Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of July 15 - 19, 2024
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
21st Century Valet Parking, LLC d/b/a Star Garden Enterprise (31-CA-291825, et al.; 373 NLRB No. 76) North Hollywood, CA, July 17, 2024.
The Board denied the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s alleged breach of a settlement agreement. The Board found that the Respondent raised a material issue of fact regarding its compliance with the settlement agreement. The Board remanded the case to the Regional Director for further processing.
Charges filed by Strippers United Inc., an individual, and Actors’ Equity Association. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 135, AFL–CIO (Ralphs Grocery Company) (21-CE-300089; 373 NLRB No. 77) Los Angeles, CA, July 19, 2024.
The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondents violated Section 8(e) by entering into and maintaining a clause in a collective-bargaining agreement that, on its face, had an unlawful “secondary” purpose of serving external union objectives rather than a lawful “primary” purpose of preserving work for unit members.
Charge filed by Ralphs Grocery Company. Administrative Law Judge Amita Baman Tracy issued her decision on December 21, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
CPC Parts Delivery, LLC (31-RC-309433) Torrance, CA, July 16, 2024. The Board granted the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election with respect to whether the Employer’s Supervisors possess the authority to hire employees or to discipline employees within the meaning of Section 2(11). The Request for Review was denied in all other respects. Petitioner —Teamsters Local 848. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (01-RC-304042) Cambridge, MA, July 17, 2024. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), Local 106. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
Satellite Healthcare, Inc. (20-CA-315531, et al.) Vallejo, CA, July 19, 2024. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss two paragraphs of the third amended consolidated complaint, finding that the Respondent had not demonstrated that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In addition, the Respondent failed to demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the timeliness issues raised in its motion. Charges filed by Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers – West. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN-TV, Board Case No. 19-CA-248735 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 118) (9th Cir. decided July 17, 2024).
In an unpublished memorandum decision, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this local television and media company after it became a successor employer of two bargaining units at the KOIN-TV station in Portland, Oregon, which are represented by the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians-Communications Workers of America, Local 51, AFL-CIO. This case arose after a series of earlier Board decisions in the years 2019 through 2021 that found that Nexstar engaged in unlawful conduct by failing to provide information to the Union (367 NLRB No. 117, 370 NLRB No. 72), unilaterally changing employment terms (369 NLRB No. 61, enforced, 4 F.4th 801 (9th Cir. 2021)), and disciplining a union negotiator (370 NLRB No. 68). The Court also denied a petition for review filed by the Charging Party Union.
In the current decision, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting in part) found that Nexstar violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) in a variety of ways, including by failing to bargain in good faith for a successor agreement, unilaterally changing employment terms, and withdrawing recognition from the Union. The Board also found that Nexstar violated Section 8(a)(1) by disparaging or denigrating the Union to employees, promising and granting a wage increase to discourage union support, threatening to revoke wage increases in retaliation for engaging in protected activity, prohibiting employees from discussing the Union or wages, and prohibiting employees from distributing union bulletins. Among other remedies, the Board ordered a bargaining schedule of at least 15 hours per week, and directed Nexstar to submit bargaining reports to the Region, reimburse the Union for bargaining expenses, and make employee negotiators whole for any earnings lost while attending bargaining sessions.
On review, the Court held the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law. Among the contested issues on appeal, the Court explained that “[f[indings as to the good faith of parties involved in collective bargaining is a matter for the Board’s expertise,” and noted that the Board properly considered the totality of Nexstar’s conduct in concluding that it failed to bargain in good faith. On the withdrawal-of-recognition finding, the Court held that Nexstar failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Union had, in fact, lost majority support at the time recognition was withdrawn. Instead, the Court explained, Nexstar relied only on witness testimony that was “hearsay, was not corroborated, and, at most, established only that some employees were critical of the Union.” Regarding the Board’s finding that Nexstar made unlawfully disparaging comments to employees about the Union, the Court rejected Nexstar’s defense, explaining that “the comments were not protected under Section 8(c) of the NLRA because they functioned as ‘implied promises’ that Nexstar was bargaining on behalf of employees and could deliver better contract terms if the Union stepped aside.”
On review of contested remedies, the Court noted that the Board’s “selection of a remedy is accorded great deference,” and that the Board “is granted broad discretion in devising remedies to undo the effects of violations of the [NLRA].” Finding that each of the remedies complied with those standards, the Court upheld them, while further noting that they “were also consistent with the prior interim injunction entered in the prior Section 10(j) proceeding. See Hooks v. Nexstar Broad., Inc., No. 21-CV-00177- MO, 2021 WL 1289750 (D. Or. Mar. 29, 2021), vacated on other grounds, 54 F.4th 1101 (9th Cir. 2022). Finding no merit to Nexstar’s affirmative defenses, and summarily enforcing the uncontested portions of the Board’s order, the Court enforced the Board’s order in full.
The Court denied the Union’s petition for review seeking additional remedies, finding that the issues had not been preserved by the Union.
The Court’s decision is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 1526, AFL-CIO (Florida International Terminal, LLC) (12-CB-299858 and 12-CB-320318; JD-43-24) Fort Lauderdale, FL. Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision on July 17, 2024. Charges filed by individuals.
Tipsy Foods, Inc. (18-CA-315934; JD-44-24) Minneapolis, MN. Administrative Law Judge Sarah Karpinen issued her decision on July 18, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
Meta Platforms, Inc. (19-CA-312724; JD-42-24) Seattle, WA. Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on July 19, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.