Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of October 20 - 24, 2014
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 Public Affairs at Publicinfo@nlrb.gov or 202-273-1991.
Summarized Board Decisions
G&L Associated, Inc. d/b/a USA Fire Protection (10-CA-038074; 361 NLRB No. 58) Clinton, TN, October 20, 2014.
In view of the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014), the Board considered de novo the Administrative Law Judge's decision and the record and the Union's motion for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's rulings, findings, and recommended Order to the extent and for the reasons stated in the vacated Decision and Order reported at 358 NLRB No. 162 (2012) and the Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration reported at 359 NLRB No. 59 (2013). In those cases, the Board found that the parties' relationship was governed by Section 8(f) of the Act under the test of Staunton Fuel & Material, Inc., 335 NLRB 717 (2001), and that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing recognition from the Union and failing and refusing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of unit employees during the term of the agreement. Charges filed by Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Marcionese issued his decision on June 21, 2010. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and Schiffer participated.
***
Gibbs Contracting, Inc. (05-CA-107444 and 112497; 361 NLRB No. 68) Washington, DC, October 20, 2014.
The Board granted the General Counsel's motion for default judgment based on the Respondents' failure to file a timely answer to the consolidated complaint. The Board found that the Respondent, a successor employer, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit and by unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment for the unit employees. The Board also found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling employees that the Respondent was not a union shop and there was no union there.
The Board found that the Respondent had not established good cause for its failure to file a timely answer to the consolidated complaint. The Board noted that the Respondent's response to the Notice to Show Cause did not address the Respondent's failure to file a timely answer, other than to imply that it was not represented by counsel prior to November 12, 2013. The Board stated that although the Board has shown some leniency toward respondents who proceed without the benefit of counsel, the Board has consistently held that pro se status alone does not establish a good cause explanation for failing to file a timely answer. See, e.g., Patrician Assisted Living Facility, 339 NLRB 1153, 1153 (2003); Sage Professional Painting Co., 338 NLRB 1068, 1068 (2003). ). The Board noted that here, the Respondent did not dispute that it failed to respond to complaint allegations until after the Notice to Show Cause issued, despite the General Counsel's numerous reminders. Nor did the Respondent provide a good cause explanation for its failure to file a timely answer.
The Board ordered the Respondent to cease and desist from telling employees that it was not a union shop and that there was no union at the Respondent. The Board further ordered the Respondent to bargain with the Union on request, to rescind the changes to unit employees' terms and conditions of employment and to retroactively restore the status quo that existed prior to the unilateral changes, until negotiating with the Union to agreement or impasse. In addition the Board ordered the Respondent to make the unit employees whole for any losses sustained due to the unlawfully imposed changes, to compensate the unit employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards, and to file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating the awards to the appropriate calendar quarters for each employee.
Member Johnson noted that, consistent with his dissenting opinion in Pressroom Cleaners, 361 NLRB No. 57 (2014), he would permit the Respondent to demonstrate in a compliance proceeding that, had it lawfully bargained with the Union, it would have, at some identifiable time, lawfully imposed or reached agreement on less favorable terms than those in the Union's contract with the predecessor employers.
The Board noted that the General Counsel also sought as a remedy an order requiring that the notice be read to employees during working time by the Respondent or a Board agent. The Board found, however, that the General Counsel had not demonstrated that this measure was needed to remedy the effects of the Respondent's unfair labor practices. See Chinese Daily News, 346 NLRB 906, 909 (2006), enfd. mem. 224 Fed.Appx. 6 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
Charges filed by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 99. Chairman Pearce, and Members Johnson and Schiffer participated.
***
Durham School Services, LP (15-RC-096096; 361 NLRB No. 66) Milton, Pace, and Navarre, FL, October 20, 2014.
Order denying the Employer's Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's Decision and Certification of Representative in this case (reported at 360 NLRB No. 108). The Employer argued that when the Board lacked a quorum under NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014), the Board's delegation of decisional authority in representation cases to Regional Directors was terminated and the election should therefore be set aside and a new election directed. The Board found that the Employer's motion for reconsideration suffered from procedural infirmities that potentially precluded review, but without resolving those potential infirmities the Board denied the motion on the merits, citing statements made by the Supreme Court in New Process Steel v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010). The Board further noted that every court of appeals to have considered the issue since New Process has held that prior Board delegations of authority to nonmembers do not lapse during a loss of quorum by the Board. Finally, the Board observed that the Board panel that certified the Union consisted entirely of confirmed members. Petitioner International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 991. Chairman Pearce, and Members Miscimarra and Schiffer participated.
***
SK USA Shirts, Inc. (22-CA-122319; 361 NLRB No. 70) Garfield, NJ, October 21, 2014.
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, since about November 1, 2013, to implement a wage increase as required by the collective-bargaining agreement. The Board ordered the Respondent to comply with the agreement and to make the unit employees whole for any losses suffered as a result of the Respondent's unlawful conduct, to compensate the unit employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards and to file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar quarters for each employee. Charge filed by Local 947, United Service Workers Union, International Union of Journeymen and Allied Trades. Members Hirozawa, Johnson, and Schiffer participated.
***
South Central Electrical and Maintenance Company (28-CA-132388; 361 NLRB No. 69) Houston, TX and Las Vegas, NV, October 22, 2014.
The Board granted the General Counsel's motion for default judgment based on the Respondents' failure to file an answer to the complaint. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees, and failing to provide the Union with necessary and relevant information. The Board ordered the Respondent to bargain with the Union on request and, if an understanding is reached, to embody the understanding in a signed agreement. The Board also ordered the Respondent to furnish the Union with the requested information. Charge filed by International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge 845. Chairman Pearce, and Members Johnson and Schiffer participated.
***
Sky High Services, LLC (05-CA-123647; 361 NLRB No. 78) Sterling, VA, October 24, 2014.
The Board granted the General Counsel's motion for default judgment, finding that the Respondent did not show good cause for its failure to file an answer to the complaint. Noting that the Respondent was advised in both the complaint and in a follow-up letter that it needed to file an answer to the complaint, the Board found no merit in the Respondent's assertion that, in telephone conversations with the Region, it was led to believe that it need not file an answer and could instead simply proceed to the scheduled hearing. Accordingly, the Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) by discharging an employee for filing an unfair labor practice charge with the Board. Charge filed by an individual. Chairman Pearce, and Members Hirozawa and Johnson participated.
***
Austin Fire Equipment, LLC (15-CA-019697; 361 NLRB No. 76) Prairieville, LA, October 24, 2014.
Following the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014), the Board considered de novo the Administrative Law Judge's decision, the record, the exceptions and briefs, and the Union's motion for reconsideration. The Board adopted the judge's rulings, findings, and recommended Order to the extent and for the reasons stated in the vacated Decision and Order reported at 359 NLRB No. 3 (2012) and the Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration reported at 359 NLRB No. 60 (2013). There, the Board found that the parties' relationship was governed by Section 8(f) of the Act under the test of Staunton Fuel & Material, Inc., 335 NLRB 717 (2001), and that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to continue in effect the terms of the parties' collective-bargaining agreement until its expiration. Charges filed by Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union 669, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO. Administrative Law Judge Margaret G. Brakebusch issued her decision on November 29, 2011. Chairman Pearce, and Members Hirozawa and Johnson participated.
***
HTH Corporation, Pacific Beach Corporation, and KOA Management, LLC, a single employer, d/b/a Pacific Beach Hotel (37-CA-007965, et al.; 361 NLRB No. 65) Honolulu, HI, October 24, 2014.
The full Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions in this case involving the recidivist Respondents and multiple violations of the Act. The Board ordered the Respondents to cease-and-desist from making various unilateral changes to work rules; taking adverse action against employees for supporting the Union; placing employees under surveillance; undermining the Union; threatening and intimidating Union agents; and in any other manner interfering with employee rights under the Act. It also ordered that the Respondents remove references to unlawful discipline from employees' files; respond to the Union's information requests; and reimburse affected employees for matching contributions to the 401(k) plans.
Based on the facts of the case and the Respondents' recidivist behavior exhibiting a continuing disregard for its obligations under the Act, the Board majority ordered other appropriate remedies, including litigation costs to the General Counsel and Union, as well as certain other costs incurred by the Union as a direct result of the Respondents' unfair labor practices. It also ordered a 3-year notice-posting period and required mailing of the notice, the Decision and Order, and an additional Explanation of Rights to current and former employees and supervisors, as well as provision of the material to new employees and supervisors for a period of 3 years. The majority applied the historically recognized remedies of publication of notices in local media of general circulation and rescission of unlawful changes regarding access rights of union representatives. It also required supervisory attendance at notice readings and imposed a narrowly-crafted 3-year visitation remedy to ensure the Respondents' compliance with the mailing, posting, and publication components of the remedy over the extended period ordered. The Board majority also ordered make-whole remedies of backpay and reinstatement for affected employees, including a repeat discriminatee. Although it emphasized that reinstatement is the preferred remedy for an unlawful discharge, the Board majority also noted that there is strong support for concluding that an award of front pay would reasonably serve a make-whole purpose that falls within the Board's remedial authority. It noted, however, that the Board has never awarded a front-pay remedy and it was not requested here. The Board majority therefore concluded that the critical determinations of when and how to calculate such an award are better made in the future where the necessary factual record has been developed and there has been appropriate briefing.
Writing separately, Member Miscimarra concurred with the majority's findings of violations and on some of the remedies ordered, but dissented on other remedies, particularly the award of attorneys' fees to the General Counsel and Union, and the majority's discussion of the Board's authority to award front pay as a remedy in an appropriate case. In his separate opinion, Member Johnson also concurred with the majority's findings of violations and some of the remedies ordered, but dissented on the award of attorneys' fees to the General Counsel and the Union, the award of certain non-litigation expenses to the Union for costs resulting from the Respondents' violations, and the requirement that the Respondents publish the notices in local newspapers. Member Johnson would also apply a different time frame to satisfy the mailing requirements, require a more limited notice posting period, and refrain from consideration of front pay.
Charges were filed by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 142. Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, Johnson, and Schiffer participated.
***
Albertson's, LLC (28-CA-023387 and 023538; 361 NLRB No.71) Albuquerque, NM, October 24, 2014.
In view of the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014), the Board considered de novo the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Decision and Order. The Board affirmed the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and adopted his recommended Order to the extent and for the reasons stated in the Board's vacated Decision and Order reported at 359 NLRB No. 147 (2013), which was incorporated by reference. In that Decision, the Board found that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act during the Union's organizing campaign by soliciting grievances from an employee and impliedly promising to remedy her grievances, surveilling employees' organizing activities, threatening an employee with discharge and creating the impression that her organizing activities were under surveillance. The Board also found, in agreement with the judge, that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) by suspending and discharging an employee who was one of the principal union organizers. Reversing the judge, the Board unanimously found that the Respondent's attorney, in preparing for the hearing, violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by interviewing an employee without providing him assurances against reprisals as required by the decision in Johnnie's Poultry Co., 146 NLRB 770 (1964), and that Respondent's store manager separately violated 8(a)(1) by requiring the employee to attend the interview against his will.
Charges were filed by an individual and by United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1564. Administrative Law Judge William L. Schmidt issued his decision on May 24, 2012. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and Schiffer participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Virgo Medical Services, Inc. (04-RC-104485) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 21, 2014. Order denying the Employer's request for review as not raising substantial issues regarding whether the Regional Director erred in directing an election in a unit consisting of the Employer's drivers, dispatchers, and on-site coordinators operating out of its Philadelphia facility. The Board found it unnecessary to pass on whether its test set out in Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011), applied to the circumstances at issue in this case. The Board also rejected the Employer's contentions regarding the validity of Regional Director Dennis Walsh's appointment. Petitioner -- Teamsters Union Local No. 115. Members Hirozawa, Johnson, and Schiffer participated.
Pro-Tec Fire Services, Ltd. (31-RC-133248) Burbank, CA, October 22, 2014. Order denying the Employer's request for review of the Regional Director's decision and direction of election. The Regional Director found the petitioned-for Fire Captains not to be statutory supervisors and that they share a sufficient community of interest with the existing unit of firefighters to warrant their inclusion through an Amour-Globe self-determination election. Member Johnson stated that independent judgment and discretion would reasonably be expected from the Fire Captains in an emergency situation, but he recognized that assumptions based on the nature of emergency, fire, and rescue work cannot replace the specific evidence of independent judgment and discretion required under Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006). Member Johnson agreed that the Employer failed to meet its burden of establishing independent judgment and discretion where it provided no evidence that the Fire Captains, particularly in emergency situations, directed or assigned firefighters to areas of responsibility different from their predetermined responsibilities as set by the daily shift schedule, or otherwise exercised independent judgment or discretion in directing the firefighters' work. Member Johnson also found that the Fire Captains and firefighters shared a community of interest under the Board's traditional community of interest analysis. He noted that he did not participate in Macy's, 361 NLRB No. 4 (2014), upon which the Regional Director relied, and found no need to express his opinion whether that case or the Specialty Healthcare decision upon which the Macy's majority relied were correctly decided. Petitioner -- International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1-61. Chairman Pearce, and Members Johnson and Schiffer participated.
Pacific Lutheran University (19-RC-102521) Tacoma, WA, October 22, 2014. The Board denied Amicus Curiae National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.'s motion for special leave to file supplemental brief.
Baker DC, LLC (05-RC-135621) Washington, DC, October 23, 2014. Order denying the Employer;s request for review of the Regional Director;s decision and direction of election. The Regional Director found the petitioned-for unit of cement masons to be an appropriate unit and that the cement mason foremen are not statutory supervisors. In denying review, the Board majority (Chairman Pearce and Member Schiffer) found that the principles articulated in Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83, slip op. at 8-9 (2011), enfd. sub nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013), are applicable, and that the requested unit of cement masons is appropriate under those principles, which are entirely consistent with the Board;s traditional approach in this industry, given the cement masons; separate supervision, their distinct classification as cement masons, their distinct skills and job functions, and the lack of evidence that employees in other classifications transfer to the cement mason classification on either a temporary or permanent basis, citing Brown & Root Braun, 310 NLRB 632, 635 (1993); Dick Kelchner Excavating Co., 236 NLRB 1414 (1978)); R.B. Butler, Inc., 160 NLRB 1595, 1600 (1966); Del Mont Construction Co., 150 NLRB 85 (1964). Member Johnson agreed that the unit is appropriate under the traditional community of interest standard, and thus found it unnecessary to consider whether Specialty Healthcare is applicable. Petitioner -- Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association, Local 891. Chairman Pearce, and Members Johnson and Schiffer participated.
C Cases
Harry Asato Painting, Inc. (20-CA-124382 and 125157) Honolulu, HI, October 20, 2014. Order denying Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint in part. Member Johnson noted that the theory of the motion to dismiss is essentially that the complaint is deficient because it alleges that Respondent "adopted some unknown collective bargaining agreements" by virtue of its conduct. Member Johnson would agree with Respondent if the General Counsel had not specified a labor contract at all in the complaint, but the General Counsel did specify the contract, and also specific conduct referable to that contract for purposes of the "adoption by conduct" theory. Without expressing a view on the merits of the case, Member Johnson finds that is enough to survive a motion to dismiss. The Board noted that the General Counsel argued that the motion should be dismissed because it was incorrectly filed with the Division of Judges rather than with the Board as required by Sec. 102.24 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and further argued that the motion should be dismissed because the it was not served on the Region as required by Section 102.114 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. In light of the fact that no party has shown that it was prejudiced by the Respondent's procedural error in filing its motion with the Division of Judges the Board accepted the motion as timely filed. Further, the Board stated that it has long held that it "generally will not reject an improperly served document absent a showing of prejudice to a party." Paolicelli, 335 NLRB 881, 882 (2001), quoting Century Parking, Inc., 327 NLRB 21 fn. 7 (1998). In addition, "[w]hile the Board strongly encourages strict compliance with its procedural rules, including those concerning the manner of filing and serving answers to complaints, the Board recognizes that the law favors a determination on the merits." Id., citing M.J. McNally, Inc., 302 NLRB 120 (1991). Charges filed by International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Painters Local Union 1791. Chairman Pearce, and Members Johnson and Schiffer participated.
Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (04-CA-115974) Pittsburgh, PA, October 20, 2014. No exceptions having been filed to Administrative Law Judge Susan A. Flynn's September 5, 2014 decision finding Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted those findings and conclusions and ordered the Respondent to take the action set forth in the recommended Order. Charge filed by National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, District 1199C, AFCSME, AFL-CIO.
Muse School CA (31-CA-108671) Calabasas, CA, October 20, 2014. No exceptions having been filed to Administrative Law Judge Lisa D. Thompson's September 8, 2014 decision finding Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted those findings and conclusions and ordered the Respondent to take the action set forth in the recommended Order. Charge filed by an individual.
Auto Nation, Inc. and Village Motors, LLC, d/b/a Libertyville Toyota (13-CA-063676) Libertyville, IL, October 20, 2014. Order denying Respondent's motion for reconsideration of the Board's Decision and Order reported at 360 NLRB No. 141 (2014). Charge filed by Automobile Mechanics Local No. 701, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, and Schiffer participated.
Durham School Services, L.P. (15-CA-106217, et al.) Milton, FL, October 20, 2014. Order denying Respondent's motion for partial summary judgment. In denying the motion the Board noted that the Respondent argued, among other things, that it has no duty to bargain with the Union because the Board lacked a valid quorum during the periods in which the representation petition was filed, the Stipulated Election Agreement was approved, and the representation election was conducted. Specifically, the Respondent, relying on Laurel Baye of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469, 473 (D.C. Cir. 2009), argued that the Board's prior delegation of authority in representation cases to the regional directors lapsed when the Board lost a quorum. The Board stated that this argument was raised and rejected in the Board's Order denying the Respondent's motion for reconsideration of the Board's Decision and Certification of Representative in Case 15-RC-096096 (reported at 360 NLRB No. 108), and provides no basis for granting the Respondent's motion here. See Durham School Services, L.P., 361 NLRB No. 66 (2014). Charges filed by Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 991 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chairman Pearce, and Members Miscimarra, and Schiffer participated.
MGM Grand Hotel, LLC d/b/a MGM Grand (28-CA-119372) Las Vegas, NV, October 20, 2014. No exceptions having been filed to Administrative Law Judge Joel P. Biblowitz' September 3, 2014 decision finding Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted those findings and conclusions and ordered the Respondent to take the action set forth in the recommended Order. Charge filed by an individual.
Hoot Winc, LLC, et al. (31-CA-104872, et al.) Ontario, CA, October 22, 2014. The Board granted the parties' joint motion to sever allegations and partially remand to the Regional Director based upon a bilateral informal Board settlement agreement.
New York Party Shuttle, LLC (02-CA-073340) New York, NY, October 23, 2014. The Board denied the Employer's petition to revoke a subpoena duces tecum. The Board found that the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought. Further, the Board held that the Respondent failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. The Board denied the petition on the merits and found it unnecessary to pass on whether the petition was timely filed, and it evaluated the subpoena as modified by the Region's agreement to accept drivers' records with wages and salaries redacted. In addition, Member Johnson noted that he typically finds cost of compliance to be a relevant issue in an undue burden analysis. However, here, in the context of a compliance proceeding after a Board order has been enforced by a federal court of appeals, Member Johnson found that the Respondent needed to provide some evidentiary support or at least specific calculations behind its assertion of high cost, beyond a generalized statement and related representations in its unsworn pleadings that compliance would cost $20,000.00. In addition, the Board noted that although its underlying Decision and Order, 359 NLRB No. 112 (2013), enfd. No. 13-60364 (5th Cir. 2013), was decided by a panel that included two persons whose appointments to the Board were held to be invalid by the United States Supreme Court in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014), the Fifth Circuit's Order upholding the Board's Decision and Order became final prior to the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, supra. In these circumstances, the Board regarded the matters finally resolved by the court of appeals as res judicata in this proceeding, citing Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 374-378 (1940); Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 65 (2d Cir. 1986) (cited with approval in United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010)); see also The Lorge School, 355 NLRB 558, 558 fn. 1 (2010). Moreover, the Board noted that under Sec. 10(e) of the Act, the Board has no jurisdiction to modify an Order that has been enforced by a court of appeals because, upon the filing of the record with the court of appeals, the jurisdiction of that court is exclusive and its judgment and decree are final, subject to review only by the Supreme Court, citing Scepter Ingot Castings, Inc., 341 NLRB 997, 997 (2004) (citing cases), enfd. sub nom. Scepter, Inc. v. NLRB, 448 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2006) and noting that Sec. 10(e) states, in relevant part: "Upon the filing of the record with [the United States court of appeals] the jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final," except for potential further review by the Supreme Court. 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). Charge filed by an individual. Members Hirozawa, Johnson, and Schiffer participated.
Tiffany and Company and Tiffany & Co. (01-CA-111287) Farmington, CT, October 23, 2014. The Board granted the joint motion to remand the case to the Regional Director for processing of an informal Board settlement agreement.
United States Postal Service (05-CA-122166) Washington, DC, October 24, 2014. No exceptions having been filed to Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan's September 10, 2014 decision finding that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted his findings and conclusions and ordered the Respondent, United States Postal Service the take the action in his recommended Order. Charges filed by American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO.
Business Resource Security Services, USA, Inc. (BRSS) (05-CA-119728) Washington, DC, October 24, 2014. No exceptions having been filed to Administrative Law Judge Eric M. Fine's September 11, 2014 decision finding that Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted his findings and conclusions and ordered that his recommended Order becomes the order of the Board and dismissed the complaint. Charge filed by an individual.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Ross Stores, Inc. (31-CA-109296 and 114107; JD(SF)-49-14) Thousand Oaks, CA. Administrative Law Judge Jay R. Pollack issued his decision on October 21, 2014. Charge filed by an individual.
TLC Health Network d/b/a Lake Shore Health Center, Debtor-in-Possession (03-CA-113937; JD(NY)-43-14) Irving, NY. Administrative Law Judge Steven Davis issued his decision on October 23, 2014. Charge filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East.
United States Postal Service (15-CA-093567, et al.; JD(ATL)-29-14) New Orleans, LA. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on October 23, 2014. Charges filed by an individual, National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 124, and National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO.
Euro Builders, Ltd. (09-CA-106788; JD-61-14) Englewood, OH. Administrative Law Judge Thomas M. Randazzo issued his decision on October 24, 2014. Charges filed by International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers, Ohio-Kentucky Administrative District Council, Local 22 Ohio.
Allied Barton Security Services LLC (07-CA-093970; JD-60-14) Dearborn, MI. Administrative Law Judge Eric M. Fine issued his decision on October 24, 2014. Charges filed by Local No. 1, United Protective Workers of America and individuals.
***
To have the NLRB's Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.