Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of June 12 - 16, 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
United States Postal Service (07-CA-145159 and 07-CA-159684; 365 NLRB No. 92) Detroit, MI, June 12, 2017.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unreasonably delaying furnishing information about light-duty employees’ work restrictions, unreasonably delaying furnishing information used to establish a seniority list, and refusing to furnish information regarding how it compiled another seniority list. In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent unreasonably delayed furnishing information about the light-duty employees’ work restrictions, the Board did not rely on the judge’s suggestion that the Respondent “waived” its right to bargain over how to protect the employees’ confidential medical information. The Board also affirmed the judge’s recommended remedial Order, including district-wide notice posting, and found that the judge did not err by declining to recommend a broad cease-and-desist order or by failing to extend the order to apply to “any other labor organization.”
Charges filed by Branch 256, National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO. Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued her decision on December 2, 2016. Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
***
Howard Industries, Inc. (15-CA-131447; 365 NLRB No. 96) Laurel, MS, June 13, 2017.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s recommended order dismissing the complaint and deferring to an arbitrator’s award upholding the discharge of a union steward for violating plant rules. In so doing, the Board adopted the judge’s finding that, applying the Board’s prior standard for deferral under Olin Corp., 268 NLRB 573 (1984), the arbitrator had adequately considered the unfair labor practice and his award was not repugnant to the Act.
Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1317. Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his decision on September 24, 2015. Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
***
Lenawee Stamping Corporation d/b/a Kirchoff Van-Rob (07-CA-168498 and 07-CA-172535; 365 NLRB No. 97) Tecumseh, MI, June 14, 2017.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by making a midterm contract modification by granting raises to unit employees without obtaining the Union’s consent, and also by making a unilateral change to employees’ terms and conditions of employment by granting sign-on and referral bonuses to employees without first notifying and bargaining with the Union.
Charges filed by Local 3000, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO. Administrative Law Judge Mark Carissimi issued his decision on December 22, 2016. Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
***
Security Walls, Inc. (16-CA-152423; 365 NLRB No. 99) Austin, TX, June 15, 2017.
The Board (Members Pearce and McFerran; Chairman Miscimarra, dissenting) adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by making unilateral changes to its disciplinary policy and refusing to bargain over its suspension and discharge of three employees. In so finding, the Board majority found that the Respondent’s existing disciplinary system did not mandate the discharges and the Respondent did not offer to bargain or respond to the Union’s requests for information or its grievance. The majority also denied the Respondent’s motion to reopen the record, finding that the proffered evidence that the Respondent’s contractor refused to rehire the three employees following the judge’s decision was not newly discovered or previously unavailable. Dissenting, Chairman Miscimarra would dismiss the unilateral change violation and find that the Respondent’s contractor’s disciplinary policy mandated the discharges. Additionally, he would grant the motion to reopen the record and allow the Respondent to present evidence that the discharges were not discretionary. Finally, he would dismiss the refusal-to-bargain allegation and find that the complaint alleged only pre-discharge bargaining, and not the post-discharge bargaining violation that the majority found.
Charge filed by International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on January 21, 2016. Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
No Unpublished R Cases Issued
C Cases
CSC Holdings, LLC (29-CA-190108) Hauppauge, NY, June 12, 2017. The Board denied the Employer’s Petition to Revoke the subpoena duces tecum, as the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and there was no other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Chairman Miscimarra would have granted the petition as to the subpoena paragraph which requested employee handbooks and manuals concerning workplace rules, except for those handbook and manual provisions that reasonably relate to the charge allegation. Charge filed by Communications Workers of America. Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
Edwards Painting, Inc. (19-CA-116399 and 19-CA-122730) Oregon City, OR, June 12, 2017. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration and Reopening the Record, finding that the Respondent did not identify any material error or demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. Chairman Miscimarra disagreed that a motion to reopen the record must relate to proffered evidence that could have been presented at the hearing under Sec. 102.48(c)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, but agreed with his colleagues that there were no grounds for granting the Respondent’s motion. Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Space Needle, LLC, Board Case No. 19-CA-098908 (reported at 362 NLRB No. 11) (9th Cir. decided June 13, 2017)
In an unpublished memorandum opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order issued against the operator of the famed Seattle skyscraper whose employees working in the restaurant and banquet space on the tower’s 500-foot level are represented by UNITE HERE! Local 8. The Board (then-Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and Johnson) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by soliciting or encouraging employees to resign from Local 8, polling employees regarding their support for Local 8, and making coercive statements to two employees. The Board further found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by failing to recall two employees because they had engaged in protected activity, and that the Employer unlawfully refused to bargain in good faith when it reneged on its agreement with the Union to restart dues deduction in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). On review, the Court, with little comment, held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings, and enforced the Board’s order in full.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Meyer Tool, Inc. (09-CA-185410; JD-47-17) Cincinnati, OH. Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on June 12, 2017. Charge filed by an individual.
Uber Technologies, Inc. (20-CA-181146; JD(SF)-24-17) San Francisco, CA. Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone issued her decision on June 13, 2017. Charge filed by an individual.
International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 28 (Ceres Gulf, Inc.) (16-CB-181716 and 16-CB-194603; JD-46-17) Houston, TX. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on June 13, 2017. Charges filed by an individual.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.