Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of October 21 - 25, 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
No Published Cases Issued.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Elite Medical Transportation, LLC, d/b/a Elite Ambulance (13-RC-322139) Chicago, IL, October 22, 2024. The Board denied the Employer's Requests for Review of the Regional Director for Region 13’s Decision and Direction of Election and the Regional Director for Region 25’s Supplemental Decision on Objections and Certification of Representative, finding they raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board denied the Employer's request to stay the certification as moot. Petitioner—Teamsters Local 743. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
Rose’s Garden Bar (31-CA-313144) Calabasas, CA, October 21, 2024. No exceptions having been filed to the September 11, 2024 decision of Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind’s finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions and dismissed the complaint. Charge filed by an individual.
Spike Enterprise, Inc. (13-CA-311088, et al.) Channahon, IL, October 25, 2024. The Board approved a formal settlement stipulation between the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel, and specified actions the Respondent must take to comply with the Act. Charges filed by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Tesla, Inc., Board Case No. 32-CA-197020, reported at 370 NLRB No. 101 (5th Cir. decided October 25, 2024 (en banc).
In an unsigned per curiam decision the divided en banc Court, reversing an earlier panel decision that had enforced the Board’s order, vacated the Board’s order and remanded for further proceedings.
The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Emanuel and Ring) had found that Tesla committed a litany of unfair labor practices when it unlawfully responded to its employees’ organizing efforts by repeatedly coercing, threatening, and discriminating against them. Among other violations, the Board found that Tesla violated Section 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating employees on five occasions, threatening them in a “tweet” issued by its CEO with the loss of stock options if they unionized, and maintaining a confidentiality agreement that employees would reasonably interpret to interfere with protected activity, and restricting their use of the company’s messaging-and-data program in response to protected activity. The Board also found that Tesla violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging one key employee organizer, and warning another. In the absence of exceptions, the Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s findings that Tesla violated Section 8(a)(1) by twice interfering with its employees’ distribution of union leaflets, prohibiting employees from distributing union materials, and threatening them with discharge if they did, and threatening that unionization would be futile.
Tesla petitioned for review, challenging only two of the violations. In March 2023, a panel of the Fifth Circuit rejected Tesla’s argument that its CEO’s tweet, which conveyed to employees that they would “give up stock options” if they voted for the Union, was speech protected by Section 8(c) of the Act. The panel enforced the Board’s order, including its requirement that Tesla’s CEO delete his unlawful tweet. Turning to the unlawful discharge finding, the panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that union animus motivated, at least in part, Tesla’s decision to fire the employee, who in response to questioning during an investigation, had lied about union activity.
A per curiam plurality opinion expressing the views of eight judges declined to decide whether the tweet violated the Act, but stated that the Board’s order requiring deletion of the tweet could not stand because the tweet was constitutionally protected speech. The plurality found fault with the Board’s unlawful discharge finding because in its view the Board “failed to consider the contradictory fact that the decision maker who authorized [the discharge] had no anti-union animus.” The plurality provided no explanation for the Court’s failure to enforce the uncontested portions of the Board’s order, a failure the dissenting opinion characterized as “puzzling” and “devoid of any explanation.” The additional vote necessary to support the Court’s disposition was provided by Judge Haynes, who noted without elaboration that she concurred in the judgment only.
Judge Dennis, joined by seven other judges in dissent, finding the plurality’s approach “inconsistent with established First Amendment principles and with this court’s role as a court of review,” would have enforced the Board’s order in full. Specifically, the dissent would have granted the Board’s order with respect to the uncontested violations, found that the Board’s findings with respect to the unlawful tweet and discharge were supported by substantial evidence, and found that the Board “did not exceed or abuse its broad remedial authority—to take action to ‘effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act’” in ordering deletion of the threatening tweet.
The Court’s decision may be found here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Starbucks Corporation (29-CA-292741, et al.; JD(NY)-14-24) Great Neck, NY. Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey P. Gardner issued his decision on October 21, 2024. Charges filed by Workers United a/w SEIU.
Wholesale Delivery Drivers, General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Sales, Industrial and Allied Workers, Teamsters Local 848, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Savage Services Corp.) (21-CB-324340; JD(SF)-30-24) Wilmington, CA, October 21, 2024. Errata to Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind’s decision of October 17, 2024. Errata Amended Decision.
Hawaii Pacific Health (20-CA-309614, et al.; JD(SF)-31-24) Honolulu, HI. Administrative Law Judge Amita Baman Tracy issued her decision on October 22, 2024. Charges filed by Hawaii Nurses’ Association, OPEIU, Local 50.
R&J Group, LLC, d/b/a Sushi Masa (15-CA-310618; JD-65-24) Baton Rouge, LA. Administrative Law Judge Sarah Karpinen issued her decision on October 24, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
Starbucks Corporation (03-CA-324830 and 03-CA-326418; JD-66-24) Buffalo, NY. Administrative Law Judge Lisa Friedheim-Weis issued her decision on October 25, 2024. Charges filed by Workers United.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.