Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of May 8 - 12, 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
Ascension Borgess Hospital (07-CA-273489; 372 NLRB No. 86) Kalamazoo, MI, May 9, 2023.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to identify to the Union the Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) techniques referenced by the Respondent in its notice of discharge of a registered nurse; and failing to provide a copy of the Director of Connective Services’ interpretation of the CPI techniques used by the RN, as recorded in the notes taken respectively by an associate relations employee and a management attorney. The Board agreed with the judge that the Union demonstrated the relevance of the requested information but found in addition that the requested material was presumptively relevant to the Union’s representational duties. As to the Respondent’s claim that the notes on the interpretation of the CPI techniques were confidential under Michigan state law protecting from disclosure a health care facility’s self-review documentation, the Board found that the Union’s interest in acquiring the notes clearly outweighed the Respondent’s interest in keeping those documents confidential. Even assuming the Union’s interest did not outweigh the Respondent’s confidentiality interest, the Board agreed with the judge that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to offer an accommodation to the Union regarding the requested information. The Board also found that the written notes were not protected from disclosure under the work product doctrine, but that mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories prepared in anticipation of litigation, beyond the interpretation, could be redacted.
Charge filed by Michigan Nurses Association. Administrative Law Judge Melissa M. Olivero issued her decision on December 3, 2021. Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty participated.
***
River City Asphalt, Inc. (18-CA-280068 and 18-CA-283815; 372 NLRB No. 87) Shakopee, MN, May 11, 2023.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by: (1) imposing more onerous and rigorous terms and conditions of employment on an employee who was also the employee steward, by removing him from his regular truck and reassigning him to a less desirable truck because of the alleged condition of his truck; (2) disciplining the employee because of the alleged condition of his truck and for allegedly improperly maintaining his truck; and (3) disciplining six drivers for allegedly improperly maintaining their trucks. The Board also adopted the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening an employee with termination because he filed grievances. The Board reversed the judge and found that the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating drivers about their support for a grievance filed by the employee.
Charges filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued this decision on July 21, 2022. Members Kaplan, Wilcox, and Prouty participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Mission Point Nursing Home of Ishpeming (18-RC-306683) Ishpeming, MI, May 10, 2023. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision Overruling Objection and Issuance of Certification of Results of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—SEIU Healthcare Michigan. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
Starbucks Corporation (08-CA-290673, et al.) Cleveland, OH, May 11, 2023. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss specified paragraphs of the first amended consolidated complaint. The Respondent had not demonstrated that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Board also denied the Respondent’s request, in the alternative, to sever and hold those paragraphs in abeyance. Charges filed by Chicago and Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/SEIU. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
Starbucks Corporation (03-CA-295470, et al.) Ithaca, NY, May 11, 2023. The Board denied the Respondent’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling precluding the Respondent from introducing documents into evidence over the General Counsel’s objections because they had not been provided to the General Counsel in an accessible format. The Board noted that any potential prejudice was cured by the judge’s subsequent reversal, in which he ruled that the Respondent would not be precluded from offering documents into evidence and would be permitted to recall witnesses if warranted. The Board further noted that the hearing has concluded and the record has closed. The denial was without prejudice to the Respondent’s right to renew its objection before the Board on exceptions, if appropriate. Charges filed by Workers United. Members Kaplan, Wilcox, and Prouty participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Starbucks Corporation (03-CA-304675; JD-33-23) Buffalo, NY. Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl issued his decision on May 12, 2023. Charge filed by Workers United.
Starbucks Corporation (31-CA-299257; JD(SF)-13-23) Los Angeles, CA. Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on May 12, 2023. Charge filed by Workers United.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.