Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 25 - 29, 2019
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
No Published Decisions Issued
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
LKQ Lakenor Auto & Truck Salvage, Inc. (31-RC-214528) Adelanto, CA, March 29, 2019. The Board (Chairman Ring and Member Emanuel; Member McFerran, dissenting) denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Supplemental Decision to Overrule and Count Challenged Ballots as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Emanuel participated.
C Cases
Midwest Terminals of Toledo International, Inc. (08-CA-224202) Toledo, OH, March 25, 2019. The Board denied the Employer’s Petition to Revoke investigative subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum, as the subpoenas sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and the Employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoenas. Charge filed by an individual. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Kaplan participated.
Gibbs Contracting, Inc. (05-CA-107444 and 05-CA-112497) Washington, DC, March 25, 2019. In this backpay compliance proceeding, the Board approved a formal settlement stipulation between the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel, and specified actions the Respondent must take to comply with the Act. The complaint had alleged violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). Charges filed by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 99. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Kaplan participated.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 512 (12-CB-214255) Jacksonville, FL, March 27, 2019. The Board denied UPS Ground Freight’s Petition to Revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum, as the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and UPS Ground Freight failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charge filed by an individual. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Emanuel participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
County Concrete Corporation, Board Case No. 22-CA-171328 (reported at 366 NLRB No. 64) (3d Cir. decided March 28, 2019)
In an unpublished opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order issued against this operator of a ready-mix concrete sales and transportation business with multiple facilities in New Jersey, where the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 863 is the bargaining representative of 146 drivers, mechanics, laborers, and heavy equipment operators. In doing so, the Court upheld the findings of the Board (Members Pearce, Kaplan, and Emanuel) that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by modifying the effective date of the dues-checkoff clauses contained in its five collective-bargaining agreements with the Union, and by failing and refusing to collect authorized dues and remit them to the Union in January and February 2016.
In 2009, the Employer voluntarily recognized the Union. The parties began contract negotiations and agreed, among other things, that they would have five separate agreements to reflect the differences in work performed at the facilities. In Fall 2015, after six years of extensive negotiations, the Employer provided the Union with a set of final proposals, which the Union membership ratified. Thereafter, the parties agreed that the five agreements would be effective November 8, 2015, with dues checkoff beginning January 1, 2016. The Employer’s counsel then drafted the agreements, all five of which stated that they were effective November 8, 2015, with checkoff clauses effective January 1, 2016. In a number of communications over the next two months, the parties referenced those same effective dates. In mid-January, the Union executed the agreements and returned them to the Employer and, a few days later, provided over 100 signed dues authorization cards with more to follow. By mid-February 2016, despite giving the Union assurances, the Employer had not remitted any dues, nor had it provided signed copies of the agreements. Then, on March 4, the Employer mailed the Union the executed agreements which, in each of the dues-checkoff clauses, the effective date of “January 1, 2016,” had been crossed out by hand, and replaced with “March 1, 2016.”
On review, and without hearing oral argument, the Court upheld the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings because they were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with precedent. Specifically, the Court agreed with the Board that the parties had a meeting of the minds that January 1, 2016, was the effective date for dues-checkoff, and given that there was no dispute that the Employer had modified that date without the Union’s consent, or that the Employer had failed to collect and remit dues consistent with that agreement, its actions were unlawful. In rejecting the Employer’s contentions, the Court held that “the lack of a signature was not fatal” to the parties’ agreed-upon date, that the agreements’ union-security clauses had no bearing on dues checkoff, that there was no evidence of Union coercion in the collection of check-off authorizations, and that the Union’s failure to provide employees with notices of their financial-core rights did not excuse the Employer’s failure to deduct and remit dues. In comments, the Court “caution[ed] employers against seeking to vindicate their employees’ [rights to financial-core notices] unilaterally,” given that “[t]he beneficiary of these notices is the employee, not the employer.” Having found that the Employer presented no viable basis for the Court to excuse its unfair-labor-practice liability, the Court enforced the Board’s order in full.
The Court’s unpublished opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (19-CA-221172; JD(SF)-10-19) Richland, WA. Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on March 25, 2019. Charge filed by Waste Treatment Plant Security Guards Union 161.
Alcoa Corporation (25-CA-219925; JD-32-19) Newburgh, IN. Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas issued his decision on March 27, 2019. Charge filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Local 104.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.