Skip to content

You are here

Effective October 21, 2019, parties to unfair labor practice or representation cases processed in NLRB Regional Offices must submit all written statements, correspondence, position statements, documentary or any other evidence through the Agency’s electronic filing system (E-Filing). 

Click on the NLRB’s NEW My Account Portal Link to

·        Create an account or access your existing  E-Filing account

·        View your E-Filing History

·        E-File documents in a case or inquiry to which you are a party

·        Manage the contact information associated with your account.

Board finds employers have a duty to bargain with a union over discipline where there is no contract; case involves Richmond contractor

In a unanimous decision, the National Labor Relations Board found that, in a union workplace where there is no collectively-bargained grievance-arbitration system in place, employers generally must give the union notice and an opportunity to bargain before imposing discipline such as a discharge or suspension on employees. Member Hayes was recused from the decision, which issued December 14.

The case involved employees at Alan Ritchey, Inc., which inspects and repairs mail-handling equipment for the U.S. Postal Service at various facilities, including one in Richmond, California. There, a majority of employees had voted in favor of representation by Warehouse Union Local 6, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, but did not yet have a contract. A charge was filed with the NLRB after the employer disciplined an employee for insubordination without consulting or bargaining with the union.

The Board found that long-established doctrine requiring notice and bargaining on discretionary issues should also apply to discipline in such cases, although “based on the unique nature of discipline and the practical needs of employers, the bargaining obligation we impose is more limited than that applicable to other terms and conditions of employment.”  The Board applied the new rule prospectively, and so did not find a violation in the present case.

The decision resolved the last of the two-member cases returned to the Board following the 2010 Supreme Court decision in New Process Steel.

Connect with Us