Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of July 17 - 21, 2017
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
2850 Grand Island Boulevard Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Elderwood at Grand Island (03-CA-193859; 365 NLRB No. 110) Buffalo, NY, July 21, 2017.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground that the Respondent failed to raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding in which the Union was certified as the bargaining representative. Chairman Miscimarra agreed with the denial of review in the underlying representation proceeding, but disclaimed reliance on certain statements in the Acting Regional Director’s Supplemental Decision and Order on Challenged Ballots and Objections with respect to disregarding certain unrebutted evidence. Noting that he remains of that view, Chairman Miscimarra agreed with his colleagues that the Respondent had not raised any new matters that are properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding.
Charge filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
A1 Koh Enterprise Global, LLC (13-RD-194117) Chicago, IL, July 19, 2017. The Board (Members Pearce and McFerran; Chairman Miscimarra, dissenting) denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Regional Director had dismissed the Petitioner’s decertification petition under the successor bar doctrine. Chairman Miscimarra would apply the standard set forth in MV Transportation, 337 NLRB 770 (2002), and find that the Union’s presumption of majority status had been rebutted by a valid petition. Petitioner – an Individual. Union – United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1546. Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
Disneyland Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. (21-RC-193372) Anaheim, CA, July 21, 2017. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election on the ground that it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Regional Director had found that the Employer’s Entertainment Art Crew employees did not share a sufficient community of interest with an existing unit of Technical Services employees to warrant a self-determination election. Petitioner – International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 504, AFL-CIO. Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
First Student Anoka (18-RD-197717) Anoka, MN, July 21, 2017. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s administrative dismissal of the petition as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner – an Individual. Union – International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local No. 638. Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
Trinitas Regional Medical Center (22-RC-193804) Elizabeth, NJ, July 21, 2017. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Regional Director had found the proposed unit inappropriate under the Board’s Health Care Rule. Petitioner – International Association of EMTs and Paramedics, SEIU, Local 5000. Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
C Cases
Allied Crawford Steel (04-CA-174095) Harrisburg, PA, July 18, 2017. No exceptions having been filed to the June 5, 2017 decision of Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi’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 Teamsters Local 776.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Bellagio, LLC d/b/a Bellagio Las Vegas, Board No. 28-CA-170899 (reported at 364 NLRB No. 2); and Mirage Casino-Hotel d/b/a The Mirage, Board No. 28-CA-170874 (reported at 364 NLRB No. 1) (D.C. Cir. decided July 18, 2017)
In a published opinion, the Court granted the petitions for review and vacated the Board’s orders issued against two Las Vegas casinos for refusing to bargain with Operating Engineers Local 501 after it was certified as the representative of units of surveillance technicians at the casinos. Disagreeing with the Board, the Court held that the technicians are “guards” within the meaning of Section 9(b)(3); therefore, the Union, which represents non-guard employees, cannot also represent the surveillance technicians.
The casinos use a network of security equipment to deter, detect, and record any wrongdoing, which include surveillance cameras, locks, alarms, and computers. At both casinos, the surveillance technicians are responsible for installing and maintaining the surveillance and security CCTV systems and related equipment, as well as other related functions, including the dispensing of electronic key fobs for the electronic door lock system. In the underlying representation cases, the casinos argued that the surveillance technicians are guards as defined by the Act. Section 9(b)(3) prohibits the Board from certifying a labor organization to represent a unit of guards if the union also represents non-guard employees. The Act provides that guards are “individual[s] employed . . . to enforce against employees and other persons rules to protect property of the employer or to protect the safety of persons on the employer’s premises.” 29 U.S.C. § 159(b)(3). Here, the Regional Director found that the surveillance technicians are not guards because their duties installing and maintaining security and surveillance cameras and equipment do not require them to enforce any casino rules. Instead, the Regional Director found that the technicians only provide technical support, and that, in turn, the surveillance operators and security guards enforce the rules.
The Court (Judge Henderson and Senior Judge Ginsburg; Judge Srinivasan, dissenting in relevant part) concluded that, in their view of the record, the surveillance technicians are statutory guards because their “day-to-day duties—sensitive ones peculiar to the modern gaming industry—call for them to enforce against coworkers and others the rules that protect the casinos’ property and guests.” The court majority saw four flaws in the Board’s analysis. First, the Board gave “no weight to evidence that the surveillance operators and security officers in the monitor rooms cannot properly do their jobs without the techs” who are essential to the security process. Second, the Board gave too little weight to the type of employer here, which must protect “high-end jewelry, priceless art, stockpiles of cash and the personal safety of revelrous guests who are not always vigilant regarding their own wellbeing.” Third, in the Court’s view, the Board did not properly account for the fact that the surveillance technicians “can control what surveillance operators and security officers see in the monitor rooms.” And fourth, the Court thought the Board gave no weight to “the crucial fact that the techs help enforce rules against their coworkers.” Dissenting, Judge Srinivasan stated that he thought the Board reasonably concluded that any connection between the role of the surveillance technicians in maintaining the security equipment and the enforcement of casino rules was insufficient to render them statutory guards.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Cinelease, Inc. (31-CA-166005, et al.; JD(SF)-33-17) Los Angeles, CA. Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on July 19, 2017. Charges filed by Studio Transportation Drivers, Local 399 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 501 (28-CB-170340; JD(SF)-34-17) Las Vegas, NV. Administrative Law Judge Dickie Montemayor issued his decision on July 20, 2017. Charge filed by Brady Linen Services, LLC.
DirectSat USA, LLC (13-CA-176621; JD-57-17) South Holland, IL. Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl issued his decision on July 20, 2017. Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 21, AFL-CIO.
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO (07-CB-186559; JD-56-17) Detroit, MI. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on July 20, 2017. Charge filed by MGM Grand Detroit, LLC.
Greyhound Lines, Inc. (08-CA-181769; JD-59-17) Cleveland, OH. Administrative Law Judge Thomas M. Randazzo issued his decision on July 21, 2017. Charge filed by an individual.
Holy Cross Health d/b/a Holy Cross Hospital (05-CA-182154 and 05-CA-187452; JD-58-17) Silver Spring, MD. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on July 21, 2017. Charges filed by National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United (NNOC/NNU), AFL-CIO.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.