Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of January 17-20, 2012
The Weekly Summary 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 Public Affairs at Publicinfo@nlrb.gov or 202-273-1991.
Summarized Board Decisions
No Board decisions were issued this week.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (28-RC-069491) Las Vegas, NV, January 18, 2012. Order denying Employer’s request for review of the Acting Regional Director’s decision and direction of election. Petitioner – International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA). Chairman Pearce and Members Hayes and Griffin, Jr. participated.
ConocoPhillips, Santa Maria Refinery (31-RC-068107) Arroyo Grande, CA, January 19, 2012. Order denying Employer’s request for review of the Acting Regional Director’s decision and direction of election. Member Hayes dissented in part, would have granted review. Petitioner – United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local 534, AFL-CIO, CLC. Chairman Pearce and Members Hayes and Griffin, Jr. participated.
C Cases
Metro Painting Corporation (5-CA-36570, et al.) McLean, VA, January 17, 2012. Order transferring proceeding to the Board and notice to show cause why the Acting General Counsel’s motion should not be granted. Charge filed by International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, CLC, District Council 51.
Knight Protective Services, Inc., and Phair Security Solutions, Inc., joint employers (5‑CA‑36224) Lanham, MD, January 18, 2012. Order transferring proceeding to the Board and notice to show cause why the Acting General Counsel’s motion should not be granted. Charge filed by United Security & Police Officers of America (USPOA).
All Service Plumbing and Maintenance, Inc. (15-CA-19433, et al.) Baton Rouge, LA, January 18, 2012. Order adopting the Administrative Law Judges findings and conclusions, ordering the Respondent to take the action set forth, and further ordering the Regional Director to take further appropriate action. Charges filed by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 198.
Douglas R. Wilbur, Inc. d/b/a DRW Electric and its alter egos Brookside Electric, Inc. and Dynomax Electric Corp. (7-CA-52789, et al.) Whitman Lake, MI, January 19, 2012. Revised notice to show cause. Charges filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 252, AFL-CIO.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
New Country Audi, Inc., Board Case No. 34-CA-012563 (published at 356 NLRB No. 22) (2d Cir. decided January 17, 2012)
In an unpublished summary order, the Second Circuit enforced the Board’s order directing the employer to bargain with the Union, which prevailed in a Board election in July 2009.
In upholding the Board’s rejection of the employer’s election objection based on union agents’ alleged boasts at a voluntary union campaign meeting that the federal government and the Board would support the Union, the Court emphasized that an election will not be generally be set aside on the grounds of objectionable conduct occurring prior to the filing of the petition by the union, as was the case here. The Court added that although there is an exception to that rule for “clearly proscribed conduct likely to have had a significant impact on voting post-petition . . . the remarks at issue in this case were at most enthusiastic political grandstanding that could not possibly have had a significant impact on voting.”
The court also rejected the employer’s objection based on an employee having stuck his head through the doorway of the polling place and told the Union’s election observer that a named employee, the last eligible voter, was on his way to the polls. The Court found no basis to conclude that such an action “could have inhibit[ed] the free choice of the voters in any way, or that it somehow established that the union had “kept a running tally during the voting on how . . . employees cast their ballots.”
In these circumstances, the Court concluded, the employer was not entitled to a hearing because it had failed to submit evidence establishing “the existence of substantial and material factual issues which, if resolved in its favor, would require the setting aside of the representation election.”
The Court's unpublished summary order is available here.
***
Laurel Bay Health & Rehabilitation Ctr., Board Case No. 22-CA-27192 (published at 356 NLRB No. 3) (D.C. Cir. decided January 20, 2012)
In published decision, the Court, reversing the Board, found that the parties' disagreement over benefit fund contributions had created an impasse in bargaining, and that the employer's declaration of impasse and its implementation of its proposed 3 percent wage increase on September 1, 2005 were therefore lawful.
The Court also found, however, that the employer had forfeited any challenge to the Board's remaining unfair labor practice findings, and therefore enforced the Board's order remedying the following unfair labor practices, including violations postdating the actions found lawful by the court: (1) unilaterally terminating a nursing assistant’s “accommodation schedule” that allowed her to work a non-standard shift one day each week to attend a class; (2) unilaterally announcing it was terminating all accommodation schedules; (3) unilaterally terminating a transportation service it provided for certain nurses’ aides; (4) refusing to meet for bargaining after October 4, 2005; (5) unilaterally implementing merit pay raises; and (6) failing to provide information requested by the union on August 31, 2005 and thereafter.
The Court's decision may be found here.
***
Decisions of Administrative Law Judges
Dura-Fibre LLC (30-CA-18988; JD(ATL)-02-12) Menasha, WI. Charge filed by an Individual. Administrative Law Judge William N. Cates issued his decision on January 19, 2012.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here