Notable Board Decisions

This case discusses whether canvassers—who solicit door-to-door for contributions to fund the operating expenses of a nonprofit organization that collects and distributes unsalable food to low-income individuals—are employees or independent contractors.

This case discusses whether the Employer—in a Section 8(f) relationship with the Union—could lawfully make unilateral changes upon contract expiration without giving advance notice to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service as required by Section 8(d).

This case discusses whether the Employer—a hospital—violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing and refusing to furnish information requested by the Union relating to the peer review process.

This case discusses whether the Employers unlawfully: (1) maintained a solicitation policy that prohibits employees’ use of the Employers’ electronic messaging systems to engage in solicitation; and (2) promulgated and maintained an email policy that prohibits use of the Employers’ electronic messaging systems to solicit employees to support any group or organization unless sanctioned by the Employers’ executive management.

This case discusses whether the appropriate time to determine successorship status—in cases where a new employer is required, pursuant to a state or local work retention statute, to retain its predecessor’s employees for a specific period of time—is when the new employer assumes control over the business and hires the predecessor’s employees pursuant to the retention statute, or after the mandatory retention period has ended.

This case discusses: (1) whether, consistent with D.R. Horton, 357 NLRB 2277 (2012), and Murphy Oil USA, 361 NLRB No. 72 (2014), the Employer could lawfully require its employees, as a condition of employment, to be bound to an agreement that limits resolution of all employment-related clams to individual arbitration, unless employees opt-out of the agreement before it takes effect 10 days after receiving it; and (2) whether the agreement would be unlawful even assuming that the opt-out provision renders the arbitration agreement non-mandatory.

This case discusses whether the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging an employee for refusing to take a drug test without having a union representative present.

This case discusses the Board’s standard for determining joint-employer status.

This case discusses whether the Employer’s revised confidentiality notice to employees participating in human resources investigation that substituted “we recommend that you refrain from discussing” cases under investigation with coworkers for “you are directed not to discuss this case” with coworkers violates Section 8(a)(1).

This case discusses whether an employer’s obligation to check off union dues continues or terminates after expiration of a collective-bargaining agreement that establishes such an arrangement.

This case discusses the appropriateness of a bargaining unit that includes the hourly pre-press, digital press, offset bindery, digital bindery, and shipping and receiving employees at the Employer’s commercial printing facility, but that excludes the hourly offset-press employees.

This case discusses whether a Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) by failing to provide a union member with adequate notice of his dues delinquency before informing his Employer that he was no longer a member in good standing and thus ineligible for rehire.

This case discusses whether the Board should assert jurisdiction over a private university’s football players who receive grant-in-aid scholarships.

This case discusses whether a single employee who files an employment-related class or collective action is engaged in protected concerted activity.

This case discusses whether it is appropriate to defer to arbitration the parties’ dispute concerning the Employer’s unilateral changes to employees’ health insurance benefits.

This case discusses whether the Employer lawfully discharged an employee for his unprotected dishonesty during the Employer’s investigation of his conduct—writing vulgar and arguably threatening statements on union newsletters left in an employee breakroom—even assuming, without deciding, that the handwritten statements retained the Act’s protection.

This case discusses when a make-whole remedy is available to an employee discharged for misconduct that occurred during an unlawful Weingarten interview.

This case discusses whether the Employer’s bargaining proposal—which would allow daily cross-utilization of nonunit employees to perform unit work—was a mandatory subject of bargaining over which the Employer could bargain to impasse.

This case discusses whether the Employer lawfully insisted to impasse on proposals to modify the expired supplemental collective-bargaining agreement at the Employer’s Memphis plant or whether it unlawfully insisted to impasse on and locked out employees in support of proposals that effectively sought to modify the master collective-bargaining agreement that covered four of the Employer’s plants, including the Memphis plant. Under the Employer’s proposals, all employees hired to perform unit work would be classified as “casual employees” excluded from the wage rates, benefits, and overtime premiums granted to regular employees under the master agreement.

This case discusses whether, under Lamons Gasket Co., 357 NLRB No. 72 (2011), in voluntary recognition cases, the “reasonable period of bargaining” under the recognition bar runs from the date of recognition or from the start of bargaining.