Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of May 20 - 24, 2024
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
Northeastern University (01-CA-329551; 373 NLRB No. 62) Boston, MA, May 21, 2024.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground 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.
Charge filed by American Coalition of Public Safety. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Garten Trucking LC (10-CA-304929; 373 NLRB No. 64) Covington, VA, May 24, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling employees that they would have already received raises if not for their union activities.
Charge filed by Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers. Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter issued the decision on December 7, 2023. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Renal Treatment Centers – California, Inc., d/b/a Davita Elk Grove Dialysis Center (20-RC-337152, et al.) Elk Grove, CA, May 20, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Motion to Stay Further Proceedings, Including Any Directed Elections, and Impound Ballots for the In-Progress Mail Ballot Elections. Petitioner—Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers – West. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
Stephens Media Group – Massena, LLC (03-RD-288556) Massena, NY, May 24, 2024. The Board (Members Prouty and Wilcox; Member Kaplan, dissenting) denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Order Dismissing Petition as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Acting Regional Director found that dismissal of the Petitioner’s decertification was warranted based on the Employer’s unfair labor practices. Dissenting, Member Kaplan would have granted review and remanded for further proceedings. Petitioner—an individual. Union—NABET CWA Local 510 Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
No Unpublished C Cases Issued.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Thryv, Inc., Board Case No. 20-CA-250250 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 22) (5th Cir. decided May 24, 2024).
In a published opinion, the Court granted the petition for review filed by Thryv, a marketing agency that sells print and electronic advertising, while the Court also enforced, in part, the Board’s order that sought to remedy unfair labor practices committed at several of Thryv’s Northern California locations where a unit of its employees are represented by Local 1269, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. In doing so, the Court did not reach Thryv’s challenge to the Board’s ordering of make-whole relief to compensate affected employees for any direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms.
The case arose in 2019, with the principal allegation that Thryv violated its statutory duty to bargain by unilaterally laying off an entire job classification of unit employees. The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan, Ring, Wilcox, and Prouty) found that Thryv violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally implementing the layoffs, and by failing to provide information that the Union requested concerning the layoffs and negotiations. Further, the Board (Members Kaplan and Ring, dissenting in part) determined that a make-whole remedy requiring Thryv to compensate the affected employees for any direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms resulting from the unlawful layoffs was warranted, and that such make-whole relief should be a standard remedy in Board orders going forward.
On review, the Court disagreed with the Board and held that the layoffs were not unlawful. The Court recognized the settled principle that generally an employer has a statutory duty to bargain with a union before altering mandatory terms (such as the layoffs). However, in the Court’s view, the impasse declared by Thryv one year earlier privileged Thryv’s imposition of a management-rights clause giving it discretion to lay off employees if certain requirements were met. Finding those requirements met, the Court held that nothing more was needed and that the layoffs were therefore not unlawful. In doing so, the Court rejected the Board’s conclusion that the parties reopened negotiations preclude Thryv from relying on the previously declared impasse, and the argument that Thryv could not rely on a unilaterally implemented management-rights clause. The Court also rejected the arguments that Thryv had failed to show that it lawfully declared impasse, and that Thryv had failed to raise the management-rights clause to the Board in a timely manner.
On the information requests, the Court held that the Board’s findings were “reasonable and supported by substantial evidence,” and thus it enforced that portion of the Board’s order requiring Thryv to cease and desist from failing and refusing to furnish the Union with such requested information. However, the Court did not enforce the corresponding paragraph ordering affirmative relief, stating that “it makes little sense to require Thryv to furnish the Union with years-old information that relates mostly to employees who may never work for Thryv again.” Accordingly, the Court had no occasion to reach Thryv’s challenge to the make-whole remedy, and enforced in part.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Starbucks Corporation (07-CA-302784 and 07-CA-311198; JD-31-24) Ann Arbor, MI. Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas issued his decision on May 21, 2024. Charges filed by Workers United.
United States Postal Service (07-CA-299320, et al.; JD-32-24) Colon, MI. Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision on May 23, 2024. Charges filed by Local 143, American Postal Workers Union (APWU), AFL-CIO, an individual, and Local 281, American Postal Workers Union (APWU), AFL-CIO.
Grow Op Farms, LLC (19-CA-309512, et al.; JD(SF)-15-24) Spokane Valley, WA. Administrative Law Judge Dickie Montemayor issued his decision on May 24, 2024. Charges filed by United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 3000, a/w United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.