Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of July 17 - 21, 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
United Scrap Metal PA, LLC (04-CA-315904; 372 NLRB No. 107) Philadelphia, PA, July 18, 2023.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the grounds 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. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union and by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with requested relevant and necessary information. The Board severed for further consideration the issue of whether the Board should adopt a compensatory, make whole remedy for the Respondent’s refusal to bargain.
Charge filed by Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 57. Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty participated.
***
Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation and Google LLC, Joint Employers (16-RC-305751; 372 NLRB No. 108) Austin, TX, July 19, 2023, issued to the July 19, 2023 Decision. Errata Amended Decision.
The Board denied review of the Employers’ Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board agreed with the Regional Director that, under Section 103.40 of the Board’s Rules, Google LLC and Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation are joint employers of the petitioned-for unit of employees. Specifically, the Board agreed that Google exercises direct and immediate control over employees’ supervision, benefits and hours of work as defined in Section 103.40(c)(2), (3) and (7), although it did not rely on the Regional Director’s finding regarding the direction of employees under Section 103.40(c)(8). Based on the totality of the relevant facts, the Petitioner established that Google possesses and exercises such substantial, direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms and conditions of the petitioned-for employees’ employment as to warrant concluding that Google “meaningfully affects matters relating to the employment relationship” of those employees under Section 103.40(a).
Petitioner—Alphabet Workers Union—Communications Workers of America, Local 1400. 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
LHoist North America of Alabama, LLC, a subsidiary of LHoist North America, Board Case No. 10-CA-221731 (reported at 370 NLRB No. 112) (11th Cir. decided July 21, 2023).
In an unpublished opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this operator of quarries and lime manufacturing plants in Alabama, where its production and maintenance employees have long been represented by the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local 563. In the underlying decision, the Board (Members Kaplan, Emanuel, and Ring) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by suspending and discharging a slurry operator who had worked at its Montevallo plant in Calera, Alabama, since 1991, and served as the Union’s vice president.
In upholding the Board’s findings as supported by substantial evidence, the Court relied on the Employer’s admission that the discharge was based on the employee’s telephonic participation in an unemployment hearing in which he represented a former unit member. Further, the Court cited the credited evidence of disparate treatment and the pretextual nature of the additional reasons the Employer gave for the adverse actions, which also defeated the Employer’s Wright Line defense. In providing its view of the case, the Court commented that it involved “a long-term, reliable employee—until the employee’s union activities caught the ire of the company.” Then, the Court noted, the Employer “targeted the employee until an excuse could be found to discipline and ultimately terminate his employment,” an opportunity that arrived “the day the employee participated in a union phone call on company time.”
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Dolgen Corp., LLC, d/b/a Dollar General (01-CA-284330, et al.; JD-44-23) Goodlettsville, TN. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on July 17, 2023. Charges filed by United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 371, AFL-CIO.
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 540 (Tyson Foods) (16-CB-247294 and 16-CB-290440; JD-43-23) Center, TX. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued his decision on July 18, 2023. Charges filed by individuals.
Kroger Texas L.P. (16-CA-273805, et al.; JD-45-23) Houston, TX. Administrative Law Judge Sharon Levinson Steckler issued her decision on July 21, 2023. Charges filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No. 455, AFL-CIO.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.