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
Pier 55, Inc. d/b/a Little Island (02-RC-278451 371 NLRB No. 80) Manhattan, NY, March 24, 2022.
The Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Wilcox; Member Ring, dissenting) 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. Dissenting, Member Ring contended that the petitioned-for unit consisted entirely of temporary employees who were ineligible to vote.
Petitioner—Theatrical Protective Union, Local No. One, IATSE, AFL-CIO, CLC. Chairman McFerran and Members Ring and Wilcox participated.
***
Echo Transportation (16-CA-259171; 371 NLRB No. 81) Dallas, TX, March 24, 2022.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to execute a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union because the parties did not have a meeting of the minds over a material term involving the timing of wage increases.
Charge filed by Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1338. Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl issued his decision on September 13, 2021. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Ring participated.
***
1621 Route 22 West Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Somerset Valley Rehabilitation and Nursing Center (22-CA-029599, et al.; 371 NLRB No. 86) West Bound Brook, NJ, March 24, 2022.
In this compliance case, the Board granted in part the Acting General Counsel’s Motion to Strike and for Partial Summary Judgment as to those paragraphs of the compliance specification for which there was either no issue in dispute or the Respondent admitted the allegation, sought to relitigate settled issues, or improperly failed to deny the allegation with the specificity required under the Board’s Rules and Regulations. In addition, a Board majority consisting of Chairman McFerran and Member Ring denied the Acting General Counsel’s motion with respect to the Respondent’s opportunity to litigate: 1) one of the discriminatee’s entitlement to backpay based on after-acquired evidence of pre-discharge misconduct; 2) the period for which five per diem certified nursing assistants (CNAs) are entitled to backpay; and 3) whether the five per diem CNAs had received 2% annual wage increases that should be used to calculate their backpay amounts. A different Board majority consisting of Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty granted the Acting General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the Respondent’s contention that any gross backpay owed to the five per diem CNAs should be reduced 35% to correspond to a purported overall reduction in the total hours worked by CNAs in subsequent years.
Charges filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, New Jersey Region. Administrative Law Judge Steven Davis issued his decision on November 21, 2011. Chairman McFerran and Members Ring and Prouty participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Starbucks Corporation (19-RC-287954) Seattle, WA, March 22, 2022. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Elections as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. In finding the case not to be materially distinguishable from the Board’s decision in Starbucks Corporation, 371 NLRB No. 71 (2022), the Board did not agree with the Regional Director that vandalism at the Starbucks store in question constituted a meaningful difference in the working conditions of the employees at issue. Petitioner—Workers United. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
Starbucks Corporation (10-RC-288098) Knoxville, TN, March 23, 2022. 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—Workers United. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
Hudson A Professional Corporation (06-RC-280280, et al.) Pittsburgh, PA, March 24, 2022. The Board (Members Wilcox and Prouty; Member Ring, dissenting) 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—United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America. Members Ring, Wilcox, and Prouty participated.
Colectivo Coffee Roasters, Inc. (18-RC-272212) Milwaukee, WI, March 24, 2022. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Certification of Representative (in which the Regional Director concluded, inter alia, that the Employer had not established that objectionable ballot solicitation occurred), finding that it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Unions 494 & 1220. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Ring participated.
Longmont United Hospital (27-RC-275868) Longmont, CO, March 24, 2022. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Challenged Ballots and Objection and Supplemental Decision on Challenges and Direction on Challenges. Petitioner—National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United, AFL-CIO (NNOC/NNU). Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
Sysco San Francisco, Inc. (32-RC-282877) Fremont, CA, March 24, 2022. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Report on Challenged Ballot and Order Directing Opening and Counting Challenged Ballot is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review. Member Kaplan would grant review and order a rerun election in order to preserve ballot secrecy and would overrule Board precedent to the extent that it stands for the proposition that it is appropriate to open a single challenged ballot. Petitioner—Teamsters Local 853. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
Kandor Manufacturing Inc. (12-CA-279465) Arecibo, PR, March 22, 2022. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, finding that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In addition, the Respondent failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Charge filed by Laborers’ International Union of North America, Puerto Rico District Council, AFL-CIO. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Ring participated.
United States Postal Service (12-CA-278311 and 12-CA-278450) Tallahassee, FL, March 24, 2022. 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. Charges filed by National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 1172, AFL-CIO. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
SFR, Inc., d/b/a Parkside Café (10-CA-268413; JD-16-22) Birmingham, AL. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on March 21, 2022. Charge filed by an individual.
Lush Cosmetics, LLC (20-CA-272392; JD(SF)-06-22) San Francisco, CA. Administrative Law Judge Dickie Montemayor issued his decision on March 24, 2022. Charge filed by Workers United Canada Council, SEIU.
The Summary of NLRB decisions for the week of March 21 - 25, 2022 is now available on the NLRB’s website. The summary can be accessed by clicking the links below.
|
