Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of September 5 - 8, 2023
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
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. (20-RC-315897; 372 NLRB No. 139) Napa, CA, September 7, 2023.
The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision to Overrule Employer’s Objections and Certification of representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Member Kaplan agreed to deny review because the Employer had not shown that the manner in which the election was conducted raised a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election, but stated his view that the Board agent took an unnecessary risk by leaving the unsealed ballot box in the custody of election observers and that the Board agent should have carried the ballot box and unmarked ballots with him and been accompanied by the election observers. Member Kaplan encouraged regions to provide procedural guidance to ensure that, when conducting elections, Board agents retain possession of unused ballots and the ballot box at all times.
Petitioner—International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 39, AFL-CIO. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Prime Healthcare Anaheim, LLC d/b/a West Anaheim Medical Center (21-RC-294677) Anaheim, CA, September 7, 2023. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Exceptions to the Hearing Officer’s Report Concerning Determinative Challenged Ballots as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner— California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC). Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
C Cases
The Saldivar Group LLC (16-CA-291455) Raymondville, TX, September 6, 2023. No exceptions having been filed to the July 24, 2023 decision of Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler’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 an individual.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Security Walls, LLC, Board Case No. 15-CA-224596 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 74) (11th Cir. decided September 5, 2023).
In a published opinion, the Court enforced in full the Board’s order that issued against this provider of security services at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, Louisiana. At that facility, 40 security officers work under the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement executed between the Employer and the International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America.
In 2018, a security officer who was new on the job encountered a series of problems—incorrect paychecks, unfair overtime assignments, supervisory mistreatment, and scheduling issues—all of which he discussed with his co-workers and raised to company supervisors and managers. The Employer responded by taking increasingly punitive measures against him, such as restricting him to an undesirable stationary post, and then suspending, disciplining, and ultimately discharging him. In the decision under review, the Board (Members Kaplan, Wilcox, and Prouty) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by taking those actions against him for engaging in his protected concerted activities. Further, the Board found that the Employer unlawfully threatened the security officer with a criminal investigation for providing evidence to the Board in the underlying proceeding.
On review, the Court rejected the Employer’s argument that the security officer’s actions were unprotected because his demands were inconsistent with the collective-bargaining agreement and because he had not channeled them through the grievance procedure. Distinguishing Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organization, 420 U.S. 50 (1975), which the Employer relied on, the Court explained that “an employee’s activities lose protection only when they were for the purposes of collective bargaining and were done to bargain with the employer over matters reserved for the union to negotiate, such as rates of pay, hours, and conditions of employment.” In contrast to the employees’ activities in Emporium Capwell, the Court found the record in this case “devoid of evidence that [the security officer] acted against union instructions, took any position contrary to the collective bargaining agreement or in derogation of the union’s authority, or pressured Security Walls to bypass the union and negotiate with him directly.” Finally, given that the Employer did not contest the Board’s finding that it had unlawfully threatened the security officer with a criminal investigation for providing evidence to the Board, the Court summarily enforced that violation.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Starbucks Corporation (13-CA-300739; JD-58-23) Peoria, IL. Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his decision on September 7, 2023. Charge filed by Chicago & Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/SEIU.
United States Postal Service (05-CA-287508; JD-59-23) Merrifield, VA. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on September 8, 2023. Charge filed by an individual.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.