Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of September 9 - 13, 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
Amazon.com Services, LLC (13-CA-275270, et al.; 373 NLRB No. 96) Chicago, IL, Joliet, IL and Staten Island, NY, September 10, 2024.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s breach of an informal settlement agreement reached with the General Counsel. The Board found that the Respondent breached the settlement agreement by promulgating an unlawful off-duty access policy which failed to inform employees that it would not be discriminatorily enforced, which was found to violate Section 8(a)(1) in Amazon.com Services, LLC, 373 NLRB No. 40 (2024). The Board rejected the Respondent’s assertion that, even assuming it violated the settlement’s provisions, the General Counsel failed to provide it with the requisite two-weeks’ notice before moving for default judgment, finding that the Respondent’s conduct, specifically the evidence it sent to the General Counsel in the form of electronic notices to employees showing its incomplete attempt to rectify the unlawful rule, established it was aware that its noncompliance with the settlement agreement concerned the case at hand. As the settlement agreement included a default provision in the case of non-compliance, the Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment and found the allegations in the underlying complaint to be true. Accordingly, the Board determined that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by promulgating, maintaining, and enforcing an unlawful off-duty employee access rule.
Charges filed by individuals. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, U.S., Inc. (21-RC-306324; 373 NLRB No. 99) Anaheim, CA, September 11, 2024.
The Board granted the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election and reversed the Regional Director, finding that the petitioned-for specialty performers shared a community of interest with the existing unit and that, therefore, a self-determination election was warranted.
Petitioner—American Guild of Variety Artists. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Sonoco Products Company (21-RC-329423) City of Industry, CA, September 9, 2024. The Board denied the Intervenor’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Motion to Stay Proceeding as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. In finding that the Regional Director properly denied the motion which asked him to accommodate the affiliated unions’ jurisdictional dispute-resolution mechanisms, the Board noted the absence of any current access to this procedure. The Board found it unnecessary to rely on the Regional Director’s finding that there were no “new or unusual circumstances” to warrant a stay. Intervenor— Printing, Packaging, & Production Workers Union of North America, District Council 2, and its affiliated Local, 388-M. Petitioner—Chauffeurs, Sales Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 572, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (02-RC-304551) New York, NY, September 11, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees, TNG Local 1096. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
800 River Road Operating Company, LLC, d/b/a Care One At New Milford (22-CA-204545) New Milford, NJ, September 13, 2024. The Board denied the Charging Party’s Request for Review of the General Counsel’s decision affirming the Regional Director’s compliance determination. Charge filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
Packaging Corporation of America (21-RC-330571) City of Industry, CA, September 13, 2024. The Board denied the Intervenor’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Motion to Stay Proceeding as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. In finding that the Regional Director properly denied the motion which asked him to accommodate the affiliated unions’ jurisdictional dispute-resolution mechanisms, the Board noted the absence of any current access to this procedure. The Board found it unnecessary to rely on the Regional Director’s finding that there were no “new or unusual circumstances” to warrant a stay. Intervenor—Printing, Packaging, & Production Workers Union of North America, District Council 2, and its affiliated Local, 388-M. Petitioner—Chauffeurs, Sales Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 572, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
HHS Aviation, LLC (12-CA-326227) Ft. Lauderdale, FL, September 11, 2024. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motions to Dismiss the Complaint, finding that the Respondent had not demonstrated that the consolidated complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Charge filed by Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
Compañía Cervecera de Puerto Rico, Inc. (12-CA-324427) Mayaguez, PR, September 11, 2024. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, finding that the Respondent had failed to establish that there were no genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Charge filed by Union Independiente de Trabajadores de Cerveceria India, Inc. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
Sysco Indianapolis, LLC (25-CA-322003) Indianapolis, IN, September 12, 2024. In this case alleging Section 8(a)(5) and (1) violations, 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. Charge filed by Local Union No. 135, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers, Indianapolis, Indiana and Airline Employees in the State of Indiana, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Quickway Transportation, Inc., Board Case No. 09-CA-251857 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 121) (6th Cir. decided September 11, 2024).
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this nationwide trucking company that had an agreement with a distribution center for Kroger, the grocery store, in Louisville, Kentucky. In doing so, the Court upheld numerous unfair-labor-practice violations that Quickway was found to have committed, including ceasing operations at the Louisville terminal in retaliation for its drivers choosing union representation, and enforced the Board’s remedies, which included an order to restore operations at the terminal.
In June 2019, drivers at the Louisville distribution center began to organize with Teamsters Local 89. When its managers learned of the organizing effort a month later, Quickway responded with an extensive anti-union campaign. In early 2020, the Union informed Quickway that a majority of the Louisville drivers had signed authorization cards, and in a June election, the drivers voted for union representation. Meanwhile, several employees had filed unfair-labor-practice charges alleging unlawful threats, and in September, the parties entered into a settlement agreement covering those charges. In December, without notice to the Union, Quickway resigned from its Louisville agreement with Kroger, and foreclosed any possibility of bargaining over the decision by informing the Union only one hour before it ceased operations. At a later planned bargaining session, Quickway said that it would bargain over the effects of the decision, but would not negotiate for a contract. No further bargaining took place.
The Board (Members Wilcox and Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting) found that Quickway committed numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) by threatening and interrogating employees regarding their union activity, violated Section 8(a)(3) by ceasing operations at the Louisville terminal and discharging employees because they voted to unionize, and violated Section 8(a)(4) by retaliating against an employee for filing Board charges. Further, the Board found that Quickway violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing to bargain over its decision to cease operations at the Louisville terminal, as well as the effects of that decision. The Board also vacated the settlement agreement based on Quickway’s subsequent unlawful actions.
Beyond its standard remedies, the Board ordered Quickway to restore business operations at the Louisville terminal within a reasonable period of time, and to recognize and bargain with Local 89. The Board further ordered that Quickway offer to reinstate the discharged employees to the extent their services are needed to perform the work Quickway is able to retain at Louisville after a good-faith effort. If an insufficient number of positions are available at the Louisville terminal, the Board ordered Quickway to offer the remaining unit employees reinstatement to any positions in its existing operations that are capable of being filled, along with appropriate moving expenses. If such jobs are unavailable, Quickway was ordered to place any remaining unit employees on a preferential hiring list for future vacancies.
In a comprehensive and exacting opinion, the Court held that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law and enforced the full range of remedies specified in the Board’s order. In agreeing with the Board that Quickway unlawfully ceased doing business at the Louisville terminal, the Court rejected the argument that Quickway was motivated solely on the basis of economic and financial reasons. Applying the three-part test in Textile Workers Union of America v. Darlington Manufacturing Co., 380 U.S. 263 (1965), the Court upheld the Board’s findings that Quickway’s decision to partially cease operations was motivated by anti-union animus, was intended to chill unionization at other terminals, and that such chilling effect was reasonably foreseeable. Concluding that Quickway’s decision “was born out of anti-union animus,” the Court accordingly held that failure to bargain over the decision was unlawful because “discrimination on the basis of union animus cannot constitute a lawful entrepreneurial decision.” Regarding effects bargaining, the Court agreed with the Board that where, as here, “a union is entitled to bargain over both the decision and its effects, the employer must provide the union a prior or contemporaneous opportunity to bargain over the former to fully satisfy its obligation to bargain over the latter.” Among other conclusions, the Court held that the Board properly vacated the settlement agreement, and rejected arguments that the Board had abused its discretion in upholding certain evidentiary determinations.
On remedies, the Court found the Board’s restoration order appropriate and rejected arguments that it would be overly burdensome. Although restoration might be costly, the Court stated, “Quickway should not be able to knowingly benefit from its unlawful conduct.” Moreover, the Court found the Board’s order reasonable because it “provides Quickway subsequent steps to take if its initial efforts do not return all workers to the status quo, and reasonably demands a ‘good-faith effort.’” The Court also commented that Quickway’s claim is “bare,” having not offered “any evidence of the actual costs it will incur if ordered to reopen,” but the Court also noted the later opportunity to do so in a later compliance proceeding. Lastly, after engaging in an extensive analysis, the Court declared that it would “join our sister circuits in determining that § 10(e) creates a jurisdictional rule,” and on that basis, dispensed with Quickway’s belated challenges to the Board’s make-whole remedies.
The Court’s decision is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Trinity Health Grand Haven Hospital (07-CA-323321, et al.; JD-53-24) Grand Haven, MI, September 10, 2024. Errata to decision issued on September 6, 2024. Errata Amended Decision.
Rose’s Garden Bar (31-CA-313144; JD(SF)-26-24) Calabasas, CA. Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind issued his decision on September 11, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
Starbucks Corporation (03-CA-317496; JD-55-24) Ithaca, NY. Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter issued his decision on September 13, 2024. Charge filed by Workers United.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.