Notable Board Decisions

This case discusses whether the Board should modify its make-whole remedy to require respondents to fully compensate discriminatees for search-for-work expenses and for expenses incurred in connection with interim employment.

This case discusses whether students who perform services at a university in connection with their studies are statutory employees within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the NLRA.

This case discusses whether the Board should overrule Raley's Supermarkets & Drug Centers, 349 NLRB 26 (2007), and hold that the test set out in Pergament United Sales, 296 NLRB 333 (1989), is applicable to issues involving a failure to timely disclose that requested information does not exist, and that a finding of violation is not necessarily precluded by the absence of a specific complaint allegation.

This case discusses whether the Board should overrule Wells Fargo Corp., 270 NLRB 787 (1984), and find that an employer of security guards that has voluntarily recognized a “mixed-guard” union as its guards’ representative must continue to recognize and bargain with the union unless and until it is shown that the union has actually lost majority support among unit employees.

This case discusses the phrase “independent unlawful purpose” as used in Hot Shoppes, 146 NLRB 802 (1964), and whether it includes an employer’s intent to discriminate or to encourage or discourage union membership, and does not require that the unlawful purpose be unrelated to or extrinsic to the parties' bargaining relationship or the underlying strike. In Hot Shoppes, the Board stated that NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), and its progeny establish that an employer may permanently replace economic strikers at will, and thus that the motive for doing so is immaterial absent evidence of an “independent unlawful purpose.”

This case discusses whether the road supervisors and lead road supervisors for the Employer—a provider of van service to a metropolitan transit authority—possess the authority to discipline, to effectively recommend discipline, or to reward sufficient to confer statutory supervisory status.

This case discusses whether an administrative law judge abused his discretion in granting the General Counsel’s late request for an extension of time to respond to an applicant’s application for an award of fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

This case discusses whether a successorship provision in a collective-bargaining agreement is a lawful successorship clause that does not restrict the Employer’s right to enter into any lease with a secondary employer, and therefore does not implicate “doing business” within the meaning of Section 8(e).

This case discusses whether the Regional Director—in a mail-ballot election in which the final tally counted 34 votes out of 101 eligible voters—properly refused to count 55 additional ballots (including 48 ballots that were postmarked before the last day of the original voting period) that were received after the 1-week grace period provided by the postponed ballot count had expired.

This case discusses whether a petitioned-for multifacility unit of janitorial services employees of an Employer that provides services at two Federal government facilities in San Francisco is appropriate for bargaining.

This case discusses whether the Employer—a college—unlawfully failed to bargain with the Union about the effects of the Employer’s decision to reduce the number of credit hours awarded for certain courses, and if an award of negotiation expenses to the Union is an appropriate remedy for the Employer’s bargaining-related misconduct.

This case discusses whether lieutenants at the Employer’s nuclear power plant responsibly direct, assign, possess authority to discipline, or effectively recommend discipline sufficient to confer statutory supervisory status.

This case discusses whether to overrule Oregon Washington Telephone Co., 123 NLRB 339 (1959), and hold that the captive-audience speech prohibition in a mail-ballot election begins 24 hours before the ballots are scheduled to be mailed.

This case discusses whether the road supervisors for the Employer—that operates a public bus transportation system—possess the authority to discipline or to reward sufficient to confer statutory supervisory status.

This case discusses whether the Employer unlawfully maintained rules in its general information guide prohibiting recording in the workplace without prior management approval.

This case discusses whether the Employer’s maintenance and enforcement of an arbitration policy that forecloses access to court and that requires employees to individually arbitrate employment-related disputes is unlawful under D.R. Horton, 357 NLRB 2277 (2012), and Murphy Oil USA, 361 NLRB No. 72 (2014), even though the policy permits employees to file claims or charges with Federal agencies, which may then choose to pursue a judicial remedy on behalf of employees as a group.

This case discusses whether deferral to arbitration is appropriate for Section 8(a)(3) and (1) claims that the Employer unlawfully disciplined and discharged a union steward and her unit member for activity related to the processing of the member’s grievance.

This case discusses whether the Employer—a hospital—had a duty to bargain with the Union both over the decision to implement a training program that employed unit nurses as trainers of nursing students, and over the effects of that decision.

This case discusses whether the Employer’s tugboat captains are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.

This case discusses whether—in a mail-ballot election in which 10 counted ballots were cast for the Union and 6 were cast against representation—the Regional Director properly excluded from the tally 10 ballots that were received by the Region after the tally was completed.