Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 16 - 20, 2015
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 Public Affairs at Publicinfo@nlrb.gov or 202‑273‑1991.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Excess bound volumes of NLRB Decisions and Orders will be available to the public. Click here to learn more.
Summarized Board Decisions
FedEx Home Delivery, an Operating Division of FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. (34-CA-012735, 34-RC-002205; 362 NLRB No. 29) Windsor, CT, March 16, 2015.
The Board denied the Respondent’s motion for reconsideration, finding that the Respondent did not identify any material error or demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. The Board also found that the application of its refined independent-contractor standard in the underlying decision and other cases currently pending would not cause manifest injustice. Member Johnson adhered to the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in the underlying decision and therefore would not apply the new standard retroactively. He agreed, however, that there were no grounds for granting the motion for reconsideration.
Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa, Johnson, and McFerran participated.
***
Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC (14-CA-094714; 362 NLRB No. 27) Lee’s Summit, MO, March 16, 2015.
Citing Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72 (2014) and U-Haul of California, 347 NLRB 375 (2006), the Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the Respondent violated the Act by maintaining a mandatory and binding arbitration policy that restricted employees’ rights to file charges with the Board. In addition, the Board adopted the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated the Act by maintaining and enforcing a mandatory and binding arbitration policy that waives the rights of employees to maintain class or collective actions in all forums, whether arbitral or judicial. Member Johnson dissented from this finding, citing his dissent in Murphy Oil, and found it unnecessary to pass on whether the remedies related to the enforcement remedy are appropriate.
In finding the violations, the Board rejected the Respondent’s argument that the complaint was time barred under Section 10(b) because the Charging Party signed the document containing the arbitration policy more than 6 months before the initial unfair labor practice charge was filed and served. Finding that the Respondent had maintained and enforced the arbitration policy during the 10(b) period, the Board cited longstanding precedent establishing that the maintenance of an unlawful rule is a continuing violation, regardless of when the rule was first promulgated.
Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued her decision on August 19, 2013. Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and McFerran participated.
***
Ampersand Publishing, LLC d/b/a Santa Barbara News-Press (31-CA-028589, et al.; 362 NLRB No. 26) Santa Barbara, CA, March 17, 2015.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014), the Board considered de novo the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, the record, the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs, and the Respondent’s motion for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge’s rulings, findings, and recommended Order as modified, and as set forth in the vacated Decision and Order reported at 358 NLRB No. 141 (2012) and the Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration and Modifying Remedy reported at 359 NLRB No. 127 (2013). The Board agreed, as set forth in the vacated Decision and Order and the Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration and Modifying Remedy, with the judge’s findings that the Respondent violated the Act by : (1) hiring a nonunit freelance reporter, and nonunit contractor employees, to perform bargaining unit work; (2) laying off an employee and dealing directly with him regarding re-employment as a nonemployee freelance reporter; (3) circulating a memorandum to employees offering them the services of its attorneys if contacted by a Board agent investigating charges; (4) instructing employees at a meeting, which involved a discussion of employment terms, that they were prohibited from discussing with others what was said at the meeting; and announcing a new requirement that reporters and writers produce one story per day; (5) changing the dates of meetings between employees and their supervisors to discuss performance evaluations; (6) discontinuing merit increases; (7) delaying in furnishing the Union with relevant and necessary information that it requested; (8) suspending and discharging an employee; and (9) bargaining in bad faith with the Union. The Board further agreed that the appropriate remedies for these violations included a broad cease-and-desist order, extension of the certification year by 12 months, reading of the notice by a high ranking official of the Respondent or by a Board agent in the presence of such an official, and reimbursement by the Respondent of the Union’s negotiation expenses.
Charges and amended charges filed by Graphic Communications Conference/International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Administrative Law Judge Clifford H. Anderson issued his decision on May 28, 2010. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran participated.
***
On Target Security, Inc. (12-CA-119717; 362 NLRB No. 31) San Juan, PR, March 17, 2015.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s motion for default judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the amended complaint and compliance specification.
The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to pay the contractually-required 2013 Christmas bonus to the employees in the unit. The Board ordered the Respondent to make the employees whole by paying them those amounts plus interest. Charge filed by International Union Security, Police, Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA), Local 2003. Members Hirozawa, Johnson, and McFerran participated.
***
Brusco Tug & Barge, Inc. (19-CA-096559 and 19-RC-013872; 362 NLRB No. 28) Longview, WA, March 18, 2015.
The Board issued a Decision, Order Reaffirming Certification of Representative, and Notice to Show Cause in this consolidated representation and unfair labor practice proceeding. On January 30, 2013, the then-Acting General Counsel issued a complaint in this matter, alleging that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing the Union’s request to bargain following the Union’s certification in Case 19-RC-013872. The Respondent filed an answer admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint, and asserting affirmative defenses. On February 7, 2013, the Acting General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board.
In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent admitted its refusal to bargain, but contested the validity of the certification on the basis of its contentions that the mates in the unit are supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act and that the bargaining unit is therefore inappropriate; that the Board lacked a quorum because the President’s recess appointments to the Board were constitutionally infirm; and that the complaint was not validly issued because the then-Acting General Counsel was not a proper recess appointee. On May 20, 2013, the Board issued a Decision and Order finding that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and, inter alia, ordering it to bargain with the Union. 359 NLRB No. 122. On June 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014), holding that the challenged appointments to the Board were not valid. Thereafter, the Board issued an order setting aside the Decision and Order, and retained this case on its docket for further action as appropriate. In its March 18, 2015 Decision, the Board stated that under the circumstances, it would not give the prior proceeding preclusive effect, and would consider anew the matters raised in the underlying representation proceeding.
In addition to the arguments referenced above, in its response to the previously issued Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent contended that it changed the mates’ duties in about 2010, after the Board granted the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Second Supplemental Decision but before the Board’s original Decision on Review issued. The Respondent asserted that it could not have litigated these changes in the prior representation proceeding because they occurred after 2006, the last opportunity afforded by the Regional Director to submit evidence, and argued that it should be permitted to present these facts at a hearing. The Board found no merit in this argument, deeming it untimely raised. The Board noted that the asserted changes occurred while the Respondent’s Request for Review was pending before the Board, and the Respondent could have, but did not, file a motion to reopen the record under Section 102.65 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, and failed to show good cause why it had not timely raised the argument.
With respect to the Respondent’s argument that the certified bargaining unit is not appropriate because the mates in the unit are statutory supervisors, the Board considered de novo the Regional Director’s Second Supplemental Decision on Remand and the entire record, including the Board’s original Decision on Review and Order, and agreed with the majority’s rationale that the Regional Director correctly found that the Respondent failed to meet its burden of establishing that the mates are statutory supervisors based on the statutory criteria of assignment and responsible direction. The Board affirmed the Regional Director’s Second Supplemental Decision to the extent and for the reasons stated in the Board’s original Decision on Review and Order reported at 359 NLRB No. 43. The Board also found no merit in the Respondent’s argument that the then-Acting General Counsel was without authority to issue the complaint. The Board then reaffirmed the certification of representative, certifying that the Union is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees. Finally, the Board noted that the Respondent had refused to bargain for the purpose of testing the validity of the certification of representative in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The Board stated that although the Respondent’s legal position may remain unchanged, it was possible that the Respondent had or intended to commence bargaining at this time, or that other events may have occurred during the pendency of this litigation that the parties may wish to bring to the Board’s attention. Therefore, the Board issued a Notice to Show Cause as to why it should not grant the General Counsel’s motion for summary judgment.
Member Johnson dissented, finding that the mates are supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act because they assign and direct the crew using independent judgment. Member Johnson stated that the mates at issue in this case are licensed officers responsible for the crew, the navigation, and the operation of the tugs at sea and on inland waterways for 12 of every 24 hours. He submitted that the unavoidable result of the majority’s decision is that, in the swiftly changing, unpredictable, and potentially hazardous marine environment, there is no supervision for a good half of each 30-day sea voyage when the mates control the operation of the vessel and are vested with the authority of the captain. Accordingly, because he would find that the mates are supervisors, Member Johnson would dismiss the complaint. He also found that the Respondent’s remand request was not untimely.
Charge and Petition filed by International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots ILA, AFL-CIO. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and Johnson participated.
***
OS Transport LLC and HCA Management, Inc. (32-CA-025100, et al.; 362 NLRB No. 34) San Martin, CA, March 19, 2015.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014), the Board considered de novo the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and the record in light of the exceptions, cross exceptions, and briefs. The Board affirmed the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions, for the reasons stated in the Board’s vacated Decision and Order reported at 358 NLRB No. 117, which was incorporated by reference, and adopted the judge’s recommended Order as further modified, and conforming the remedy and notice with Tortillas Don Chavas and Durham School Services. Thus, the Board agreed with the judge that the Respondent acted unlawfully against its employees in retaliation for their union organizing efforts and presentation to the Respondent’s owner of a group letter of protest. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by terminating two employees because of their protected activity, and also by reducing several pro-union employees’ work assignments. The Respondent additionally violated Section 8(a)(1) by making a variety of unlawful threats and statements to the employees, including a threat to make retaliatory reductions in work assignments, which it made good on. Member Johnson dissented from the majority’s finding that the Respondent unlawfully reduced the work assignments of an employee.
Charges filed by Teamsters Local No. 350, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Change to Win. Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham issued his decision on August 15, 2011. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and Johnson participated.
***
Veritas Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Chino Valley Medical Center (31-CA-029713, et al.; 362 NLRB No. 32) Chino, CA, March 19, 2015.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014), the Board considered de novo the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and the record. The Board affirmed the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions, for the reasons stated in the Board’s vacated Decision and Order reported at 359 NLRB No. 111, which was incorporated by reference, and adopted the judge’s recommended Order as further modified, and conforming the remedy and notice with Tortillas Don Chavas and Durham School Services. Thus, the Board found that the Respondent committed several Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) violations, including multiple threats, an interrogation, and impressions of surveillance. Member McFerran found it unnecessary to pass on one allegation of unlawful surveillance because the finding would not affect the remedy.
The Board also rejected the Respondent’s First Amendment defense and found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by serving on employees subpoenas duces tecum seeking, among other things, membership cards, for the reasons set forth in the Board’s recent decision in Santa Barbara News Press, 361 NLRB No. 88 (2014). Member Johnson dissented from this finding and found it unnecessary to pass on the Respondent’s First Amendment defense. Member Johnson found that the subpoenas were lawful, stating that they did not have an illegal objective, sought relevant information pertaining to the Respondent’s contention that the Union utilized Charge and Relief Charge Nurses in its organizing effort, had very clear and specific instructions that certain requests were applicable only to Charge Nurses, and the Respondent offered that responsive documents could be produced to the hearing officer for an in-camera inspection to address any Sec. 7 employee confidentiality interests potentially implicated by its requests.
The Board also adopted the judge’s finding that the Respondent made post-election changes to its tardiness and meeting attendance policies in violation of Section 8(a)(5), and that the resulting discipline given to employees violated Section 8(a)(3). In addition, the Board found that, after the election, the Respondent also ceased paying for certification classes, in violation of 8(a)(5). Finally, the Board adopted the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by discharging an employee for purportedly handling medical records in a manner that breached HIPAA. Member Johnson found the discharge unlawful based only on the fact that the Respondent’s discharge of the employee was inconsistent with its own investigation and recommendations, and therefore, it did not meet its burden in establishing that the employee would have been discharged absent his union activity.
Charges filed by United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Healthcare Professionals, NUHHCE, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol issued his decision on October 17, 2011. Members Hirozawa, Johnson, and McFerran participated.
***
Springfield Day Nursery a/k/a Square One (01-CA-062517, et al.; 362 NLRB No. 30) Springfield, MA, March 19, 2015.
The Board reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the Respondent's failure to classify substitute teachers and van drivers as unit employees constituted a unilateral change, on the basis that this theory of the violation was not alleged nor litigated. The Board also reversed the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s failure to provide contract benefits to substitute teachers constituted an unlawful contract modification, on the ground that the allegation is time-barred under Section 10(b). Dissenting, Chairman Pearce found that the allegation was not time-barred, and agreed with the judge that the violation was established. The Board adopted the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s failure to apply the parties' contract to substitute van drivers was an unlawful contract modification. The Board further adopted the judge’s finding that the Respondent made an unlawful unilateral change in vacation and sick leave policy. Dissenting, Member Johnson stated that he would dismiss this allegation because the General Counsel failed to meet his burden of proving that the change was material, substantial, and significant. Finally, the Board adopted the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated the Act by discharging an employee.
Charge filed by United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 2322. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on March 21, 2013. Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and McFerran participated.
***
CNN America, Inc. and Team Video Services, LLC (05-CA-031828 and 05-CA-033125; 362 NLRB No. 38) Washington, DC, March 20, 2015.
The Board denied Respondent CNN’s Motion for Reconsideration/Reopening of the Record regarding the Board’s September 15, 2014 Decision and Order in this case, reported at 361 NLRB No 47. The Board stated that under the Board’s Rules and Regulations, a motion for reconsideration must be justified by “extraordinary circumstances.” The Board found that CNN has provided no such justification and has failed to raise any substantial argument not previously considered by the Board. Specifically, a Board majority consisting of Chairman Pearce and Member Hirozawa reiterated their finding in the prior Board decision that there is ample evidence that CNN and Respondent Team Video Services (TVS) had a joint employer relationship at the time of the unfair labor practices involved in this case. With respect to CNN’s contention that the record should be reopened to consider alleged changed circumstances that have occurred since the close of the hearing in this case, the Board found that this contention is appropriately reserved for the compliance phase of this proceeding, where CNN will have the opportunity to show, based on evidence that was not available at the time of the hearing, that the remedies ordered by the Board in the underlying decision must be modified.
In addition, the Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion to correct inadvertent omissions of certain discriminatees from the Board’s Order, the misplacement of one of the discriminatees’ names in the Order, and the misspelling of some discriminatees’ names in the Board’s Order.
Member Miscimarra adhered to his view, set forth in his partial dissenting opinion in the underlying decision, that CNN was not a joint employer of TVS’ employees. Nevertheless, Member Miscimarra agreed with his colleagues that CNN’s motion does not identify extraordinary circumstances that warrant reconsideration or reopening the record, without prejudice to CNN’s arguments at the compliance stage that the majority’s remedies warrant modification. Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra and Hirozawa participated.
***
Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, Inc. d/b/a Fry’s Food Stores (28-CA-022836, et al.; 362 NLRB No. 36) Phoenix, AZ, March 20, 2015.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014), the Board considered de novo the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and the record. The Board affirmed the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions and adopted the judge’s recommended Order to the extent and for the reasons stated in the Board’s vacated Decision and Order reported at 358 NLRB No. 66, which was incorporated by reference. In that Decision, the Board adopted the judge’s dismissal of the complaint allegations that the Respondent Union violated the Act by failing to adequately inform union members of their window periods for revoking dues checkoff authorizations, and that the Respondent Employer violated the Act by continuing to remit dues to the Union pursuant to those authorizations. In adopting these dismissals, the Board noted that the Acting General Counsel did not contest the facial validity of the Union’s standard dues checkoff authorization agreement, and that there was no evidence that any of the Charging Parties attempted to revoke, or even inquired about revoking, their authorizations during any of the possible window periods. The Board therefore found it unnecessary to pass on the Union’s contention that the Board should give deference to its interpretation of the language of the authorization agreement.
Charges filed by individuals. Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol issued his decision on May 3, 2011. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Prospect Airport Services, Inc. (04-RC-085852) Philadelphia, PA, March 16, 2015. Order granting Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Regional Director’s Order Denying Motion for Intervention, and granting the appeal on the merits. The Board explained that ordinarily, when a labor organization seeks to intervene after the close of a representation hearing, the Board’s longstanding policy is to permit intervention if the labor organization did not have notice of the hearing and can establish that it had a representative interest in the petitioned-for employees as of the time of the hearing. In this case, Local 32BJ did not receive notice of the petition until nearly two and a half years after the hearing was held; although Local 32BJ proffered a substantial showing of interest, all of the cards were signed after the hearing. Despite its longstanding policy, the Board decided that the unique circumstances of this case—including the unusually long delay in scheduling the election occasioned by the Board’s referral of the matter to the National Mediation Board for an advisory opinion on whether the Employer is subject to the Railway Labor Act, as well as Local 32BJ’s substantial showing of interest—it would best effectuate the purposes of the Act to permit intervention. The Board also stated that denying intervention under these circumstances would not serve the purposes of expediting the investigation and certification process underlying the Board’s usual policy with respect to post-hearing intervention. Petitioner—United Construction Trades and Industrial Employees Union Local 621. Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and McFerran participated.
Petro Star, Inc. d/b/a North Pacific Fuel (19-RC-132630) Dutch Harbor/Unalaska, AK, March 17, 2015. No exceptions having been filed to the hearing officer’s disposition of the challenged ballot in an election held August 14, 2014, the Board adopted the hearing officer’s findings and recommendation, and remanded the case to the Regional Director for appropriate action consistent with the hearing officer’s report. Petitioner – Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific.
Virgo Medical Services, Inc. (04-RC-104485) Philadelphia, PA, March 18, 2015. No exceptions having been filed to the Administrative Law Judge’s overruling of the Employer’s objections to an election held July 16, 2013, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and recommendations and remanded the case to the Regional Director for appropriate action consistent with the judge’s decision. Petitioner – International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union, Local No. 115.
Centers for New Horizons, Inc. (13-RD-143907) Chicago, IL, March 19, 2015. Order denying the Employer’s Request for Review as not raising substantial issues regarding whether the Regional Director erred by finding a contract bar, as the Union proved that the parties had a signed agreement, based on email exchanges, containing substantial terms and conditions of employment sufficient to stabilize the parties’ bargaining relationship prior to the filing of the petition. Petitioner—an individual. Union—Service Employees International Union Healthcare Illinois/Indiana. Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and McFerran participated.
C Cases
United States Postal Service (07-CA-135950) Kalamazoo, MI, March 16, 2015. Decision and Order approving a formal settlement stipulation between the Respondent Employer, the Charging Party Union, and the General Counsel, and specifying the actions the Respondent must take to comply with the National Labor Relations Act. Charge filed by Southwest Michigan Area Local 143, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Members Hirozawa, Johnson, and McFerran participated; Member Johnson dissented in part.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (32-CA-090116, et al.) Richmond, CA, March 16, 2015. The Board denied the Respondent’s motion that the Board issue a notice and invite Amicus Curiae briefs and oral argument. The Board stated that, if deemed necessary, in accordance with its typical practice, the Board will issue such a notice after the case has been fully briefed by the parties. In addition, the Board stated that, at this time, it is also premature to determine whether oral argument is necessary until the evidence and briefs have been fully assessed.
Beach Lane Management, Inc. and FSM Management, Inc. and Carpe Diem Management, LLC, single Employers (02-CA-035720, et al.) Hartsdale, NY, March 16, 2015. The Board denied two of the Charging Parties’ request for review of the General Counsel’s decision affirming the Regional Director’s compliance determination. Charges filed by Local 32BJ, Service Employees International Union, and several individuals. Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, and Johnson participated.
UPMC and its subsidiary, UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, single employer, d/b/a UPMC Presbyterian Hospital and d/b/a UPMC Shadyside Hospital (06-CA-102465, et al.) Pittsburgh, PA, March 17, 2015. The Board denied the General Counsel’s motion to strike certain of Respondent UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside’s exceptions to the decision of Administrative Law Judge Mark Carissimi. The Board stated that, although the Respondent’s exceptions may not be in precise compliance with the literal requirements of Section 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the exceptions, together with the supporting brief, sufficiently designate the Respondent’s points of disagreement with the judge’s decision.
Falcon Trucking, LLC and Ragle, Inc. (25-CA-132518, et al.) Newburgh, IN, March 19, 2015. The Board denied the Employers’ joint petition to revoke the Region’s subpoenas duces tecum. The Board found that the subpoenas seek information relevant to the matter under investigation and describe with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, as required by Section 11(1) of the Act and Section 102.31(b) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. The Board relied in part on the Region’s representations in its opposition to the petition that 1) it was no longer seeking enforcement of certain subpoena paragraphs, 2) a particular subpoena paragraph only required the production documents kept in the Employers’ normal course of business, and (3) the Employers may redact bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and/or tax identification numbers from the subpoenaed documents. In addition, the Board stated that to the extent the subpoenas encompassed some documents that the Employers believe in good faith to be protected from disclosure, the Employers may submit a privilege log providing sufficient detail to permit an assessment by the Region of the Employers’ claims. Finally, the Board noted that to the extent the Employers had provided some of the subpoenaed material, they were not required to produce that information again provided that they described which documents they had already provided, stated whether those documents constitute all of the requested documents, and provided all of the information that was subpoenaed. Charges filed by Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local Union No. 215. Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra and Hirozawa participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Purple Communications, Inc. (21-CA-095151, 21-RC-091531, and 21-RC-091584; JD-14-15) Corona and Long Beach, CA. Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas issued his decision on March 16, 2015. Charge filed by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO.
Latino Express, Inc. (13-CA-122006; JD(SF)-09-15) Chicago, IL. Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham issued his decision on March 17, 2015. Charge filed by Teamsters Local Union No. 777, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO.
Aliante Gaming, LLC d/b/a Aliante Casino and Hotel (28-CA-126480; JD(NY-12-15) Las Vegas, NV. Administrative Law Judge Kenneth W. Chu issued his decision on March 17, 2015. Charge filed by Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 and Bartenders Union Local 165, affiliated with UNITE HERE.
Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culinary Workers Union, Local 226, and Bartenders Union, Local 165, affiliated with UNITE HERE (Host International, Inc.) (28-CB-128997 and 28-CB-129003; JD(NY)-11-15) Las Vegas, NV. Administrative Law Judge Joel P. Biblowitz issued his decision on March 17, 2015. Charges filed by individuals.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. (14-CA-106906, et al.; JD-16-15) Albuquerque, NM. Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued her decision on March 18, 2015. Charges filed by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and Communications Workers of America Local 7011, AFL-CIO.
Local 38, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its Territories and Canada (IATSE), AFL-CIO (Crown City Pictures, Inc.) (07-CB-128512; JD-15-15) Pontiac, MI. Administrative Law Judge Eric M. Fine issued his decision on March 18, 2015. Charge filed by an individual.
Valley Health System LLC d/b/a Spring Valley Hospital Medical Center and Centennial Hills Hospital Medical Center and Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center and Valley Hospital Medical Center and Summerlin Hospital Medical Center LLC d/b/a Summerlin Hospital Medical Center (28-CA-123611 and 28-CA-127147; JD(SF)-08-15) Las Vegas, NV. Administrative Law Judge Lisa D. Thompson issued her decision on March 18, 2015. Charges filed by individuals.
Cooling for Less, Inc. (28-CA-105006; JD(SF)-10-15) Phoenix, AZ. Administrative Law Judge Lisa D. Thompson issued her decision on March 19, 2015. Charge filed by an individual.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.