Notable Board Decisions

This case discusses whether the Employer—a franchisee of a fast food enterprise—unlawfully disciplined and discharged employees for their participation or perceived participation in the Union’s Sick Days poster campaign.

This case discusses whether an employee was engaged in “concerted activity” for the purpose of “mutual aid or protection” within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act when she sought assistance from her coworkers in raising a sexual harassment complaint to her Employer.

This case discusses the Board’s rationale for imposing tax compensation and social security reporting remedies.

This case discusses whether the Employer unlawfully suspended and discharged an employee for his refusal to take a drug and alcohol test without Weingarten representation, and whether reinstatement and backpay are appropriate.

This case discusses the appropriateness, pursuant to Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011), of a bargaining unit limited to the sales associates in two shoe departments in the Employer’s department store.

This case discusses whether the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by: (1) threatening to sue an expelled member for the fees he accrued while the Union continued to represent him after his expulsion from the Union; (2) not giving him notice that he had no further obligation to pay dues; and (3) refusing to disgorge the fees it collected from him after his expulsion but before he registered an objection.

This case discusses the appropriateness, pursuant to Specialty Heathcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011), of a bargaining unit limited to the cosmetics and fragrances employees at one of the Employer’s full-service department stores.

This case discusses whether the Employer engaged in objectionable conduct and went beyond the statements of “historical fact” when it promised employees 401(k) and profit-sharing plans if they decertified the Union.

This case discusses whether the General Counsel’s position—that the Employer and the Union had formed a Section 9(a) relationship based on contract language alone—was substantially justified, and whether the Employer was entitled to an award of fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

This case discusses whether the Employer—a grocery store operator—violated Section 8(a)(5) by: (1) unilaterally eliminating the “cross-docking” of certain products and contracting out the delivery of those products directly from vendors to the retail stores; and (2) unilaterally implementing other changes, including eliminating backhauls and pickups of products and subcontracting that work.

This case discusses the Board’s application, following remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 665 F.3d 1295 (2011), of the ten-factor test in Quietflex Mfg. Co., 344 NLRB 1055 (2005), to determine whether an on-site work stoppage was protected, and whether the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by suspending 77 employees for participating in the work stoppage.

This case discusses the Board’s application, following remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 664 F.3d 286 (2011), of the four-factor test in Atlantic Steel, 245 NLRB 814 (1979), to determine whether an employee’s outburst during a meeting with the Employer’s owner and two other managers cost the employee the protection of the Act.

This case discusses whether the Employer—a healthcare-facilities operator—violated Section 8(a)(1) by: (1) banning employees at two of its facilities from wearing—in all areas of the facility—stickers stating that the Employer had been “Busted” by the National Labor Relations Board for violating federal labor law; and (2) selectively prohibiting employees at four other facilities from wearing the “Busted” sticker in immediate patient care areas.

This case discusses whether the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by: (1) denying an employee’s request for a Weingarten representative and then discontinuing the investigatory interview; and (2) subsequently issuing the employee a warning letter.

This case discusses whether a Union violated its duty of fair representation by: (1) failing to timely request arbitration of a unit employee’s grievance; and (2) thereafter erroneously informing the employee that the grievance was scheduled for arbitration.

This case discusses whether Section 10(b)’s 6-month limitations period barred a complaint allegation that the Union, as an employer, violated Section 8(a)(3) by requiring an employee to become a member of the Union as a condition of her employment.

This case discusses whether the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by accepting union dues deducted from employees’ paychecks after those employees executed checkoff authorization revocations following a deauthorization election but before the Board certified the election results.

This case discusses whether the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) when, during an investigatory interview, the Employer’s official—in the absence of any evidence that the official knew that an employee had previously invoked his Weingarten rights—asked the employee an additional question.

This case discusses whether the Union’s agreement to the management-rights clause in a collective-bargaining agreement waived the Union’s statutory right to bargain over the Employer’s unilateral implementation of a new policy requiring employees to sign the notes of investigative interviews in order to attest to the veracity of the notes.

This case discusses whether the Employer was required to provide the Union with information that the Union sought in connection with a class grievance alleging that the Employer had violated the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement by, among other things, refusing to pay for overtime and altering timesheets, notwithstanding the Employer’s contention that the collective-bargaining agreement did not permit the filing of a class grievance.