Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of October 9 - 12, 2018
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
CPL (Linwood) LLC d/b/a Linwood Care Center and its Successor 201 New Road Operations, LLC d/b/a Linwood Care Center (04-CA-146362, et al.; 367 NLRB No. 14) Linwood, NJ, October 10, 2018.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated: (1) Section 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating employees about their union sympathies, and creating the impression that their union activities were under surveillance; and (2) Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally changing the parties’ agreement concerning the Union’s access to its facility, and unreasonably delaying in furnishing information the Union requested about personnel files of disciplined employees. The Board also affirmed the judge’s dismissal of allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by creating the impression of surveillance concerning employee support for the Union.
Moreover, ruling on complaint allegations that the judge did not address, the Board unanimously found, based on uncontested facts, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by: soliciting employees’ grievances and impliedly promising to remedy them; promising better working conditions and terms of employment if employees voted to get rid of the Union; promising increased staffing and retroactive pay increases in order to discourage employees’ support for the Union; telling an employee that a pay increase could not be made because of the Union; and promising to discharge a disliked supervisor, train a supervisor, increase wages, and change management in order to discourage employees from supporting the Union. The Board, however, unanimously found it unnecessary to pass, as cumulative, on the judge’s failure to make any factual and legal findings as to complaint allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by soliciting an employee’s grievances. A Board majority (Chairman Ring and Member Emanuel; Member McFerran, dissenting) dismissed an allegation that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling an employee that employees should get rid of the Union.
Further, the Board reversed the judge and found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by unreasonably delaying in furnishing information concerning the amounts of wage increases of four unit employees.
Finally, the Board reversed the judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated: Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally changing the status quo when it refused to process an employee’s request for a schedule change; and Section 8(a)(1) by telling the employee that it would not process her request because it was in negotiations with the Union. The Board also reversed, on due process grounds, the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to promptly notify the Union of the discharges and suspensions of several unit employees after it discharged or suspended them.
Charges filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on April 5, 2015. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Emanuel participated.
***
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours, Louisville Works and E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company (04-CA-033620, 09-CA-040777 and 09-CA-041634; 367 NLRB No. 12) Edge Moor, DE, October 11, 2018.
On remand from the D.C. Circuit Court, the Board applied Raytheon Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161 (2017), to reverse its prior decision, E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 364 NLRB No. 113 (2016) (DuPont) and dismiss the complaint allegations that the Respondents’ annual unilateral changes in unit employees’ BeneFlex benefits at two plants violated Section 8(a)(5).
Dissenting, Member McFerran found that Raytheon was wrongly decided for the reasons explained in the dissent in that case. In addition, she argued that the Raytheon majority violated administrative due process in overruling the Board’s earlier DuPont decision, and therefore, this case presents the same due-process problem implicated in the recent decision in The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017).
Charges filed by Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union, and its Local 5-2002, in Cases 09-CA-040777 and 09-CA-041634. Administrative Law Judge Karl H. Buschmann issued his decision on December 15, 2005. Charge filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW), and its Local 4-786 in Case 04-CA-033620. Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas issued his decision on December 23, 2005. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran, Kaplan, and Emanuel participated.
***
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 12 (Southport Lumber Company) (19-CD-144202; 367 NLRB No. 16) North Bend, OR, October 11, 2018.
In this Section 10(k) jurisdictional dispute proceeding, the Board found that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) and awarded the work in dispute—chip-loading and log-unloading at the Employer’s Coos Bay barge slip—to the unrepresented employees of the Employer. The Board rejected the Union’s claims that the dispute was one of the Employer’s making, that it picketed with the objective of preserving work it previously performed, and that chip-loading was performed solely by a supervisor. The Board relied on employer preference and past practice, relative skills, and economy and efficiency of operations in reaching its determination.
Charge filed by Southport Lumber Co., LLC. Chairman Ring and Members Kaplan and Emanuel participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Krise Transportation, Inc. (06-RD-219962) Punxsutawney, PA, October 9, 2018. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Dismissing Petition as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Regional Director found that a reasonable time for bargaining had not yet elapsed when the Petitioner filed the decertification petition. Petitioner—an individual. Union—General Teamsters Local 397, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO. Members McFerran, Kaplan, and Emanuel participated.
Swift Beef Company (27-RC-226559) Greeley, CO, October 10, 2018. The Board denied the Employer’s Request to Stay the election, or alternatively, to impound the ballots. Petitioner—International Union of Operating Engineers Local 1, AFL-CIO. Chairman Ring and Members Kaplan and Emanuel participated.
C Cases
DHSC, LLC d/b/a Affinity Medical Center, Community Health Systems, Inc., Hospital of Barstow Inc. d/b/a Barstow Community Hospital, Watsonville Hospital Corporation d/b/a Watsonville Community Hospital, Community Health Systems, Inc. and/or Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, LLC, a single employer and/or joint employers and Quorum Health Corporation and QHCCS, LLC, successor employers (08-CA-167313; 10-CA-167330, et al., 31-CA-167522, et al.) Massillon, OH, October 12, 2018. The Board denied the General Counsel’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s order granting Respondents Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, LLC and Community Health Systems, Inc.’s renewed Motion for Consent Order and Partial Dismissal. The Board found that, having filed the request approximately 3 months after the judge issued the order, the General Counsel failed to comply with the promptness requirement of Section 102.26 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. Charges filed by National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC), California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC), and California Nurses Association (CNA), National Nurses United. Members McFerran, Kaplan, and Emanuel participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Corner Investment Company, LLC d/b/a The Cromwell (28-CA-209739; JD(NY)-13-18) Las Vegas, NV. Administrative Law Judge Kenneth W. Chu issued his decision on October 10, 2018. Charge filed by an individual.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.