Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of November 28 - December 2, 2022
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
Akima Global Services, Inc. (28-RC-285574; 372 NLRB No. 14) Florence, AZ, November 29, 2022.
The Board denied the Petitioner’s request that the Board rescind the Regional Director’s Order scheduling a hearing regarding certain objections to an election as moot, based on the Regional Director’s subsequent orders postponing the hearing indefinitely and then consolidating the instant representation case with the unfair labor practice charge for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The Request for Review was otherwise denied as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. In concurring, Member Ring expressed concern regarding the delays involved in processing the related unfair labor practice and representation cases.
Petitioner—United Government Security Officers of America, International Union and its Local 823. Intervenor—International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) and its Local No. 380. Chairman McFerran and Members Ring and Prouty participated.
***
MV Transportation, Inc. (19-CA-279935; 372 NLRB No. 11) Redmond, WA, November 29, 2022.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to provide the Union with financial information from the Respondent shuttle service’s contract with Microsoft. The Board unanimously adopted the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent made the Microsoft contract financial information relevant to bargaining. A Board majority (Chairman McFerran and Member Wilcox) adopted the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent failed to bargain a reasonable accommodation for providing the requested financial information and adopted the judge’s recommended remedy requiring the Respondent to provide that information upon the Union’s execution of its offered confidentiality agreement. Dissenting in part, Member Ring would have ordered the Respondent to provide only the limited portion of information that shows the amount Microsoft was providing to the Respondent for wage increases for unit employees.
Charge filed by Communication Workers of America Local 7800. Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham issued his decision on May 24, 2022. Chairman McFerran and Members Ring and Wilcox participated.
***
Siren Retail Corporation d/b/a Starbucks (19-CA-299478; 372 NLRB No. 10) Seattle, WA, November 30, 2022.
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 severed for further consideration the issue of whether the Board should adopt a compensatory, make whole remedy for the Respondent’s failure to bargain.
Charge filed by Workers United a/w Service Employees International Union. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
***
Oakrheem, Inc., d/b/a Hayward Convalescent Hospital (32-CA-294577; 372 NLRB No. 7) Hayward, CA, December 2, 2022.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the grounds 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 severed for further consideration the issue of whether the Board should adopt a compensatory, make whole remedy for the Respondent’s refusal to bargain.
Charge filed by Service Employees International Union, Local 2015. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (03-RC-299607) Schenectady, NY, November 30, 2022. 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, and denied the Employer’s request for extraordinary relief as moot. Petitioner—Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
C Cases
Haynes Security Services, Inc. (12-CA-296934) Miami, FL, December 2, 2022 The Board denied the Petition to Revoke the investigative subpoena duces tecum filed by Universal Protection Service, LLC d/b/a Allied Universal Security Service, finding that the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought. The Board also found that Allied Universal Security Service failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charge filed by Service Employees International Union, Local 32B-J. Chairman McFerran, and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
ADT, LLC, Board Case No. 18-CA-264654 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 67) (7th Cir. decided December 2, 2022).
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order against this security-system business for unfair labor practices it committed in 2019 after closing offices in Rockford, Illinois, and Madison, Wisconsin, and relocating both operations to a new office in Janesville, Wisconsin. The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Ring) found that ADT violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing recognition from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 364, which represented the Rockford employees, unilaterally changing their terms and conditions of employment, and threatening and interrogating an employee regarding his union support. Among other remedies, the Board’s order imposed a broad cease-and-desist order and a notice-reading requirement.
Since 1994, the employees at the Rockford office had been represented by the Union, while the Madison employees were not unionized. Several months after the office consolidation, and despite assurances to the Rockford employees that nothing would change, ADT stated that it would withdraw recognition from the Union as their representative. As support, ADT stated that it had received a decertification petition signed by a majority of employees. However, none of the former Rockford employees had signed the petition. After withdrawing recognition, ADT unilaterally changed numerous terms and conditions of the former Rockford employees, and put in place a new performance-based bonus system. On two occasions, the supervisor over all installers at the Janesville office told a union supporter that “if you guys go back to the Union,” then the “bonus program will go away.” He emphasized that ADT “is very firm on this,” and would “not do both.”
In a comprehensive opinion, the Court upheld the Board’s findings as supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law. In an overarching comment, the Court expressed its view that the case presented a “disappointing and transparent attempt by an employer to avoid its obligations under the National Labor Relations Act,” in that it had “combined a unionized office with a non-union office and tried unilaterally to withdraw recognition of the union based on a supposed decertification petition not signed by a single member of the bargaining unit.”
Rejecting ADT’s challenges to the broad cease-and-desist order and the notice-reading requirement, the Court agreed with the Board that those remedies were warranted on the basis of ADT’s “proclivity to violate the Act,” and its “evident disdain for employees’ rights.” The Court further agreed that ADT’s status as a recidivist contributed to the need for those remedies, explaining that ADT has been found to have committed unfair labor practices “in no fewer than seven cases since 2015.” Further, the Court stated that the Board “sensibly accounts for the variety of the violations committed” when assessing whether an employer has exhibited a proclivity to violate the Act. The Court rejected ADT’s claims that other cases should not be considered because they either dealt with unrelated matters or did not involve the Rockford unit. As the Court explained: “We are not aware of any corner of our law where treating a wrongdoer as a recidivist depends upon repetition of the same prohibited act. . . . The same is true under the National Labor Relations Act.”
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
No Administrative Law Judge Decisions Issued.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.