court enforced in part, and vacated and remanded in part, the Board’s order that issued against this painting and drywall contractor operating in the Cincinnati, Ohio area, where 35 of its employees are represented by the International Union of Painters and Allied Trade, District Council 6. On the only contested issue, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Ring and Prouty) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to adhere to a collective-bargaining agreement to which it was bound as a member of the Greater Cincinnati Painting Contractors Association, a multiemployer bargaining association.
On review, the Court held that substantial evidence supported all but one of the Board’s findings underlying its conclusion that the Employer unlawfully failed to adhere to the agreement. Specifically, the Court stated that the Board had not considered evidence of the parties’ bargaining history and surrounding conduct in rejecting of the Employer’s argument that the unit employees’ ratification of the tentative agreement was a condition precedent to contract formation. Although it agreed with the Board that the parties had not expressly agreed to that condition, the Court explained that “left unaddressed by the Board is record evidence supporting the proposition that the parties impliedly agreed to precondition the New CBA on employee ratification.” Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the Board for “limited additional factfinding on this narrow point.” Finally, the Court summarily enforced the Board’s uncontested finding that the Employer violated its duty to bargain by unilaterally changing the amount of its contributions to two employee benefit funds.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
No Administrative Law Judge Decisions Issued.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.