Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of June 26 - 30, 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
Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC and Bannum, Inc., a Single Employer, and/or Joint Employers and/or a Parent Corporation (07-CA-207685, et al.; 372 NLRB No. 97) Detroit, MI, June 27, 2023.
In this compliance case, the Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that Respondents are a single employer. The Board found it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s additional findings that the Respondents are not a joint employer with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Consistent with the judge’s supplemental order, the Board ordered the Respondents to pay the backpay determinations as set forth in the General Counsel’s compliance specification.
Charges filed by Local 406, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) and an individual. Administrative Law Judge Sharon Levinson Steckler issued her decision on October 14, 2022. Members Kaplan, Wilcox, and Prouty participated.
***
Crushin’ It LLC, d/b/a Crushin’ It Apparel (18-CA-302342, et al.; 372 NLRB No. 100) Madison, WI, June 29, 2023.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the complaint. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by, among other things, threatening employees because of their protected concerted activity, conditioning employees’ future employment on their abandonment or disavowal of their protected concerted activity; equating employees’ protected concerted activity to extortion and lying, refusing to meet with employees as a group, impliedly threatening not to pay employees’ wages because of their protected concerted activity, surveilling employees; Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization; and Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.
Charges filed by Worker Justice Wisconsin and Painters District Council 7, Local 770. Members Kaplan, Wilcox, and Prouty participated.
***
Traverse Anesthesia Associates, P.C. (07-CA-296751 and 07-CA-298556; 372 NLRB No. 98) Traverse City, MI, June 30, 2023.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the complaint. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with unspecified reprisals or discipline for engaging in protected concerted activities, and Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by issuing a written warning and a performance improvement plan to an employee because she engaged in protected concerted activities.
Charges filed by Northwest Michigan CRNA and Associates. Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty participated.
***
Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company (04-CA-252338, et al.; 372 NLRB No. 102) Philadelphia, PA, June 30, 2023.
The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and Order, reported at 372 NLRB No. 50 (2023). The Board found that the Respondent did not identify any material error or demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. The Board rejected the Respondent’s argument that the two unlawfully discharged employees were disqualified from a full remedy because they had secretly recorded workplace conversations with their supervisors in violation of the Respondent’s work rules and Pennsylvania state law and would have been discharged if the Respondent had been aware of that recording. The Board reaffirmed its earlier finding that the discriminatees recorded those conversations to defend themselves against retaliation for their protected activities; that their recording activity was therefore protected under Section 7; and that the state law banning secret recording was preempted in this situation under Garmon principles.
Charges filed by Philadelphia Baristas United and individuals. Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on June 21, 2021. Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Starbucks Corporation (10-RC-297006) Scottsboro, AL, June 28, 2023. A Board majority (Chairman McFerran and Member Wilcox; Member Kaplan, dissenting) denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Administrative Decision, Report on Challenged Ballot and Objections, and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board majority found that because of the Regional Director’s reasonable factual finding that the Board agent inadvertently tore the ballot when opening the ballot secrecy envelope with a letter opener, prior cases wherein the voter tore the ballot (and thereby rendered the ballot void due to the voter’s mutilation of the ballot) are distinguishable. Additionally, Member Wilcox noted that because the part of the ballot showing the voting options remained intact and the voter’s choice was clear, there was no reason to void the ballot regardless of who or what caused the ballot tear. Member Kaplan, dissenting, would have granted review and directed the Regional Director to conduct a rerun election. Petitioner—Workers United, Southern Regional Joint Board. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
Ridgemont Terrace, Inc., d/b/a Stafford Healthcare at Ridgemont (19-RC-296206) Port Orchard, WA, June 28, 2023. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Service Employees International Union, Local 775. Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty participated.
C Cases
Starbucks Corporation (12-CA-295949) Estero, FL, June 26, 2023. The Board granted the General Counsel’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s order accepting the parties’ non-Board settlement, approving the Union’s request to withdraw the charge, and dismissing the Complaint. The Board denied the appeal on the merits. The Board found that, on balance, the settlement satisfies the standards set forth in Independent Stave Co., 287 NLRB 740 (1987). Therefore, the judge did not abuse his discretion in approving the settlement, and the Board affirmed his rulings. Charge filed by Workers United, Southern Regional Joint Board a/w Service Employees International Union. Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty participated.
Starbucks Corporation (01-CA-299987 and 01-CA-299996) Biddeford, ME, June 28, 2023. The Board granted the General Counsel and Charging Party’s Requests for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s approval of two unilateral consent orders. Because the consent orders did not comport with the standards set forth in Independent Stave Co., 287 NLRB 740 (1987), the Board revoked them and remanded the proceeding to the judge for further processing. Charges filed by Workers United Labor Union International, a/w Service Employees International Union. Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty participated.
Starbucks Corporation (18-CA-298181) West Allis, WI, June 29, 2023. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss specified paragraph of the second amendment to the complaint. In response to the Respondent’s claim that the allegations are time-barred under Section 10(b) of the Act and beyond the scope of the charge, the Board found that the Respondent had failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the allegations are not closely related to those in the charge and/or did not grow out of them while the proceeding was pending before the Board. The Board’s denial was without prejudice to the Respondent’s right to renew its arguments to the Administrative Law Judge and before the Board on any exceptions that may be filed to the judge’s decision, if appropriate. Charge filed by Chicago & Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/SEIU. Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty participated.
United States Postal Service (07-CA-292942) Ann Arbor, MI, June 29, 2023. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Partial Dismissal or Summary Judgment, finding that the Respondent failed to establish that there were no genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Charge filed by National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), AFL-CIO. Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
United States Postal Service (05-CA-287181; JD-37-23) Capitol Heights, MD. Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his decision on June 26, 2023. Charge filed by American Postal Workers Union, Nations Capital Southern Maryland Area Local 140 a/w American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO.
Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC (10-CA-274900; JD-29-23) Brookwood, AL. Administrative Law Judge Melissa M. Olivero issued her decision on June 29, 2023. Charge filed by United Mine Workers of America, International Union.
Starbucks Corporation (06-CA-294667 and 06-CA-299353; JD-40-23) Pittsburgh, PA. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on June 30, 2023. Charges filed by Workers United a/w SEIU.
Korean Resource Center, Inc. (31-CA-282645 and 31-CA-287920; JD(SF)-17-23) Los Angeles, CA. Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone issued her decision on June 30, 2023. Charges filed by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 947.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.