Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of November 18 - 22, 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
MSHN Enterprises and Euphoria Sephtis (15-CA-313769; 373 NLRB No. 137) Memphis, TN, November 19, 2024.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s noncompliance with the provisions of the parties’ bilateral informal settlement agreement. The Board rejected the Respondent’s claims that it had substantially complied and that its remaining noncompliance should be excused. The case alleges Section 8(a)(1) violations. The remedy orders the Respondent to comply with the unmet terms of the settlement agreement.
Charge filed by an individual. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
ILWU Unit 223 (19-CA-217681, et al.; 373 NLRB No. 133) Dutch Harbor, AK, November 20, 2024.
The Board (Members Prouty and Wilcox; Member Kaplan, dissenting) adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent-Employers (Matson Navigation Co. of Alaska and American Presidential Lines) violated Section 8(a)(1) by unlawfully initiating grievances against an employee and Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by suspending, terminating and deregistering him for engaging in the protected conduct of filing complaints about harassing supervisory conduct and truck safety issues. The same Board also adopted the judge’s finding that the Respondent-Employers violated Section 8(a)(1) when Matson shop foreman filed a counterclaim against the employee with the Joint Port Labor Relations Committee (“JPLRC”).
Additionally, the Board, without dissent, adopted the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent ILWU violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) by: (1) threatening the employee with discharge if he became a Beck objector, and (2) calling the employee a “rat” for making harassment complaints; (3) filing a retaliatory grievance against him, and (4) causing the Employers, through the JPLRC, to suspend him because he engaged in protected concerted activity. The Board further adopted the judge’s conclusion that Respondent-Employer APL violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by issuing another employee a disciplinary action and later suspending him, as a result of his protected conduct of recording his coworkers’ conversations in order to support the disciplinary appeal of his coworker, as well as his own grievances. The Board, without dissent, found that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) by issuing disciplinary action against that employee for engaging in the protected conduct of recording his coworkers in order to support his JPLRC grievance, by initiating the “port harmony” disciplinary grievance against him, and by failing to adequately represent him before the JPLRC, resulting in disciplinary suspension.
The Board, without dissent, reversed the judge with respect to her dismissal of certain allegations against the Union. The Board found that the Respondent-Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) by causing the Respondent-Employers, through the JPLRC, to terminate and deregister an employee because he engaged in protected concerted activity. The Board (Members Kaplan and Wilcox; Member Prouty, dissenting) reversed the judge’s finding that the Respondent-Union’s liability should be limited to the time period preceding when the membership voted to send the issue to arbitration, finding instead that the Respondent-Union’s liability was not limited.
Charges filed by individuals. Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone issued her decision on September 29, 2022. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Lycée Français de la Nouvelle-Orléans (15-RC-333858) New Orleans, LA, November 18, 2024. The Board remanded the case to the Regional Director to resolve the question of statutory jurisdiction in the first instance, without otherwise ruling on the Employer’s Request for Review. Petitioner—United Teachers of New Orleans, Local 527, LFT, AFT, AFL-CIO. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
Starbucks Corporation (10-RD-339520) Knoxville, TN, November 18, 2024. The Board denied the Employer's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order Dismissing Petition as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Union—Workers United Southern Regional Joint Board. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire, d/b/a Eversource Energy (01-RC-318931) Manchester, NH, November 19, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Member Kaplan would have granted review on the limited question of whether the Employer’s SOC leads have the authority to assign operators and/or field personnel to times, places, or significant overall duties, and whether they use independent judgment when doing so. Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1837. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire, d/b/a Eversource Energy (01-RC-314865) Manchester, NH, November 19, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Member Kaplan would have granted review on the limited question of whether the Employer’s shift supervisors have the authority to assign operators and/or field personnel to times, places, or significant overall duties, and whether they use independent judgment when doing so. Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1837. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
Walgreens Company (19-RC-348046) Vancouver, WA, November 20, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Employer’s Motion to Reconsider Order Approving Stipulation to Set Aside Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board also denied the Employer’s request for extraordinary relief as moot. Petitioner—The Pharmacy Guild, a/w International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
Starbucks Corporation (06-RD-340875) McMurray, PA, November 21, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board found that the Regional Director correctly engaged in a merit-determination dismissal pursuant to the Board’s decision in Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc., 371 NLRB No. 109 (2022). Member Kaplan, dissenting, would have granted review, reversed the Regional Director, and ordered an election. Petitioner—an individual. Union—Workers United a/w SEIU. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
Accenture, d/b/a Accenture Flex; Google LLC/Alphabet, Inc. (as Joint Employers) (20-RC-319743) San Francisco, CA, November 22, 2024. The Board denied Google and Accenture’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. In denying review of the Regional Director’s finding that Google is a joint employer of the petitioned-for employees, the Board agreed with the Regional Director that, under Section 103.40 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Petitioner had shown that Google possesses and exercises direct and immediate control over employees’ benefits, hours of work, supervision, and direction. In denying review of the Regional Director’s direction of an immediate election, the Board observed that Google’s Request for Review had conflated two discrete lines of Board precedent and agreed with the Regional Director that “cessation of operations” cases were inapplicable here, and that under contracting unit precedent the predicted eventual employee complement would be substantial and representative of the employee complement at the time of the election. The Board further stated that to the extent it was necessary to inquire into whether the reduction in unit size represented a “fundamental change” in the nature of operations, the Board agreed with the Regional Director that there was no fundamental change here. Dissenting, Member Kaplan would have granted review because the Requests for Review raised substantial questions warranting review, in particular serious questions about whether Google exercised substantial direct and immediate control over employees’ benefits, hours of work, supervision, and direction within the meaning of Section 103.40. Petitioner—Alphabet Workers Union-Communications Workers of America, Local 9009. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
Servicios Legales de Puerto Rico, Inc. (12-CA-301971, et al.) San Juan, PR, November 20, 2024. The Board granted the Respondent’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s order denying its petition to revoke a subpoena duces tecum. On the merits, the Board denied the appeal, finding that the Respondent failed to establish that the judge abused her discretion in ruling that the subpoena limited the requested information to a reasonable time frame. The Board’s denial was without prejudice to the Respondent’s renewing its objections before the Board on any exceptions that may be filed to the judge’s decision. Charges filed by Union de Abogados y Abogadas de Servicios Legales and Union Independiente de Trabajadores de Servicios Legales. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
PG Publishing Co., Inc., d/b/a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (06-CA-263780 and 06-CA-302624; JD-71-24) Pittsburgh, PA. Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision on November 19, 2024. Charges filed by Pittsburgh Mailers Union No. M-22, a/w Media Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 14842.
JSK Parsippany, LLC, d/b/a Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott and Fairfield Parsippany, LLC, d/b/a Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott as its Successor (22-CA-305280, et al.; JD-72-24) Parsippany, NJ. Administrative Law Judge Susannah Merritt issued her decision on November 19, 2024. Charges filed by Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, AFL-CIO and an individual. Errata issued November 22, 2024. Errata Amended Decision.
Executive Press, Inc. (16-CA-316647; JD(SF)-34-24) Richardson, TX. Administrative Law Judge Sharon Levinson Steckler issued her decision on November 20, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
Trinity Health Corporation (THC) and Trinity Health Michigan, d/b/a Trinity Health Ann Arbor Hospital (THAA), a subsidiary of Trinity Health Corporation (THC) (07-CA-294351; JD-74-24) Ann Arbor, MI. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on November 20, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
River City Asphalt, Inc. (18-CA-280068; JD-73-24) Shakopee, MN. Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl issued his decision on November 20, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
ExxonMobil Corporation, Beaumont Refinery (16-CA-276089, et al.; JD(SF)-35-24) Beaumont, TX. Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind issued his decision on November 21, 2024. Charges filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.