Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of July 15 - 19, 2019
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
No Published Board Decisions Issued.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC (28-RC-232059) Las Vegas, NV, July 17, 2019. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Employer’s Motion to Dismiss Objections as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Kaplan participated.
Bentley University (01-RC-234790) Waltham, MA, July 17, 2019. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Kaplan participated.
C Cases
Parkway Florist, Inc. (06-CA-209583 and 06-CA-217020) Pittsburgh, PA, July 15, 2019. No exceptions having been filed to the December 12, 2018 decision of Administrative Law Judge David I. Goldman’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. Charges filed by individuals.
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), Local 16 (Various Employers) (20-CB-218555) San Francisco, CA, July 15, 2019. No exceptions having been filed to the May 30, 2019 decision of Administrative Law Judge Ariel L. Sotolongo’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.
Parkway Florist, Inc. (06-CA-209583 and 06-CA-217020) Pittsburgh, PA, July 16, 2019. Second Supplemental Decision and Order rescinding the July 15, 2019 Board order.
DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC (as a successor in interest to E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company) (05-CA-222622) Richmond, VA, July 17, 2019. The Board denied the Respondent’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling precluding testimony by the Respondent’s proposed expert witness. The Board found that the Respondent failed to establish that the ruling cannot be appropriately addressed at a later stage in the proceeding or that the judge abused his discretion in finding that the proposed testimony would not add to the relevant evidence or assist him in deciding the issues presented. Charge filed by Ampthill Rayon Workers, Inc., Local 992, International Brotherhood of DuPont Workers. Members McFerran, Kaplan, and Emanuel participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Ingredion, Inc., d/b/a Penford Products Co., Board Case No. 18-CA-160654 (reported at 366 NLRB No. 74) (D.C. Cir. decided July 19, 2019).
In a published opinion, the Court enforced in full the Board’s order issued against this multinational manufacturer of various products for food and industrial uses that operates a corn-milling facility in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where 165 production and maintenance employees are represented by Local 100G, Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union. In doing so, the Court upheld the Board’s findings that the Employer committed numerous unfair labor practices during negotiations for a successor collective-bargaining agreement, including unlawfully declaring an impasse in contract negotiations, and sustained the Board’s notice-reading remedy.
Prior to the Employer’s purchase of the Cedar Rapids facility in 2015, the Union had represented the employees under a series of contracts since 1948. Before the parties began negotiating for a successor contract—the first one since the purchase—the Employer’s director of human resources, who was slated to be its chief negotiator in upcoming negotiations, toured the facility soliciting bargaining-related proposals from employees, and told them what would or would not be acceptable to the Employer in the next contract. In preparation for bargaining, the Union requested information relevant to a potential pension increase, which the Employer refused to provide because the Employer itself did not plan to offer a pension proposal.
When negotiations began, the Employer insisted on bargaining from scratch for an entirely new contract, and each side submitted proposals in different formats, old and new. While bargaining was underway, the operations manager approached a few senior employees nearing retirement and falsely stated to them that the Employer had a more generous retirement plan, which the Union was unwilling to discuss. During the coming months, the parties made progress toward an agreement. At the tenth session, the Employer declared impasse and presented the Union with a final offer. During that session, the Employer provided the Union with the earlier requested information. Three meetings later, and despite continuing to engage in productive bargaining with the Union, the Employer implemented its last offer. About that time, the facilities manager warned employees to “think long and hard about walking out” on strike because the Employer had “deep pockets” and that many other facilities were making the same product, so they might “not get back in the door.”
On those facts, the Board (Members Pearce, McFerran, and Emanuel) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally implementing its last offer without reaching a valid bargaining impasse, dealing directly with employees rather than the Union, and unreasonably delaying the provision of information to the Union. The Board also found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by denigrating the Union when it falsely told employees that the Union was unwilling to negotiate over improved terms, and by threatening employees with job loss if they went on strike. In addition to its usual remedies, the Board ordered a notice-reading remedy given that the unfair labor practices were serious and widespread insofar as they ultimately affected the entire bargaining unit and the Union’s status as representative, and because many of the violations were committed by high-ranking officials.
On review, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings and rejected the Employer’s arguments to the contrary. On the key issue of impasse, the Court agreed with the Board that no genuine impasse existed because, at the time it was declared, the parties had only minimally discussed wages and other important economic issues, such as health insurance and retirement benefits, and therefore further discussion of such substantive terms might well have resulted in a negotiated agreement. The Court further stated that, although the format of the new contract was a major issue for the parties in exchanging proposals, it was insufficient to create an overall impasse, as the Employer had argued. Lastly, in upholding the Board’s notice-reading remedy, the Court explained that, given the chief negotiator played a central role in several violations of the Act, the Board did not abuse its discretion in imposing the remedy.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 150, a/w International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (25-CC-228342; JD-57-19) South Bend, IN. Administrative Law Judge Kimberly R. Sorg-Graves issued her decision on July 15, 2019. Charge filed by Lippert Components, Inc.
RAV Truck & Trailer Repairs, Inc. and Concrete Express of NY, LLC, a single employer (02-CA-220395; JD(NY)-12-19) Bronx, NY. Administrative Law Judge Benjamin W. Green issued his decision on July 15, 2019. Charge file by Teamsters Local 456, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 542, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (United Parcel Service) (21-CB-233544; JD(SF)-22-19) San Diego, CA. Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham issued his decision on July 17, 2019. Charge filed by an individual.
Service Employees International Union Local 1107 (28-CA-209109; JD(SF)-23-19) Las Vegas, NV. Administrative Law Judge Dickie Montemayor issued his decision on July 17, 2019. Charge filed by an individual.
American Medical Response Mid-Atlantic, Inc. (05-CA-221233; JD-58-19) Washington, DC. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on July 18, 2019. Charge filed by an individual. Errata and Amended Decision issued July 19, 2019. Errata Amended Decision.
Global Contact Services (29-CA-211765, et al.; JD(NY)-06-19) Brooklyn, NY. Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey P. Gardner issued his decision on July 19, 2019. Charges filed by Transport Workers Union, AFL-CIO Local 100.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.