Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of October 19 - 23, 2020
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
Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 100, a/w the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Beta Productions LLC) (09-CB-232458; 370 NLRB No. 36) Cincinnati, OH, October 21, 2020.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by maintaining hiring hall rules granting priority to drivers based on experience performing “Teamster work” or experience in the “Teamsters Movie Industry.” The Board reversed the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent’s decision to place retirees in the lowest priority group for referral to film work was unlawful under the Wright Line analytical framework, because the Board found insufficient evidence of unlawful motivation.
Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on October 24, 2019. Chairman Ring and Members Kaplan and Emanuel participated.
***
American Postal Workers Union, Local 299 (16-CB-256363; 370 NLRB No. 37) Austin, TX, October 21, 2020.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file a timely or appropriate answer to the complaint. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by refusing to provide unit employees with information about grievances filed on their behalf and refusing to provide them with copies, or access to copies, of grievance records.
Charge filed by an individual. Members Kaplan, Emanuel, and McFerran participated.
***
CW Building Maintenance (20-CA-259459; 370 NLRB No. 38) San Francisco, CA, October 22, 2020.
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, inter alia, failing and refusing to bargain with the Union, unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment of its unit employees, failing to pay employees in accordance with the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement, and failing to remit employees’ union dues to the Union in the time frames set forth in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement.
Charge filed by Service Employees International Union, SEIU Local 87. Members Kaplan, Emanuel, and McFerran participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
No Unpublished R Cases Issued.
C Cases
Colorado Symphony Association ( 27-CA-140724, et al.) Denver, CO, October 19, 2020. The Board denied the Employer’s Petition to Revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum, as the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and the Employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charges filed by American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO/CLC. Members Kaplan, Emanuel, and McFerran participated.
United States Postal Service (12-CA-244762, et al.) Marathon, FL, October 20, 2020. The Board approved a formal settlement stipulation between the Respondent, the Charging Parties, and the General Counsel, and specified actions that the Respondent must take to comply with the Act. Charges filed by National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 818, AFL-CIO; National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 1071, AFL-CIO; American Postal Workers Union, Local 172, AFL-CIO; and American Postal Workers Union, Local 1201, AFL-CIO. Chairman Ring and Members Emanuel and McFerran participated.
AT&T Mobility Services, LLC ( 25-CA-249079) Rantoul, IL, October 21, 2020. No exceptions having been filed to the August 25, 2020 decision of Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin’s finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions, and ordered the Respondent to take the action set forth in the judge’s recommended Order. Charge filed by Communications Workers of America, Local 4202, a/w Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Davidson Hotel Company, LLC (Chicago Marriott at Medical District/UIC), Board Case No. 13-CA-229523 (reported at 368 NLRB No. 110) (D.C. Cir. decided October 23, 2020).
In a published opinion in this test-of-certification case, the Court granted the petition for review filed by this operator of its 113-room hotel in Chicago, after two units of its employees—a unit of housekeeping employees, and a unit of food and beverage employees—voted in May 2018 to be represented by UNITE HERE Local 1. The Court remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings, after holding that the Board had not addressed on-point cases raised by the hotel, and that the Regional Director had not explained distinctions from his rulings at an earlier stage of the case.
In early 2018, the Union petitioned to represent a single unit of all housekeeping and food and beverage employees, but did not seek to represent the hotel’s front-desk employees. After a pre-election hearing, the Regional Director found the petitioned-for unit was inappropriate without the inclusion of the front desk employees, whose interests, the Regional Director held, were not sufficiently distinct from the interest of employees in the petitioned-for unit. At the same time, the Regional Director stated that separate units of only housekeeping employees or only food and beverage employees would be appropriate.
The Union then petitioned to represent two separate units of housekeeping employees and food and beverage employees, and the hotel argued that the only appropriate unit was a single unit that included the front-desk employees. A consolidated pre-election hearing was held, at which the parties agreed to incorporate the record from the first hearing. Applying PCC Structurals, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 160 (2017), the Regional Director found that the petitioned-for units each shared interests sufficient to constitute separate, appropriate units, and that their interests were sufficiently distinct from the interests of the excluded front-desk employees. After elections were held, which the Union won, the Regional Director certified the Union as the representative of the two units. The hotel filed election objections, which the Regional Director overruled, and then filed a Request for Review, which was denied by the Board (Members McFerran and Kaplan; Member Emanuel, dissenting in part). The hotel refused to bargain in order to seek court review.
The Court held that the Board’s decision could not stand because, in its view, neither the Board nor the Regional Director had distinguished contrary Board precedents relied on by the hotel, and the Regional Director had not distinguished contrary rulings made in his first decision. Citing LeMoyne-Owen College v. NLRB, 357 F.3d 55 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the Court stated that when “a party makes a significant showing that analogous cases have been decided differently,” the Board must explain its departure, and that “the need for an explanation is particularly acute when an agency is applying a multi-factor test through case-by-case adjudication.” Here, the Court stated, the hotel cited several cases in which the Board rejected separate units for hotel employees on the same community-of-interest factors, but the Board failed to distinguish them. Further, the Court stated that the Regional Director’s first unit decision was “sufficiently analogous that it should have been distinguished,” and that an explanation should have been provided for “why the same factors that counseled against excluding the front desk in the first decision did not govern the second petitions as well.”
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.