Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of May 28 - 31, 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
Freedom Electrical Construction LLC (03-CA-323884; 373 NLRB No. 61) Newfane, NY, May 31, 2024.
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)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union.
Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 237. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
***
Thrifty Payless, Inc. d/b/a Rite Aid (20-CA-255252; 373 NLRB No. 65) Roseville, CA, May 31, 2024.
On remand from the D.C. Circuit Court,- the Board accepted, as the law of the case, the Court's holding that the Respondent should be given an opportunity to show that its liability for unpaid contributions to the employees' health and welfare fund should be reduced because the fund has paid no claims for employees since the Respondent unlawfully implemented its own healthcare plan without bargaining to a valid impasse in negotiations for a successor collective-bargaining agreement with the Union representing the employees. The Board therefore remanded the case to the Administrative Law Judge for further analysis consistent with the court’s opinion, including reopening the record, if necessary, and the issuance of a supplemental decision.
Charge filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 8-Golden State. Administrative Law Judge Dickie Montemayor issued his decision on December 9, 2021. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
University of San Diego (21-RC-339512) San Diego, CA, May 31, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Rescheduling Mail Ballot Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board also denied the Employer’s request for extraordinary relief (a stay of the election) as moot. Petitioner—Service Employees International Union, Local 271. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
C Cases
No Unpublished C Cases Issued.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Absolute Healthcare d/b/a Curaleaf, Board Case No. 28-CA-267540 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 16) (D.C. Cir. May 31, 2024).
In a published opinion, the D.C. Circuit enforced, in part, the Board’s order that issued against this operator of a cannabis dispensary in Gilbert, Arizona, for unfair labor practices committed during a 2020 campaign among its employees who were seeking representation by United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 99. In doing so, the Court enforced those portions of the Board’s order remedying numerous uncontested violations, but granted the Employer’s petition for review and held that the Board’s finding that the lead organizer had been unlawfully discharged was not supported by substantial evidence.
The Board (Members Wilcox and Prouty; Member Ring ,dissenting in part) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by promising benefits, including higher employee discounts, to discourage employees from supporting the Union, by creating an impression of surveillance, and by threatening employees with the loss of tips if they were to select the Union as their bargaining representative. Further, the Board found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging the lead organizer for exercising her Section 7 right to support the Union. Among other remedies, the Board ordered a notice reading and a requirement that the Union be granted equal time and reasonable access to respond to any presentation made by the Employer to the employees regarding union representation.
On review, the Court held that the Board’s unlawful-discharge finding was not supported by substantial evidence. The Court declined to pass on the Board’s holding that the General Counsel had established the existence of an unlawful motive under Wright Line, because the Court concluded that the Employer had established its affirmative defense. The Court explained that the record lacked evidence of disparate treatment, and that in undertaking the discharge, the Employer “adhered to its neutral discipline policy and so would have fired [the organizer] regardless of her union activity.” Because the Board’s imposition of the notice-reading and access requirements was based largely on the discharge of the lead organizer, the Court denied enforcement of those remedial provisions of the Board’s order, but summarily enforced with regard to the uncontested Section 8(a)(1) findings of unlawful coercion.
The Court’s opinion may be found here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Healthbridge Management, LLC, Care Realty, LLC; Care One, LLC; 107 Osborne Street Operating Company II, LLC, d/b/a Danbury Health Care Center; 710 Long Ridge Road Operating Company II, LLC, d/b/a Long Ridge of Stamford; 240 Church Street Operating Company II, LLC, d/b/a Newington Health Care Center; 1 Burr Road Operating Company II, LLC, d/b/a Westport Health Care Center; 245 Orange Avenue Operating Company II, LLC, d/b/a West River Health Care Center; 341 Jordan Lane Operating Company II, LLC, d/b/a Wethersfield Health Care Center (34-CA-070823, et al.; JD(NY)-10-24) Boston, MA. Administrative Law Judge Kenneth W. Chu issued his decision on May 29, 2024. Charges filed by New England Health Care Employee Union, District 1199, SEIU, AFL-CIO.
Link Transportation Corp. and Olivier Inc., joint employers (16-CA-289847; JD(SF)-16-24) Dallas, TX. Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind issued his decision on May 30, 2024. Charge filed by Amalgamated Transit Union Local No. 1338.
Starbucks Corporation (31-CA-296700; JD(NY)-13-24) Paso Robles, CA. Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey P. Gardner issued his decision on May 31, 2024. Charge filed by Workers United, a/w SEIU.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.