| |||||
|
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
Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and AT&T Services, Inc., Joint Employers (07-CA-161545, et al.; 371 NLRB No. 63) Howell, MI, February 14, 2022.
The Board reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by disciplining and discharging a Union representative.
Charges filed by Local 4034, Communications Workers of America (CWA), AFL-CIO. Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his supplemental decision on December 8, 2020. Chairman McFerran and Members Ring and Kaplan participated.
***
KMS Commercial Painting, LLC (14-RC-281302; 371 NLRB No. 69) Omaha, NE, February 16, 2022.
The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board agreed that Dredge Operators, Inc., 306 NLRB 924 (1992), applied and rendered the challenged voters to be eligible to vote because they were in the unit on the date that they cast their ballots in the mail-ballot election. In concurrence, Member Ring acknowledged Dredge Operators applies here but expressed a willingness to reconsider the eligibility standards set forth in that case and mail-ballot procedures more generally.
Petitioner—International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local Union No. 109, District Council No. 81. Chairman McFerran and Members Ring and Prouty participated.
***
Alaris Health at Rochelle Park (22-CA-124968, et al.; 371 NLRB No. 66) Rochelle Park, NJ, February 16, 2022.
In this compliance proceeding, the Board granted in part and denied in part the General Counsel’s Motion for Partial Summary judgment as to those paragraphs of the compliance specification where the Respondent admitted or gave inadequate answers. However, the Board found that the Respondent’s general denials with respect to the General Counsel’s allegations regarding interim earnings were adequate. The Board therefore denied summary judgment on allegations in the compliance specification that are dependent on interim earnings and/or calculate backpay amounts owed without consideration of any potential interim earnings. Further, the Board granted in part the General Counsel’s motion to strike certain answers on the basis that the Respondent was attempting to raise matters that had been decided in the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding. The Board remanded the case for a hearing limited to the paragraphs of the compliance specification as to which the motion was not granted.
Charges filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Ring participated.
***
Alaris Health at Harborview (22-CA-125023, et al.; 371 NLRB No. 68) Jersey City, NJ, February 16, 2022.
In this compliance proceeding, the Board granted in part and denied in part the General Counsel’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to those paragraphs of the compliance specification where the Respondent admitted or gave inadequate answers. However, the Board found that the Respondent’s general denials with respect to the General Counsel’s allegations regarding interim earnings were adequate. The Board therefore denied summary judgment on allegations in the compliance specification that are dependent on interim earnings and/or calculate backpay amounts owed without consideration of any potential interim earnings. Further, the Board granted in part the General Counsel’s motion to strike certain answers on the basis that the Respondent was attempting to raise matters that had been decided in the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding. The Board remanded the case for a hearing limited to the paragraphs of the compliance specification as to which the motion was not granted.
Charges filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Ring participated.
***
Alaris Health at Castle Hill (22-CA-125034, et al.; 371 NLRB No. 65) Union City, NJ, February 16, 2022.
In the compliance proceeding, the Board granted in part and denied in part the General Counsel’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to those paragraphs of the compliance specification where the Respondent admitted or gave inadequate answers. However, the Board found that the Respondent’s general denials with respect to the General Counsel’s allegations regarding interim earnings were adequate. The Board therefore denied summary judgment on allegations in the compliance specification that are dependent on interim earnings and/or calculate backpay amounts owed without consideration of any potential interim earnings. Further, the Board granted in part the General Counsel’s motion to strike certain answers on the basis that the Respondent was attempting to raise matters that had been decided in the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding. The Board remanded the case for a hearing limited to the paragraphs of the compliance specification as to which the motion was not granted.
Charges filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Ring participated.
***
Alaris Health at Boulevard East (22-CA-125076, et al.; 371 NLRB No. 62) Guttenberg, NJ, February 16, 2022.
In this compliance specification, the Board granted in part and denied in part the General Counsel’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to those paragraphs of the compliance specification where the Respondent admitted or gave inadequate answers. However, the Board found that the Respondent’s general denials with respect to the General Counsel’s allegations regarding interim earnings were adequate. The Board therefore denied summary judgment on allegations in the compliance specification that are dependent on interim earnings and/or calculate backpay amounts owed without consideration of any potential interim earnings. Further, the Board granted in part the General Counsel’s motion to strike certain answers on the basis that the Respondent was attempting to raise matters that had been decided in the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding. The Board remanded the case for a hearing limited to the paragraphs of the compliance specification as to which the motion was not granted.
Charges filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Ring participated.
***
ADT, LLC (18-CA264654, et al.; 371 NLRB No. 67) Janesville, WI, February 17, 2022.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing recognition from the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of unit employees who worked in the service territory of its former Rockford, Illinois office, and by then unilaterally changing the Rockford unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment. In so ruling, the Board affirmed the judge’s conclusion that the Rockford unit remained a separate unit following the transfer of its employees to a new office in Janesville, Wisconsin. Further, the Board also affirmed the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating a unit employee about his union support and by threatening him with loss of bonus pay if the Union was restored to its representative role. Finally, the Board ordered a broad cease-and-desist order, a notice-reading order, and an affirmative bargaining order.
Charges filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 364. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on March 29, 2021. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Ring participated in the decision.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
ArrMaz Products Inc. (12-RC-255997) Mulberry, FL, February 17, 2022. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision on Challenged Ballots and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. In doing so, the Board relied solely on the Regional Director’s finding that the stipulated election agreement expressed the parties’ intent in clear and unambiguous terms to exclude the two challenged employees. The Board also agreed, in part, with the Petitioner’s contention that, under Section 102.67(e) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Employer’s Request for Review did not comply with the requirement that that a request for review be a self-contained document. Petitioner—International Chemical Workers Union Council of the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Ring participated.
C Cases
Michell Enterprises, LLC d/b/a McDonald’s (01-CA-261495) Darien, CT, February 14, 2022. No exceptions having been filed to the December 30, 2021 decision of Administrative Law Judge Donna Dawson’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 Service Employees International union, Local 32BJ.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Atlantic Veal and Lamb, LLC (29-CA-272677; JD(NY)-03-22) Brooklyn, NY. Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito issued her decision on February 15, 2022. Charge filed by United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 342.
Johns Manville Corporation (08-CA-270764; JD-11-22) Waterville and Maumee, OH. Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued her decision on February 15, 2022. Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 20.
United Scrap Metal PA, LLC (04-CA-268183, et al.; JD-12-22) Philadelphia, PA. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on February 16, 2022. Charges filed by Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 57.
