The law we enforce gives employees the right to act together to try to improve their pay and working conditions, with or without a union. If employees are fired, suspended, or otherwise penalized for taking part in protected group activity, the National Labor Relations Board will fight to restore what was unlawfully taken away. These rights were written into the original 1935 National Labor Relations Act and have been upheld in numerous decisions by appellate courts and by the U.S. Supreme Court. Recent cases involving a range of industries and employees are highlighted on the map below; please hover over a pin for a summary or click and the full story will appear below.
Hauppauge, New York
In April 2012, Local 947, United Service Workers Union of Journeymen and Allied Trades (Union) began communicating with employees at a Hyatt Hotel operated by Remington Lodging & Hospitality, regarding unionization of the housekeeping department. Managers opposed the campaign and began interrogating employees about union activity, spreading false information regarding the Union, and threatening to dismiss employees who supported the Union.
Prior to Remington’s operation of the hotel, housekeeping services had been subcontracted, but when Remington took over, it initially cancelled the contract. However, according to the Court, in response to the organizing campaign, Remington renewed and used the housekeeping contract as a way to replace its internal housekeeping staff, who were supportive of the Union.
Further, in December 2012, Remington distributed literature to its employees regarding their compensation. One employee pointed out errors in the literature to a manager and criticized the content to one of her co-workers. A short while later the employee was discharged.
In November 2012, the Union filed charges with the NLRB’s Brooklyn office. Following an investigation, the regional office found merit and issued a complaint. In March 2013, Remington began making unconditional offers of re-employment to employees on a rolling basis. The Region then sought immediate reinstatement of employees in district court. An Administrative Law Judge agreed that Remington had violated the National Labor Relations Act and recommended the same relief sought from the court.
In a decision issued on July 30, 2014, the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granted a petition for an injunction as requested by M. Kathleen McKinney, Regional Director for Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board against Kellogg Company. This injunction ordered Kellogg to cease from certain acts and conduct pending the final disposition of the case by the Board. The unfair labor practice case is currently pending before an administrative law judge of the Board. The Court found there is reasonable cause to believe that certain contract proposals made by Kellogg during contract negotiations with the Union were not mandatory subjects of bargaining and that Kellogg forced impasse and locked out its employees because the Union refused to negotiate and/or agree to those proposals.
During an organizing campaign by UNITE HERE Local 23 (Union) in 2013, Taylor Motors (Employer), which contracts school bus services with the U.S. Department of Defense, solicited employee grievances, promised its employees improved terms and conditions of employment if employees stopped supporting the Union, and threatened them with a loss of benefit by misrepresenting the extent to which they could bring issues and complaints to management if they chose the Union to represent them.
On March 17, 2014, after the Board authorized the NLRB’s Atlanta Regional Office to institute Section 10(j) injunctive proceedings in district court against the Employer, but before the Section 10(j) petition was filed, the parties entered into a formal settlement stipulation, providing for entry of a consent Board order and a consent court of appeals judgment. On July 1, 2014, the Board entered the decision and order wherein the Employer agreed to cease and desist from engaging in unlawful conduct and to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the NLRA.
Fall Creek, Winsconsin
Badger Unified (Employer) is a Wisconsin corporation engaged in the business of utility right-of-way clearing. In July of 2012, employees performing line clearance, tree trimming, and vegetation management voted to join a union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 953 (Union). Over the course of the next year, the Union attempted to bargain with the Employer on behalf of its employees.
In November of 2013, a supervisor told employees that they could not be promoted to jobs with higher pay because of the Union. The supervisor repeated this claim in January and February 2014, adding that the Employer would fight the Union at every step, that it did not want the Union, and that Union representation was futile.
The Employer continued refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union, which filed a charge with the NLRB’s Milwaukee office. Following an investigation, the Region issued a complaint on April 10, 2014. On May 20, 2014, the Board authorized the Region to initiate 10(j) injunctive proceedings against the Employer, which would direct that they bargain with the Union. The Union withdrew the charge on June 27, 2014, when the Union and the Employer reached a collective-bargaining agreement regarding employees’ wages and working conditions.
Between August and October, 2013, the managers for the Providence Portland Medical Center (Employer) repeatedly subjected employees to anti-union animus and retaliation because of their union activities during an organizing campaign by International Union of Operating Engineers Local 701 (Union). For example, in one instance, a manager promised employees new training opportunities if they didn’t support the Union and changed work locations of certain employees in order to isolate them from other employees. In another, a manager made coercive statements to employees regarding the “secretive talk and whispering about unions,” and advised employees to bring concerns to management. The Employer also denied an employee’s request for flexible work hours and required him to take paid time off to comply with a subpoena for his attendance a NLRB pre-election hearing.
In April 2014, the Board directed the NLRB’s Portland Office to seek a cease and desist order from a district court judge and an order requiring the Employer to move employees back to their former reporting locations, as well as to post and read the forthcoming district court order. On May 9, 2014, before the Section 10(j) petition for injunctive relief was filed, the Regional Director approved a settlement agreement whereby the Employer agreed to cease and desist its alleged unfair labor practices, post a notice, and make the one discriminatee whole. It had previously returned employees to their former reporting locations.
Several bus drivers of Latino Express, a transportation company, sought the help of Teamsters Local Union 777 (Union) to improve their working conditions, and solicited their co-workers support to have the Union represent them in this regard.
As the campaign progressed, the employees met with resistance from company owners and managers who began efforts to undermine the protected activity. Two employees were eventually terminated. The two employees filed charges with the NLRB’s Chicago office. Following an investigation, the NLRB found merit and asked the court to order immediate reinstatement of the employees, which the court did in April 2012. A decision by the Board on July 31, 2012 also found that Latino Express violated the Act by terminating the employees.
Latino Express failed to comply with the court’s order to reinstate the employees, and was held in contempt. Following an appeal, the court agreed with the NLRB and found Latino Express to be in contempt and ordered the company to comply in full.
Java City, Inc. of Sacramento, California (the Employer) roasts, processes, and provides coffee and coffee-related products for wholesale customers. Beginning in March, 2014, one of the employees spoke with a majority of his co-workers to gauge support for a union organizing campaign. Finding that a majority of employees did in fact support voting in a union to be their collective bargaining representative, he met with an organizer from Teamsters Local 150 (the Union) in early April, signed a union-authorization card. The employee then invited his co-workers, who had expressed an interest in union representation, to a meeting scheduled for April 12. The meeting never took place because the employee was discharged on April 9.
Following the filing of a charge and subsequent investigation, the NLRB’s San Francisco office found that the employee’s discharge was directly related to his union activities. On July 30, 2014, the Board authorized the institution of Section 10(j) injunctive proceedings.
On August 15, 2014, after a Section 10(j) petition was filed, the Employer agreed to pay full backpay to the discriminatee for the losses he incurred due to his unlawful discharge.
During the one-year waiting period after the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 399 (Union) lost an election to represent employees of Porter Hospital, LLC, d/b/a Porter Regional Hospital (Employer), the Employer unlawfully informed employees that they were not allowed to talk about their terms and conditions of employment, including disciplinary actions, with other employees. The Employer also unlawfully informed all employees that they may not discuss the Union during their lunch period. It also unlawfully disciplined an employee for discussing certification requirements and lunch break sign-out procedures with other employees and laid off three employees because of their union activities.
In May 2014, the Board authorized the institution of Section 10(j) injunctive proceedings against the Employer. On June 16, 2014, before the Section 10(j) petition was filed, the Regional Director of Region 25 – Indianapolis, IN approved the settlement agreement whereby the Employer agreed to cease and desist its alleged unfair labor practices, to pay backpay and front pay to the three employees, who waived reinstatement, and to post a notice explaining to employees their rights under the NLRA.
On August 23, 2013, the NLRB’s Detroit, MI Regional Office issued a complaint alleging that Holy Cross Youth and Family Services, Inc., d/b/a Kairos Healthcare (the Employer) unlawfully withdrew recognition from Local 517M, Service Employees International Union (the Union), made unilateral changes to employees’ terms and conditions of employment without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain over those changes, and failed to provide relevant information to the Union to assist in its bargaining with the Employer on behalf of the employees. The Employer provides drug and alcohol rehabilitation services in Saginaw, Michigan.
The Regional Office sought, and the Board authorized, pursuit of interim injunctive relief to return the parties to the bargaining table pending final resolution of the matter, to require the Employer to provide the Union with the information it requested and, upon request, to rescind the unilateral changes made to employees’ terms and conditions of employment.
On February 21, 2014, a federal court judge for the Eastern District of Michigan agreed with the Board and ordered the temporary relief sought. Specifically, the judge determined that an interim injunction was appropriate to prevent loss of Union support, to preserve the employees’ right to bargain with their Employer through their chosen bargaining representative, and to provide the Union with the information it needs to evaluate and make bargaining proposals while the administrative case is pending before the Board.
On October 17, 2013, the Board authorized pursuing an injunction against Merit House, LLC (Employer) for refusing to recognize and bargain with Service Employees International Union District 1199 (Union), which represented approximately 25 predecessor employees who were hired by the Employer. The Region was directed to seek a cease and desist order and an interim bargaining order.
On February 6, 2014, after the injunction petition was filed, the Regional Director approved a bilateral settlement agreement, whereby the Employer agreed to recognize and bargain with the Union.
In a decision issued on January 14, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a petition for a preliminary injunction filed by Joseph F. Frankl, Regional Director for Region 20 (San Francisco) of the National Labor Relations Board against Fairfield Imports, LLC d/b/a Fairfield Toyota, Momentum Autogroup, and Momentum Toyota of Fairfield, until the case now pending before an administrative law judge of the Board is finally decided by the Board. The Court ordered Fairfield Toyota to cease firing employees because of their union activities, unilaterally changing employees’ terms and conditions of employment without providing the Machinists’ Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain, and enforcing a unilaterally changed policy regarding scrap tire removal. The Court further ordered Fairfield Toyota to offer reinstatement to the open and active union supporter who was fired in May 2013, to rescind its unilaterally changed scrap tire policy at the union’s request, and to read the Court order to an assembled group of employees.
The Court found that the firing of the active and open union supporter had a chilling effect on other employees’ union support, and that Fairfield Toyota’s decision to change the technicians’ terms and conditions of employment without first giving the Union the opportunity to bargain would cause irreparable harm to the collective-bargaining process absent injunctive relief. The Court also found that the balance of hardships favored issuing the injunction because of the Regional Director’s strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits and that irreparable harm was likely to result, and that the injunction would promote the public interest by preserving the Board’s ability to issue a meaningful remedy in due course.
Los Angeles, California
In early August 2013, the Service Employees International Union-Long Term Care Workers (Union) launched an organizing campaign at Vista Del Sol Health Services (Employer) in Los Angeles, California. When a manager discovered that organizers were visiting employees at home, she called a meeting and informed staff that thieves claiming to be union organizers were visiting homes in order to steal documentation and other information, and stated that they should not open their doors to them.
In October, 2013, Union representatives held two meetings at a nearby fast food restaurant. Several employees signed a union petition, which was then presented to management. Managers began interrogating employees regarding their union activity and told some that they would be fired unless they signed a form indicating that they had signed the union petition against their will. The Employer also informed some employees that the facility would close if the Union was elected as their collective-bargaining representative.
In mid-to-late October, 2013, several employees, who were active in the union organizing campaign, were fired. The firings were widely regarded by other employees as a message sent by the Employer that if they did not stop their union activities, they also would be let go.
From mid-October through early December, 2013, the Union filed fifteen charges against the Employer. Following an investigation, the NLRB issued two consolidated complaints so that the statutory violations could be litigated before an Administrative Law Judge. Also, because of the Employer’s unlawful conduct noted above, the NLRB ‘s Regional Office in Los Angeles also asked a federal court to intercede in order to provide an immediate interim remedy to stop the Employer from continuing to discourage its employees from engaging in union activities and support and to force the Employer to bring back the fired workers and to bargain with the Union as the employees’ representative.
On January 22, 2015, the court agreed with the NLRB, ordering the Employer to refrain from engaging in further unfair labor practices and ordering the immediate reinstatement of all employees fired because of their union activities. The court also ordered the Employer to recognize and bargain with the Union until the NLRB’s litigation proceedings are completed and a Board order issues. This latter remedy was necessary because the Union enjoyed majority support from the employees to represent them until the Employer’s conduct eviscerated it.
In May of 2012, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Port Division (Union) began organizing truck drivers at Green Fleet Systems, Inc (Employer), a company that employs around 110 truck drivers to transport goods in and around Southern California. Soon after the organizing campaign began, various representatives of the Employer began engaging in a multitude of unfair labor practices against the organizing employees. The unfair labor practices included soliciting signatures on anti-union petitions and promising increased benefits and improved terms and conditions to employees if they refused to support the Union.
The Union then filed charges with the NLRB's Los Angeles office. After investigating the charges, a complaint was issued, yet the Employer continued to violate the National Labor Relations Act. It instituted new rules that limited after-hour access to its facility, photographed truck drivers distributing union literature, interrogated employees about union activities, and encouraged employees to spy on union supporters and to provoke them into physical altercations so that they could then fire them.
A short Union-led strike over two days in August 2013 led to further violations. The Employer videotaped and photographed striking truckers, threatened to fire union supporters, and encouraged employees to make derogatory remarks and gestures to striking truck drivers.
Such activities continued through another strike and, in late 2013 and early 2014, the Employer retaliated against two lease drivers by refusing to allow them to refuel until they withdrew their claims of employee status. The employees refused, and were fired. A supervisor then allegedly told other employees, "that is how all of those that support the Union will end up. They are an example."
Because of the continued unfair labor practices, the Board authorized pursuit of injunctive relief on August 4, 2014 in order to force the Employer to stop its unlawful conduct and to return to the status quo. On October 10, 2014, the district court granted relief to preserve the conditions that existed before the Employer's alleged unlawful acts. The court ordered the Employer to cease and desist from unfair labor practices and reinstate the terminated employees.
During a successful organizing campaign by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 387 (the Union), One Call Locators, Ltd. d/b/a ELM Locating & Utility Services in Phoenix, Arizona (the Employer) engaged in unlawful conduct, including promising increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if employees refrained from engaging in union activities. In addition, the Employer threatened removal of paid holidays if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative. Notwithstanding this coercive conduct, on February 22, 2014, the employees selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. Thereafter, several employees were disciplined, and two were discharged for their role in the organizational campaign.
On July 9, 2014, the Board authorized the institution of Section 10(j) injunctive proceedings and directed the Phoenix Regional Office to seek an order requiring the Employer to stop its unlawful conduct, to reinstate the discharged employees, and to post and read the district court’s order.
On September 9, 2014, the district court provided the requested relief, except for reinstatement of one of the two employees.
During August 2013, employees at Amphenol Griffith Enterprises (Employer), a Cottonwood, Arizona manufacturer of electrical support systems for aviation and gas pipeline customers, held several meetings to discuss union organizing at their workplace with the assistance of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Several employees launched a pro-union campaign to which the Employer aggressively responded, escalating with the discharge of a pro-union employee.
As a result, the NLRB’s Phoenix, AZ Regional Office sought, and the Board authorized, pursuit of interim injunctive relief to return the pro-union employee to work pending final resolution of the matter and to stop the Employer from continuing to engage in unlawful conduct, such as threatening employees with discharge and withholding a planned wage increase.
On February 25, 2014, a Federal District Judge decided that the interim reinstatement of the pro-union employee was appropriate to allow the union organizing campaign to continue without further interference from the Employer. A settlement agreement was reached on February 26, 2014, which gave the pro-union employee permanent reinstatement and backpay owed and required the Employer to post a notice that addressed violations of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) and advised employees of their rights under the Act.
On January 24, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division granted an injunction filed by Frederick J. Calatrello, Regional Director for Region 8 (Cleveland) of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against DHSC, LLC, which does business as Affinity Medical Center in Massillon, Ohio. The court found that the NLRB had reasonable cause to believe that Affinity Medical Center violated the National Labor Relations Act when the company disciplined and fired a long-tenured orthopedic nurse who was a union supporter, limited access to its property to a union representative, and refused to recognize or bargain with the National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC), the nurses’ recently-certified collective bargaining representative.
The court ordered Affinity to cease and desist from disciplining, discharging and reporting its employees to the State Board of Nursing because of their union activities, sympathies, or support. Further, the court ordered the company to “recognize, and upon request, bargain in good faith with the union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the employees concerning their wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment.” Lastly, the company was ordered to stop imposing more onerous working conditions on employees because the employees engaged in protected concerted activities and/or union activities.
When the Wheeling Corrugated Company (Wheeling), a roofing and siding business in Louisville, Kentucky, went bankrupt in 2012, World Class Corrugating, LLC (the Company) purchased some of their assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. World Class Corrugating, LLC began similar operations and employed Wheeling’s managers and supervisors. However, in order to avoid a bargaining obligation with International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 89 (the Union), which was the collective-bargaining representative of Wheeling’s unit employees, it directed a temporary hiring agency to ensure that former employees of Wheeling were not hired in numbers such that they would comprise a majority of the new World Class Corrugating workforce. Further, when the Union sought recognition, the Company refused to recognize or bargain with it and unilaterally changed the employees’ terms and conditions of employment, including making changes to their health and retirement benefits.
After the Board authorized seeking Section 10(j) injunctive relief, which, if so ordered by the district court, would have required the Company to stop its alleged unlawful conduct, hire Wheeling unit employees, and recognize and bargain with the Union, the NLRB’s Region 9 - Cincinnati, OH Office settled the matter. Based thereon, World Class Corrugating agreed to hire or place on a preferred hiring list 18 employees who had previously worked for Wheeling, to pay nearly $120,000 in backpay, to pay more than $11,000 in reimbursement for expenses incurred by the workers as a result of the company’s conduct, and to provide the workers with retroactive pension fund contributions. Notably, successful bargaining between the Company and the Union led to a mutually acceptable collective bargaining agreement that is currently in effect at the workplace.
El Paso, Texas
When employees at G-2 V Enterprises, Inc, a landscaping and grounds maintenance services company began looking into union membership, the company put in place a broad prohibition against conducting union activities during work hours. Some workers, however, continued to assert their right and to engage in these activities.
In July of 2014, managers began interrogating employees about their union membership activities and sympathies. One employee was given a written warning, and then discharged the same day. This employee was known to be one of the primary union organizers.
The employee and union filed a charge with the NLRB’s Phoenix office and, following an investigation, a complaint was issued against the employer. The Board authorized a temporary injunction requiring the employer to refrain from its illegal activity and reinstate the fired employee. A district court judge agreed and ordered the reinstatement.
After contact with the Iron Workers District Council of Northern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania and Northern West Virginia (the Union) in early May 2014, several employees of Buffalo Structural Steel in Titusville, Pennsylvania (the Employer) began meeting with their co-workers during break time and after work hours to solicit support for the Union. On May 9, the three most active employees in the Union’s organizing campaign were laid off. The Union filed a charge, and following an investigation, the NLRB’s Pittsburgh office found that the employees had been unlawfully fired because they were helping the Union in its efforts to become the employees’ collective bargaining representative.
On August 14, 2014, the Board authorized the institution of Section 10(j) injunctive proceedings where the Region was directed to seek an order requiring the Employer to stop its unlawful conduct and to return the laid off employees to work.
On September 8, 2014, before the Section 10(j) petition was filed, the Region approved a settlement agreement where the Employer agreed to return the three employees from layoff and pay them backpay owed to them for the time period when they were unlawfully prevented from working.
Farmington, New Mexico
First Transit, Inc. (Company), a transportation management company operating throughout the United States, obtained a transit contract in 2011 to operate Red Apple Transit, a passenger bus company in Farmington, N.M. All the full-time and regular part-time drivers at Red Apple Transit were represented by the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (Union).
On May 13, 2013, the Board authorized NLRB Region 28 to pursue an injunction against First Transit Inc. for withdrawing recognition from the Union. First Transit also made unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of Red Apple Transit drivers’ employment – including cuts in wages and benefits – without giving the Union an opportunity to bargain on the proposed changes. In addition, they failed to provide relevant information the Union requested for the purpose of carrying out its representational duties.
On June 13, 2013, after the Section 10(j) petition had been filed in the district court, the parties agreed to a settlement, with First Transit agreeing to cease and desist its unfair labor practices, to recognize and bargain with the Union, to provide the requested information to the Union and to rescind the unilateral changes they had made in terms and conditions of employment of Red Apple Transit’s drivers. On November 21, 2013, the Board approved the settlement agreement. In late 2013, the Company and the Union agreed on mutually acceptable terms and conditions of employment for the employees and signed a collective bargaining agreement.
Employees at a Novelis Corporation (Employer) fabrication plant were dissatisfied with pending policy changes adversely affecting their holiday pay and overtime pay. The employees sought union representation to collectively bargain with the Employer. During the representation election campaign, the NLRB received reports that the Employer violated Federal labor law. The NLRB undertook an investigation and found evidence that the Employer threatened employees with plant closure, job loss, a reduction in wages, and mandatory overtime if they voted for the Union.
The NLRB also found evidence that the Employer disparaged the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers, International Union, AFL-CIO (the Union) by telling employees that the Union would seek to have their pay and benefits rescinded; interrogated employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies; prohibited employees from wearing union insignia, while permitting employees to wear anti-union insignia; and prohibited employees from distributing literature anywhere on the EmployerÔÇÖs premises. The General Counsel issued complaint on May 6, 2014.
On June 13, 2014, the Board authorized the institution of Section 10(j) proceedings to obtain an immediate order directing the Employer to cease and desist from violating Federal labor law and to bargain with the Union. On September 4, 2014, the district court ordered the requested relief in part, declining to issue a bargaining order but ordering the Employer to cease and desist from violating Federal law labor.
Old Saybrook, Connecticut
In September 2011, employees at First Student, Inc, a company that provided local school bus transportation services, chose the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1459 (Union) to be their exclusive collective bargaining representative. The Union is to hold that status until August, 2015. However, in July of 2013, M&J Bus, Inc. (the Employer) assumed First Student's public school bus transportation functions. Since the operations of the business were basically unchanged, in fact keeping most of the same employees, M&J is obligated to bargain with the Union as a successor employer.
However, as the transition occurred, the Employer refused to hire two employees specifically because of their union activities, refused to recognize and bargain with the Union, and established new rates of pay, benefits, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment for employees.
Following an investigation by the NLRB's office in Hartford, Connecticut, a complaint was issued on April 30, 2014. On June 30, 2014, the Board authorized pursuit of injunctive relief in order to force the Employer to stop its unlawful conduct and return to the status quo. On September 22, 2014, the United States District Court of Connecticut directed the company to reinstate the two employees, rescind those parts of the terms and conditions of employment that it had modified, and bargain in good faith with the Union.
West Coxsackie, Newyork
In May 2013, the drivers at Hogan Transports, Inc. (Employer), a trucking company, began a union organizing campaign at their workplace in West Coxsackie, New York, with the assistance of Teamsters, Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Union). A majority of employees signed union authorization cards and the Union filed a petition and sought to become the bargaining representative for the workers. The Employer responded by threatening employees with job loss, questioning employees about their union support, promising and granting wage increases, and discharging a pro-union employee.
As a result of the investigation of the unfair labor practice charges, the NLRB sought an injunction in federal court to return the discharged employee to work pending final resolution of the matter before the NLRB and to stop the Employer from continuing to engage in unlawful conduct. On November 22, 2013, a district court judge granted interim relief sought by the NLRB and ordered the Employer to stop firing employees because of their union activities, questioning employees about their union support, promising and granting wage increases to discourage union support, and threatening employees with job loss if they continue to support the Union. On February 26, 2014, an NLRB administrative law judge similarly found that the Employer's conduct violated the National Labor Relations Act. The ALJ recommended to the Board that the pro-union employee be permanently reinstated with full backpay and that the Employer should be ordered to bargain with the Union without an election because the Employer's coercive conduct made a free and fair election impossible.
On October 14, 2014, a further Circuit Court order reversed the portions of the District Court's order under appeal, including the provisions related to backpay, and directed the court to revise its decision that found an interim bargaining order unwarranted; in light of the serious violations it found.
In March 2013, employees of S.W. Pitts Hose Company of Latham, N.Y., Inc. (Employer) voted to be represented by Local 4924, Colonie Professional Firefighters Association, International Association of Firefighters (Union).Over the course of the next several months, the Employer actively refused to bargain in good faith, illegally and unilaterally changed terms and conditions of employment, unlawfully fired two employees for Union involvement, and restricted employees’ rights.
Over the course of the next several months, the Employer engaged in surface bargaining with no intention of reaching an agreement by insisting upon proposals that were predictably unacceptable to the Union and that would leave employees with fewer rights and protections. The Employer also insisted that the Union agree to a no-strike clause.
Further, it unilaterally changed attendance policies, reduced employee wages, increased contributions for health insurance, and reduced employee work hours. On April 30, 2014, the Board directed the Buffalo Regional Office to seek a cease and desist order from a district court judge requiring the Employer to immediately bargain in good faith with the Union.
On June 20, 2014, the district court judge granted the requested injunctive relief, which included an order requiring the Employer to bargain in good faith with the Union, to rescind the unilateral changes at the Union’s request, to rescind the disciplines, to rescind aspects of the proposal containing unlawful restrictions on Section 7 rights, and to post and read the district court’s order.