Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of June 14 - 18, 2021
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
Quality Investigations, Inc. (15-CA-236469; 370 NLRB No. 138) Bryant, AR, June 16, 2021.
The Board granted the Acting General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment and found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to deposit unused hourly health and welfare benefits into the 401(k) accounts of unit employees as required by its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union and acting without the consent of the Union.
Charge filed by individuals. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Ring participated.
D.O. Productions, LLC (22-RM-270677; 370 NLRB No. 139) Lodi, NJ, June 17, 2021.
The Board granted the Employer-Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s administrative dismissal of its petition as it raised substantial issues warranting review. On review, the Board affirmed the Acting Regional Director’s administrative dismissal based on the Acting Regional Director’s determination that the Employer-Petitioner failed to provide sufficient objective considerations in support of its RM petition. In doing so, the Board held that a disaffection petition signed by a minority of unit employees, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a good-faith reasonable uncertainty regarding a union’s continued majority status. The Board also rejected the argument that the administrative dismissal of the RM petition was inconsistent with Section 103.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
Union—Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers’ International Union Local 53. Members Kaplan, Emanuel, and Ring participated.
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. (14-RC-261601) Kansas City, MO, June 17, 2021. The Board denied in part the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision on Objections to Employer Conduct Affecting Results of Election. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s decision to overrule 28 of its 30 objections without a hearing. The Board remanded the case to the Region to count seven determinative mail-ballots, and, if necessary, to conduct further analysis of the two remaining objections. Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 41. Chairman McFerran and Members Emanuel and Ring participated.
Asociacion de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico (12-CA-218502 and 12-CA-232704) Las Vegas, NV, June 14, 2021. The Board denied the Charging Party’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision and Order reported at 370 NLRB No. 71. With Chairman McFerran concurring in the result, the Board found that the Charging Party did not identify any material error or demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. Charges filed by Union Internacional de Trabajadores de la Industria de Automoviles, Aeroespacio e Implementos Agricolas, U.A.W., Local 1850. Chairman McFerran and Members Emanuel and Ring participated.
Haven Salon + Spa, Inc. (18-CA-266091 and 18-CA-267818) Muskego, WI, June 17, 2021. No exceptions having been filed to the April 30, 2021 decision of Administrative Law Judge Sharon Levinson Steckler’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. Charges filed by an individual.
Appellate Court Decisions
Tecnocap LLC, Board Case No. 06-CA-216499 (reported at 368 NLRB No. 70) (4th Cir. decided June 17, 2021).
In a published opinion, the Fourth Circuit enforced in part the Board’s order issued against this manufacturer of bottle caps and other container closures in Glen Dale, West Virginia, for unfair labor practices it committed during negotiations for a successor collective-bargaining agreement and a subsequent lockout. Specifically, the Board (then-Chairman Ring and Members Kaplan and Emanuel) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally implementing job classifications proposed in its last contract offer in the absence of a good-faith impasse, locking out employees in support of its demand that the Union agree to change the scope of the bargaining unit, which is a permissive subject of bargaining, and bypassing the Union and dealing directly with employees through a series of bulletin-board notices and other actions. The Board also found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by announcing to employees that it would lock out only union members, and subsequently violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by doing so.
On review, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that the Employer unlawfully declared impasse based on the Union’s refusal to negotiate over the scope of the bargaining unit, implemented the job classifications contained in its last contract offer, and locked out union members to pressure the Union to accept its proposed changes to the unit’s scope. Similarly, the Court agreed with the Board that the Employer’s announcement that only union members would be locked out, and its subsequent lockout of only union members, were unlawful. The Court found no merit to the Employer’s challenges to those findings.
However, concerning the direct-dealing finding, the Court disagreed with the Board. The Court stated that, in its view, the bulletin-board notices—which, among other things, announced the impending lockout, told employees that the human resources director was available to answer questions, and identified who to contact to seek a temporary position during the lockout—taken together, indicated that the Employer “was simply relaying truthful information about its position, the governing law, and how it intended to carry out the lockout.”
The Court’s opinion is here.
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Cargill, Inc. (07-CA-270555; JD-28-21) St. Clair, MI. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued his decision on June 15, 2021. Charge filed by Local 867 C, International Chemical Workers Union Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO.
Cascades Containerboard Packaging – Piscataway, a Division of Cascades Holdings US Inc. (22-CA-240134, et al.; JD(NY)-05-21) Piscataway, NY. Administrative Law Judge Benjamin W. Green issued his decision on June 15, 2021. Charges filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC.
Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (16-CA-260485; JD-29-21) Ft. Worth, TX. Administrative Law Judge David I. Goldman issued his decision on June 17, 2021. Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 220.
Kava Holdings, LLC, et al., d/b/a Hotel Bel Air (31-CA-074675; JD(SF)-09-21) Los Angeles, CA. Administrative Law Judge Lisa D. Ross issued her decision on June 17, 2021. Charge filed by UNITE HERE – Local 11.
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.