Skip to main content

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Cases & Decisions

Cases and Decisions

Gavel

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 3 - 7, 2023

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

Hudson Institute of Process Research f/k/a Hudson, a Professional Corporation and HIPR Pacsoft Technologies Inc., a joint employer  (06-CA-306766; 372 NLRB No. 73)  Pittsburgh, PA, April 4, 2023.    Errata to April 4, 2023 Decision.  Errata   Amended Decision

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the grounds that the Respondent failed to raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding in which the Union was certified as the bargaining representative.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.  The Board severed for further consideration the issue of whether the Board should adopt a compensatory, make whole remedy for the Respondent’s refusal to bargain.

Charge filed by United Electrical, Radio, & Machine Workers of America (UE) Union.  Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty participated.

***

The Riverview Nursing Facility, LLC d/b/a The Riverview Care Center  (14-CA-265341 and 14-CA-265900; 372 NLRB No. 67)  St. Louis, MO, April 4, 2023.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of the allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging two employees for their union activity.

Charges filed by SEIU Healthcare MO and KS, a Division of SEIU Healthcare Illinois/Indiana, a/w the Service Employees International Union.  Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas issued his decision on September 6, 2022.  Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.

***

NTI-CA, Inc. (31-CA-297870 and 31-CA-304306; 372 NLRB No. 71)  Inglewood, CA, April 6, 2023.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the complaint.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to bargain over the effects of its decision to cease its operations, failing to remit and/or deduct dues to the Union, failing to process and arbitrate grievances filed by the Union, and by failing to provide the Union with requested information.

Charges filed by General Teamsters, Airline, Aerospace and Allied Employees, Warehousemen, Drivers, Construction, Rock and Sand, Local 986.  Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.

***

International Longshore and Warehouse Union  (19-CD-269624 and 19-CD-269637; 372 NLRB No. 66)  Seattle, WA, April 6, 2023.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) by continuing to pursue the disputed maintenance and repair work after the Board’s Section 10(k) decision and seeking to have that work assigned to ILWU Local 19-represented employees, rather than employees represented by IAM.  The Board granted several motions to take administrative notice of prior Board decisions and public case documents, but the Board declined to take administrative notice of and/or reopen the record to admit a May 2022 Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) report.  Furthermore, the Board denied the Motion to Strike SSA Terminals’ reply brief and the Board denied the motion to revoke the certification issued in Shipowners’ Ass’n of the Pacific Coast, 7 NLRB 1002 (1938).

Charges filed by SSA Terminals, LLC and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 160, Local Lodge 289.  Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on March 4, 2022.  Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

No Unpublished R Cases Issued.

C Cases

No Unpublished C Cases Issued.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Amerinox Processing, Inc., Board Case No. 04-CA-268380 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 105) (D.C. Cir decided April 7, 2023).

In an unpublished judgment, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this Camden, New Jersey processor of stainless steel and aluminum products for committing unfair labor practices during an organizing campaign by the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transportation Workers, Sheet Metal Workers Local 19.  In doing to, the Court upheld the Board’s findings that Amerinox discriminated against six employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1), and summarily enforced those portions of the Board’s order remedying numerous uncontested violations.

In 2018, when the Union first petitioned to represent its employees, Amerinox conducted an antiunion campaign and the Union lost the election.  Thereafter, Amerinox executed two successive informal settlement agreements to resolve the resulting unfair-labor-practice charges, but failed to comply with either agreement.  The parties then entered into a formal settlement agreement, and the Union ended its organizing campaign in April 2020.  Thereafter, some employees sought to resume the campaign in October 2020 because Amerinox had engaged in further conduct for which the employees wanted union support.  On the day it learned that two employees were openly distributing union authorization cards in the parking lot, Amerinox immediately removed one of them (rather than let him work his final two weeks after giving notice earlier that day), discharged the other, and laid off four employees, three of whom had signed cards.  After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge issued a decision finding that Amerinox had committed numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3), and the District Court in New Jersey granted an injunction under Section 10(j).  Among other provisions, the district court ordered Amerinox to reinstate the five discharged or laid-off employees, and to read the court’s notice aloud at meetings attended by all employees.  NLRB v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131053 (D.N.J. July 14, 2021).

On review, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty) found, in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, that Amerinox violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by taking discriminatory actions against the six employees.  The Board also found, agreeing with the judge, that Amerinox violated Section 8(a)(1) by creating the impression that it was surveilling its employees’ union activity, threatening employees with discharge if they were to support the Union, and telling the separated union activist that he was being let go immediately because of his union support.  Further, the Board found that Amerinox also violated Section 8(a)(1) by prohibiting employees from discussing the Union during working time while tolerating discussion of non-work subjects, and by maintaining work rules that prohibited employees from discussing wages, benefits, or other terms and conditions of their employment.

Among other remedies, the Board ordered Amerinox to post and read aloud the remedial notice and an Explanation of Rights document at all-employee meetings and in the presence of the company president who had made disparaging comments about the Union and union activity.  The Board (Member Kaplan, dissenting) also ordered Amerinox to mail the remedial notice and the Explanation of Rights to all current and former unit employees, and for two years, to furnish the Union with the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and personal email addresses of current unit employees.  The Board majority explained that those remedies were needed because of Amerinox’s “serious and pervasive unfair labor practices,” and its “history of egregious violations during the previous organizing campaign.”

Before the Court, Amerinox challenged only the Board’s findings that it unlawfully removed one union activist, discharged the other, laid-off the four employees, and imposed the additional remedies.  Deciding the case without oral argument, the Court rejected Amerinox’s challenges to each of the contested violations, fully agreeing with the Board’s underlying Wright Line analysis.  Rejecting the claim that Amerinox could not have acted with union animus when it laid off the one employee who had not signed an authorization card, the Court explained that “it is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act to fire a neutral employee to cover up unlawful action against those involved in a union campaign.”

On the challenged remedies, the Court held that the Board acted well within its remedial discretion in ordering them because they “fall within the Act’s policy goals” in that they “notify employees of their statutory rights and help ensure that they can exercise those rights.”  Further, the Court noted that those remedies were particularly reasonable here given its president’s numerous disparaging statements about the Union and the employees’ union activity, as well as Amerinox’s history of “flouting labor law.”

The Court’s judgment is here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

IBN Construction Corp.  (22-CA-277455; JD(NY)-05-23)  Newark, NJ.  Administrative Law Judge Kenneth W. Chu issued his decision on April 3, 2023.  Charge filed by New Jersey Building Laborers District Council.

Dill Pickle Food Co-Op  (13-CA-288925, et al.; JD-25-23)  Chicago, IL.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on April 6, 2023.  Charges filed by Industrial Workers of the World Greater Chicago Organizing Committee.

Starbucks Corporation (18-CA-299560; JD-23-23)  Minneapolis, MN.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on April 6, 2023.  Charge filed by Chicago & Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/Service Employees International Union.

Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 872 (TV Transport)  (28-CB-267014; JD-26-23)  Las Vegas, NV.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on April 7, 2023.  Charge filed by an individual.

***

To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.