ICWUC Go - N.L.R.B. Weekly Summaries

N.L.R.B. Weekly Summaries

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 22 - 26, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 22 - 26, 2024 mmeyers Fri, 05/03/2024 - 11:40
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
Starbucks Corporation (07-CA-293742 and 07-CA-293748; 373 NLRB No. 44) Ann Arbor, MI, Clinton Township, MI, April 25, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when, in the midst of organizing drives at two of its Michigan stores, it solicited grievances at one and made threats and took down supportive customer postings from a community bulletin board at the other.
Charges filed by Workers United. Administrative Law Judge Christal J. Key issued her decision on February 9, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 689 a/w Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL–CIO, CLC (Transdev Services, Inc.) (05-CB-286354 and 05-CB-286964; 373 NLRB No. 49) Forestville, MD, April 26, 2024.
The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) when the Union shop steward slapped the individual Charging Party after he repeatedly insulted her. The Board found that the shop steward’s reaction was personal and unrelated to her role as a steward or the Charging Party’s union dissidence. A Board majority (Members Prouty and Wilcox) reversed the judge and found that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(2) when another Union steward told the general manager that the Employer should discharge the Charging Party if it discharges the shop steward. The Board majority found that the Union steward’s’ statement was an attempt to convince the Employer not to terminate the Union shop steward rather than an attempt to cause the Charging Party’s termination in breach of its duty of fair representation. The majority also stated that it would reach the same result applying a Wright Line analysis because the General Counsel failed to establish the requisite animus and dismissed the complaint. Dissenting, Member Kaplan found that the Union steward’s remark was an attempt to cause the Charging Party’s termination because of his dissidence and that it constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(2) under both a duty of fair representation analysis and a Wright Line analysis.
Charges filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Christal J. Key issued her decision on September 29, 2022. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Lee Publications, Inc., d/b/a The Daily News of Longview (19-RC-309505) Longview, WA, April 25, 2024. The Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Wilcox; Member Kaplan, dissenting) denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Regional Director found that the petitioned-for employees had a sufficient community of interest with employees in the existing unit to warrant a self-determination election. Dissenting, Member Kaplan would have granted review and reversed the Regional Director’s Decision. Petitioner—Pacific Northwest Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA 37082. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
Starbucks Corporation (01-CA-299987, et al.) Biddeford, ME and Brookline, MA, April 25, 2024. No exceptions having been filed to the March 14, 2024 decision of Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl’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 Workers United Labor Union International, a/w Service Employees International Union.
Wilton Rancheria, d/b/a Sky River Casino (20-CA-331192) Elk Grove, CA, April 26, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Petition to Revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum, finding that the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and that the Employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charge filed by UNITE HERE International Union. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Siren Retail Corporation d/b/a Starbucks, Board Case No. 19-CA-299478 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 10) (9th Cir. decided April 24, 2024).
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s bargaining order in this test-of-certification case against the operator of a retail coffeehouse, known as its Reserve Roastery in Seattle, Washington, where its employees voted 38 to 27 in a March 2022 mail-ballot election to be represented by Workers United. In doing so, the Court held that the Board acted within its discretion in ordering a mail-ballot election, and rejected the Employer’s contention that the Board’s severance of a remedial issue had undermined the Court’s jurisdiction.
In the underlying representation case, the Union proposed that the election be conducted by mail and the Employer requested an in-person election. After the parties submitted position statements, the Regional Director issued a decision applying Aspirus Keweenaw, 370 NLRB No. 45 (2020), in which the Board established guidelines for the regional directors to apply in deciding whether to conduct a mail or manual election during the COVID-19 pandemic. Applying that guidance, the Regional Director consulted the county-level data published on the Johns Hopkins University website, and determined that a mail-ballot election would be appropriate because "the 14-day trend in [the] number of new confirmed [COVID-19] cases in [King County] is increasing.” The Employer filed a Request for Review, which was denied by the Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Wilcox; Member Kaplan, dissenting).
After the election, the Employer filed an objection repeating its position that the Regional Director’s decision to hold the election by mail was erroneous. The Regional Director issued a decision finding, among other things, that the objection was procedurally inappropriate because it challenged the method of election, rather than any objectionable conduct committed during the election. The Regional Director therefore overruled the objection, and certified the Union. The Employer then refused to bargain, and the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Board found the violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1), and also severed and retained for further consideration the General Counsel’s request to overrule Ex-Cell-O Corp., 185 NLRB 107 (1970), and to adopt an additional, compensatory remedy requiring the Employer to make unit employees whole for the lost opportunity to bargain.
Before the Court, the Employer argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the Board’s application for enforcement because, it contended, the Board’s severance of the remedial issue rendered the Board’s order non-final under Section 10(e) of the Act. Rejecting the contention, the Court cited in-circuit cases where it had enforced Board orders that also “sever[ed] or reserve[d] judgment on a separate issue.” Further, the Court noted that the D.C. Circuit recently “made short work” in reaching a similar conclusion on the Board’s severance of the Ex-Cell-O remedial issue, citing Longmont United Hospital v. NLRB, 70 F.4th 573 (D.C. Cir. 2023). Turning to the merits, the Court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in upholding the Regional Director’s ordering of a mail-ballot election. Specifically, the Court noted that the Employer had failed to put forth sufficient evidence to undermine the Regional Director’s application of Aspirus, or his conclusion that the 14-day trend in COVID-19 pandemic cases was increasing.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Starbucks Corporation (14-CA-306625; JD-24-24) St. Louis, MO. Administrative Law Judge Sarah Karpinen issued her decision on April 25, 2024. Charge filed by Chicago and Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/Service Employees International Union.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.
Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 15 - 19, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 15 - 19, 2024 mmeyers Thu, 04/25/2024 - 10:30
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
North Mountain Foothills Apartments, LLC (28-CA-286885; 373 NLRB No. 26) Phoenix, AZ, April 17, 2024. Errata to February 21, 2024 Decision. Errata Amended Decision.
***
Chemtrade West US LLC (32-CA-282594; 373 NLRB No. 43) Richmond and Bay Point, CA, April 16, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by questioning an employee about protected concerted conduct during a deposition related to a federal wage-and-hour lawsuit against the Respondent. Applying the three-part test set forth in Guess?, Inc., 339 NLRB 432 (2003), the Board concluded that the Respondent had not proven that its interests in obtaining the information outweighed the employee’s confidentiality interest under Section 7 of the Act. The Board found it unnecessary to pass on the Respondent’s argument that the judge erred in finding some of the deposition questions were not relevant to the wage-and-hour lawsuit because, even if they were relevant, the Board agreed with the judge that the Respondent had not satisfied the third part of the Guess? analysis.
Charge filed by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 1584. Administrative Law Judge Amita Baman Tracy issued her decision on November 17, 2022. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Starbucks Corporation (20-CA-296184; 373 NLRB No. 45) Mililani, HI, April 17, 2024.
A unanimous Board (Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox) adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by soliciting and promising to remedy grievances if employees voted against the Union, and by threatening employees with the loss of a pay raise and loss of benefits—specifically, the ability to pick up shifts at other stores—if employees voted for the Union. A Board majority (Members Prouty and Wilcox) also adopted the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with the loss of benefits—specifically, the ability to share products with other stores—if employees voted for the Union. Member Kaplan, dissenting on this issue, would find that the record fails to establish that employees’ ability to share products with other stores constitutes a benefit to employees.
Charge filed by Workers United Labor Union International, a/w Service Employees International Union. Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on August 8, 2023. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
HSA Cleaning Inc. (22-CA-298853; 373 NLRB No. 46) East Rutherford, NJ, April 19, 2024.
The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by terminating one employee for engaging in union organizing activity and Section 8(a)(1) by terminating a second employee for engaging in protected concerted activity by speaking out on behalf of employees at a shift meeting. A Board majority (Chairman McFerran and Member Wilcox) thus found it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent’s discharge of the second employee also violated Section 8(a)(3). Member Kaplan would have reversed the judge’s finding that the second employee’s discharge also violated Section 8(a)(3).
Charge filed by SEIU Local 32BJ. Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey P. Gardner issued his decision on September 28, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Skid Row Downtown Limited Liability Company (02-RC-332821) New York, NY, April 16, 2024. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Rescheduling Hearing and the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its territories and Canada, AFL-CIO, CLC. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
New Flyer of America (KGM Fabrication) (09-RD-320437) Shepherdsville, KY, April 16, 2024. The Board granted the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s dismissal of the decertification petition based on the alleged insufficiency of the Petitioner’s showing of interest and, on review, reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further investigation. Under the particular facts involved—including the Petitioner’s unsuccessful attempt to fax several pages of additional signatures by the relevant deadline—the Board found that the Petitioner made an honest, good-faith effort to comply with the procedural requirements, and therefore that those additional signatures should be accepted and counted as timely. The majority declined to pass on an underlying legal issue—whether, after an employer voluntarily recognizes a union under Section 103.21 of the Board’s Rules, the showing of interest in support of a decertification petition may include signatures which pre-date the recognition—because if the Petitioner here submitted a sufficient number of post-recognition signatures, then the legal issue would be moot. In a concurring footnote, Member Kaplan stated his view that the Board’s adoption of Section 103.21 in 2020 substantially reinstated the holding in Dana Corp., 351 NLRB 434 (2007), that both pre- and post-recognition signatures may properly support a petition. Finally, the Board stated that it did not address, or preclude the parties from raising, any other basis for dismissing the petition. Petitioner—an individual. Union—Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
Starbucks Corporation (14-CA-321382) Affton, MO, April 17, 2024. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Section 8(a)(3) allegation, finding that the Respondent failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Board further found that the complaint provides sufficient information to satisfy due process and the notice-pleading requirements of Section 102.15 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. Charge filed by Chicago & Midwest Regional Joint Board of Workers United/SEIU. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
Amazon.com Services, LLC (09-CA-298870, et al.) Lebanon, KY, April 18, 2024. The Board granted the General Counsel’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal from the Administrative Law Judge’s order approving a non-Board settlement agreement over the General Counsel’s objection. On the merits, the Board denied the appeal, finding that the settlement satisfied the standards set forth in Independent Stave Co., 287 NLRB 740 (1987), and that the Administrative Law Judge did not abuse his discretion in approving the settlement. Charges filed by Amazon Labor Union and by an individual. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
The Permanente Medical Group Inc., Northern California Region, Board Case No. 28-CA-273219 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 51) (9th Cir. decided April 16, 2024).
In an unpublished memorandum decision, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this medical group that manages health-care practitioners at Kaiser Hospital facilities in California. In doing so, the Court upheld the findings of the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty) that the Group violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing and unreasonably delaying the provision of relevant information requested by the National Union of Healthcare Workers, the union representing the Group’s psychologists, social workers, and clinical therapists.
In 2020, the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement established a joint labor-management committee to improve the model of care for the delivery of behavioral health services. The Committee’s stated objectives were to develop specific recommendations identifying existing and emerging best practices for improving the delivery of care in the initial and return access for psychotherapy and the availability of evidence-based psychotherapy treatments. The Committee was to run for six months, with an update to the executive steering group within three months of its first meeting. The Committee began meeting in August 2020, and was expected to provide an update sometime before January. On December 8, the Union sent the Group a letter noting that the time for the update was approaching and requesting information in two broad categories of the behavioral health services—access and utilization, and subcontracting and referrals—which the Union stated it would use in its evaluation of the Committee’s recommendations. On December 9, the Committee presented its update. By early January, the Union again requested the information, which the Group said would be forthcoming. After subsequent requests, and the filing of an unfair-labor-practice charge, the Group provided the information on March 10, three months after the Union’s initial request.
On review, the Court held the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law. The Court agreed with the Board that the Union demonstrated that the requested information would allow it to establish a baseline for assessing forthcoming recommendations and supported its request by objective evidence that information was relevant to the committee’s objectives and purpose, as created by the collective bargaining agreement. The Court further stated that seeking the information one day before the committee was to present the update, and a few months before the final report was due, was not premature, as the Group had argued. The Court also noted that the information should have been provided at the time of the Union’s request, and the Group failed to justify its three-month delay.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Navistar, Inc. (07-CA-304439; JD-22-24) Springfield, OH. Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued her decision on April 19, 2024. Charge filed by International Union, United Automobile, and Agricultural Workers of America.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.
Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 8 - 12, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 8 - 12, 2024 mmeyers Mon, 04/22/2024 - 13:18
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
Spike Enterprise, Inc. (13-CA-282513, et al.; 373 NLRB No. 41) Channahon, IL, April 10, 2024.
The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging an employee for his union activity and Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with termination if they participate in an economic strike, announcing to an employee that it would more strictly enforce work rules because of the Union’s organizing drive, and indicating to that same employee that it would be futile for employees to select the Union as their bargaining representative. The Board also unanimously reversed the judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling an employee to remove a union sticker from his company truck and the judge’s sustaining of the Union’s objections to the election in which he directed the mail ballots of two employees not timely received by the Region be opened and counted.
A Board majority (Members Prouty and Wilcox; Member Kaplan, dissenting) adopted the judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging a second employee for his union activity and Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with a pay cut if they chose the Union as their bargaining representative. The same Board majority also adopted the judge’s issuance of a category II Gissel bargaining order requiring the Respondent to bargain with the Union as the employees’ collective-bargaining representative and granted several of the General Counsel’s requests for additional remedies, including for the Respondent to reimburse the Union for the economic assistance it provided employees who participated in an unfair labor practice strike against the Respondent.
Dissenting in part, Member Kaplan would have found that the Respondent lawfully discharged the employee after he failed the new employee test, that the Respondent did not threaten employees with pay cuts because employees would reasonably understand that the Respondent was explaining the realities of the Respondent’s financial situation, and that the majority overstated the egregiousness of the Respondent’s violations to justify the awarding of the additional remedies.
Charges filed by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO. Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision on May 16, 2022. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (04-RC-327396) Philadelphia, PA, April 10, 2024. The Board granted the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election and reversed the Regional Director’s finding that the Petitioner was precluded from litigating the employee status of certain Educational Fellowship Recipients because it had agreed not to include those employees in the petitioned-for unit in a prior representation case. The Board also permitted the disputed Educational Fellowship Recipients to vote subject to challenge in the election. Petitioner—Graduate Employees Together-University of Pennsylvania/International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (GETUP-UAW). Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc. (16-RC-328798) Austin, TX, April 11, 2024. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision Resolving Determinative Challenged Ballots and Order Directing the Opening and Counting of the Ballots as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Regional Director overruled the Petitioner’s challenges to 3 ballots, finding that the Petitioner failed to show that the 3 employees in question were temporary employees. Petitioner—Lone Star Labor Education. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
BGM Co. Inc. and its affiliate Boyd Gaming Corporation (20-CA-331200) Elk Grove, CA, April 11, 2024. The Board denied the Petition to Revoke the investigative subpoena duces tecum filed by BGM Co. Inc. and its affiliate Boyd Gaming Corporation, as the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and the Petitioners failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charge filed by UNITE HERE International Union. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Noah's Ark Processors, LLC d/b/a WR Reserve, Board Case No. 14-CA-255658 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 80) (8th Cir. decided April 8, 2024).
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this meat-packing plant in Hastings, Nebraska, for unfair labor practices committed while bargaining with United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local No. 293 for a successor contract covering 250 plant employees. This case arose while an earlier Board case (14-CA-217400) was being litigated which involved a litany of unfair labor practice and bad-faith bargaining allegations, the bulk of which were ultimately found by the Board and upheld on review. NLRB v. Noah’s Ark Processors, LLC, 31 F.4th 1097 (8th Cir. 2022), enforcing 370 NLRB No. 74.
While that earlier case was pending before an administrative law judge, the regional director filed a petition in district court for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the Act. The district court granted the petition, explaining that an injunction was necessary to address the Employer’s “blatant failure to engage in good-faith collective bargaining.” Perez v. Noah’s Ark Processors, LLC, 2019 WL 2076793 (D. Neb. 2019). With the imposition of the injunction, the Employer returned to the bargaining table, where its bargaining misconduct persisted and led to additional allegations that it violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by engaging in bad-faith bargaining and unilaterally changing working conditions when it implemented its final offer without reaching a valid impasse. Meanwhile, the district court held the Employer in contempt of the injunction Sawyer v. Noah’s Ark Processors, LLC, 2019 WL 5268639 (D. Neb. 2019).
In the decision currently on review, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Kaplan) found that the Employer violated the Act by failing to bargain in good faith for a successor agreement and by changing employees’ terms and conditions of employment when it implemented its final offer without first bargaining to an overall good-faith impasse. The Board (Member Kaplan, dissenting in part) ordered a number of remedies to dissipate the chilling effect of the Employer’s repeated and egregious unfair labor practices. Specifically, the Board ordered the Employer to reimburse the Union for bargaining expenses, to reimburse employee negotiators for any lost earnings, to have the Employer’s CEO, or someone else in his presence, read aloud and distribute the remedial notice and an explanation of rights in both English and Spanish at all-employee meetings, and to mail and post for one year the remedial notices and explanations of rights signed by the CEO. Further, the Board’s order required the Employer to adhere to a bargaining schedule requiring at least 24 hours per month, for at least 6 hours per session, and to submit bargaining reports to the regional office every 15 days. Lastly, the Board’s order provided for a one-year visitation remedy, whereby a Board agent is permitted to enter the facility at reasonable times to ensure compliance with the posting and mailing requirements.
On review, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings. The Court agreed with the Board that the Employer’s bad-faith tactics at the bargaining table included such actions as making a regressive opening offer that it never backed down from, rejecting union proposals covering working hours and vacation time without offering alternatives of its own, and refusing to sign something as simple as a pledge about workplace respect. The Court further agreed with Board’s finding that there was no good-faith impasse reached, as supported by the evidence that the renewed talks ended quickly after just two months, that the most recent round of negotiations did not cover major issues like wages, retirement benefits, and health insurance, suggesting that negotiations never got very far, and that the Employer had previously “jumped the gun in declaring an impasse.” On the Employer’s challenges to the Board’s remedial provisions, the Court held that they were jurisdictionally barred from review by Section 10(e) of the Act for not having been raised to the Board.
The Court’s opinion is here.
CP Anchorage Hotel 2, LLC d/b/a Hilton Anchorage, Board Case No. 19-CA-241411 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 151) (D.C. Cir. decided April 9, 2024).
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this operator of the Hilton Anchorage, a full-service hotel in downtown Anchorage, Alaska, where UNITE HERE! Local 878, AFL-CIO, represents the hotel’s housekeepers who clean the hotel’s 600 rooms under the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement. This case arose out of the Hotel’s renovation plans which impacted the housekeeper’s terms and conditions of employment.
In 2018, the Hotel undertook extensive renovations. After the Union learned of the planned work, it requested a description of the renovations, the start and completion dates, and whether there would be any change in work requirements for the housekeepers. In response, the Hotel stated there should be no changes to work requirements. During the renovations, glass shower doors were added to 300 rooms, which the Union was aware would lead to an increase in the housekeepers’ workloads because of the increased physical demands involved in cleaning them. The Union again requested information and a meeting to discuss the issue, but no meeting was held. Thereafter, the Hotel began to further upgrade rooms by adding sofa beds, which required additional linens, and larger more cumbersome pillows on the beds. The additional time spent in each room, in turn, made it more difficult for housekeepers to meet their required room quota and to earn extra-room bonus pay, and many experienced physical effects of the extra work. When some housekeepers met with the Director of Housekeeping to complain, they were presented with a document reminding them of the room-cleaning quota and warning that failure to comply would result in discipline, up to and including termination. They were instructed to sign and date the document.
On those facts, the Board (Members Ring, Wilcox, and Prouty) found that the Hotel violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to provide requested information to the Union, and (Member Ring, dissenting) by unilaterally changing housekeepers’ working conditions without providing the Union an opportunity to bargain. The Board majority also found that the Hotel violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening to discipline housekeepers who failed to comply with its unilaterally increased workload. Among other remedies, the Board ordered that the Hotel make the housekeepers whole for any loss of extra-room bonuses suffered because of its unilateral change to their working conditions.
On review, the Court agreed with the Board that, although the Hotel had no obligation to bargain with the Union over its choice to renovate the hotel, it had an obligation to provide information to the Union about the renovations—so that the Union could evaluate possible impacts on its members—and to bargain over increases in employee workloads following the renovations. The Court noted that “whether this case is framed as concerning a decision or an effect, the simple point is that the [Hotel]’s major renovations resulted in changes in the housekeepers’ terms and conditions of employment that were subject to collective bargaining,” and that the Hotel violated the Act by failing to meet those obligations. The Court also upheld the unlawful-threat violation on substantial-evidence grounds. Lastly, the Court held that the make-whole remedy “clearly was within the Board’s discretion,” and enforced the Board’s order in full.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Brown-Forman Corporation, d/b/a Woodford Reserve Distillery (09-CA-307806, et al.; JD-21-24) Versailles, KY. Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on April 8, 2024. Charges filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), Local 651.
Whole Foods Market, Inc. (01-CA-288032; JD-23-24) Cambridge, MA. Administrative Law Judge Susannah Merritt issued her decision on April 11, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.
Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 1 - 5, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 1 - 5, 2024 mmeyers Wed, 04/10/2024 - 08:31
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
MPStar Professionals, LLC and its alter ego, Cleaning Pros by MPStar Pros, LLC (01-CA-291402; 373 NLRB No. 42) Boston, MA, April 2, 2024.
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 Respondent Cleaning Pros by MPStar Pros, LLC is an alter ego of Respondent MPStar Professionals, LLC. The Board further found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging employees because the employees engaged in protected, concerted activities and to discourage employees from engaging in such activities.
Charge filed by individuals. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Black Iron Reinforcing, LLC (28-RC-290472) Las Vegas, NV, April 1, 2024. The Board granted in part and denied in part the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director for Region 28’s Decision and Direction of Election and the Regional Director for Region 13’s Report on Challenged Ballots and Objections and Order Directing Opening of Certain Challenged Ballots. The Board granted review as to (1) Region 28’s direction of the election in the petitioned-for unit of ironworkers and laborers and (2) Region 13’s order to open and count the ballots of three discriminatees under the process set out in the Board’s decision in International Ladies Garment Workers Union, 137 NLRB 1681 (1962) (ILGWU). The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review in all other aspects, finding that it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Upon review, the Board affirmed the Regional Director for Region 28’s finding that the petitioned-for unit is an appropriate unit under the Board’s decision in American Steel. Regarding Regional Director for Region 13’s order to open and count the ballots of three discriminatees, the Board found it was unnecessary for these ballots to be opened and counted as once the Regional Director had sustained the challenges to three other challenged ballots (and no party had requested review), the remaining five challenged ballots were not determinative. The Board also clarified that the ILGWU process provides for the opening of ballots to determine whether the votes of discriminatees would be determinative and not to add their votes, at this initial stage, to the Tally of Ballots. Petitioner—District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
Starbucks Corporation (09-CA-308462, et al.) Farmingville, NY, April 2, 2024. The Board denied as moot the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss paragraph 13, and its cross-reference in paragraph 25, of the complaint in Case 29-CA-308462. The intervening amended consolidated complaint, which supersedes the original, no longer alleges paragraph 13 as a violation of the Act. Charges filed by Workers United, a/w Service Employees International Union. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Leo Marine Services, Inc., Olympic Tug & Barge, Inc., and Centerline Logistics Corporation (19-CA-273208, et al.; JD-16-24) San Pedro, CA. Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision on April 3, 2024. Charges filed by International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, AFL-CIO. Errata issued April 5, 2024. Errata Amended Decision.
American Federation for Children, Inc. (28-CA-246878 and 28-CA-262471; JD-20-24) Phoenix, AZ. Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter issued his decision on April 4, 2024. Charges filed by an individual.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.
Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 25 - 29, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 25 - 29, 2024 mmeyers Tue, 04/09/2024 - 07:23
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
Universal Protection Services, LLC d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services (12-CA-305972; 373 NLRB No. 38) Homestead, FL, March 27, 2024.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground 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.
Charge filed by International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.
***
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No. 160 and SSA Terminals, LLC (19-CD-303801; 373 NLRB No. 39) Seattle, WA, March 29, 2024.
In this Section 10(k) jurisdictional dispute proceeding, the Board found reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. The Board awarded the disputed work to employees represented by International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 19, based on the collective bargaining agreements, employer preference, and industry and area practice. The Board denied or found unnecessary to pass on several motions for administrative notice of other court proceedings, prior Board cases, a news report, and a bankruptcy petition.
Charge filed by SSA Terminals, LLC. Intervenor—Pacific Maritime Association. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Amazon.com Services, LLC (09-CA-298870; 373 NLRB No. 40) Lebanon, KY, March 29, 2024.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the Respondent’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by promulgating and maintaining an employee work rule which reserved to the Respondent the right to depart from the rule when deemed appropriate by it. The Board found the rule violated the test in Tri-County Medical Center, 222 NLRB 1089 (1976), because it grants the Respondent discretion to decide when and why off-duty employees may access its facilities to engaged in protected activity under the Act. The Board found without merit the Respondent’s defenses that it effectively repudiated the rule by promulgating a revised rule, and that the unlawful conduct in this case was de minimis.
Charge filed by an individual. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 111, AFL-CIO (27-UC-312527) Denver, CO, March 25, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Order, as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner/Employer —International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 111, AFL-CIO. Union—Union Professionals International. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
Starbucks Corporation (10-RD-323234) Greenville, SC, March 27, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s and Petitioner’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order Dismissing Petition as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Regional Director dismissed the decertification petition, subject to reinstatement, due to a pending unfair labor practice complaint against the Employer seeking an affirmative bargaining order and an extension of the certification year. Petitioner—an individual. Union—Workers United, Southern Regional Joint Board. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
Blue Line Foodservice Distribution (32-RC-323289) Tracy, CA, March 28, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Election Objection and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Teamsters Local 439. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
No Unpublished C Cases Issued.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC, Board Case No. 07-CA-207685 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 97) (6th Cir. decided March 28, 2024).
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s supplemental order in this backpay case that issued against an operator of a halfway house for federal inmates in Saginaw, Michigan, which provides services under contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In the underlying unfair-labor-practice case (370 NLRB No. 117), the Board found that Bannum violated the Act in numerous ways, both before and after its employees voted in a November 2017 election to be represented by Teamsters Local 406. Among other remedies, the Board ordered make-whole relief for two employees discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(4), (3), and (1).
Previously on review, the Court enforced the Board’s unfair-labor-practice order in full. Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC v. NLRB, 41 F.4th 518 (6th Cir. 2022). Subsequently, on the Board’s petition, the Court issued a temporary protective restraining order under Section 10(e) of the Act restricting Bannum from disposing of assets. NLRB v. Bannum, Inc. and Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC, 2023 WL 4842837, modified in part, 2023 WL 5167255 (6th Cir. 2023). In January 2024, the Board moved to hold Bannum in contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s protective restraining order, which the Court granted. NLRB v. Bannum, Inc., 93 F.4th 973 (6th Cir. 2024) (per curiam).
Meanwhile, in the compliance case, the Board (Members Kaplan, Wilcox, and Prouty) issued the backpay order in June 2023, which awarded one discharged employee net backpay, 401(k) contributions, medical expenses, and interim expenses, and awarded the other employee net backpay and 401(k) contributions. Further, the Board found that Bannum, Inc. was jointly liable with Bannum Saginaw for the specific amounts of backpay owed as either a parent company of Bannum Saginaw that directly participated in the unlawful discharges, or as a single employer with Bannum Saginaw. The Board then filed for enforcement of the backpay order.
Before the Court, Bannum did not contest the Board’s calculation of backpay owed to the two discriminatees, containing its defense primarily to contentions that the Board erred in finding single-employer status, that raising the allegation of joint liability during the compliance proceeding violated due process, and that the discriminatees failed to mitigate their damages. On single-employer status, the Court held that the Board properly found that all four factors relevant to the analysis—common ownership, common management, centralized control of labor relations, and interrelation of operations—supported that status. On the due-process claim, the Court noted that the record demonstrated that the two entities had were “sufficiently closely related,” and that Bannum, Inc. received notice and an opportunity to be heard by virtue of its single-employer relationship with Bannum Saginaw, which indisputably received notice and an opportunity to be heard during the compliance proceeding. Regarding the failure-to-mitigate claims, the Court found them unpersuasive and upheld the Board’s finding that Bannum had failed to carry its burden of proof, and instead finding no basis to disturb the Board’s backpay order. Finding no merit to Bannum’s remaining contentions, the Court enforced the Board’s order in full.
The Court’s opinion is here.
Cadillac of Naperville, Inc., Board Case No. 13-CA-207245 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 140) (D.C. Cir. decided March 27, 2024).
In an unpublished judgment, the Court enforced the Board’s supplemental order that issued against this operator of a car dealership in Naperville, Illinois, where its mechanics are represented by Automobile Mechanics Local 701, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. In doing so, the Court upheld the Board’s determination on remand that the Employer unlawfully discharged a shop steward in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) following a strike in 2017.
In its initial decision (368 NLRB No. 3), the Board (Chairman Ring and then-Member McFerran, Member Emanuel, dissenting in part), found the discharge unlawful after rejecting the Administrative Law Judge’s application of Wright Line, and instead applied Atlantic Steel Co., 245 NLRB 814 (1979). The Board rejected the Employer’s contention that the shop steward lost the protection of the Act by making a single insult to the dealership’s owner during a heated discussion over recalling strikers. Further, the Board found that the Employer committed numerous acts of coercion, made a variety of unilateral changes, and failed to immediately reinstate five former strikers, all in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
After the Employer petitioned for review, and briefing was underway, the Board issued General Motors, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127 (2020), overruling Atlantic Steel, and announcing that Wright Line instead was the appropriate test for analyzing employee misconduct that occurred in the course of protected activity. Thereafter, the Board requested that the Court proceed to decision, but remand the unlawful discharge allegation for reconsideration in light of changed precedent. In its decision, the Court enforced the Board’s order in all aspects, except with regard to the unlawful discharge, and remanded that issue for the Board’s reconsideration. Cadillac of Naperville v. NLRB, 14 F.4th 703 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
On remand, the Board (Members Kaplan, Ring, and Prouty), consistent with General Motors, analyzed the unlawful discharge under Wright Line, and again found that the Employer unlawfully discharged the shop steward. Specifically, the Board found ample evidence that the Employer was motivated by animus against his protected union activity, and rejected the Employer’s defense that it would have discharged him under its code of conduct even absent that activity. The Employer again petitioned for review, and while briefing was underway, the Board issued Lion Elastomers, 372 NLRB No. 83 (2023), which overruled General Motors and returned to the Atlantic Steel standard.
In its current opinion, the Court held that the Board’s application of the Wright Line standard was fully supported by substantial evidence. Further, the Court rejected the Employer’s arguments as contrary to the record evidence, and agreed with the Board that the surrounding circumstances suggested that the Employer’s stated reasons for the discharge were pretextual. Additionally, the Court noted that further support for the Board’s conclusion was that the shop steward’s single profane insult was made “in the context of a workplace where profanity was ‘common’—as demonstrated by [the owner]’s own statements” made during the discussion over recalling strikers.
Regarding the Board’s recent issuance of Lion Elastomers, the Court determined that it would not remand to the Board to apply the Atlantic Steel standard, despite the Board’s intervening decision. The Court stated that the Board had sought enforcement of its order under Wright Line, and that “Wright Line has not been overruled and remains a viable standard for finding a violation under Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, even if the Board has indicated that it now intends Atlantic Steel to govern a situation like this one.” Among other points, the Court noted that the Board has already applied the Atlantic Steel standard to the record in this case, and reached the same conclusion that it did under Wright Line. Accordingly, the Court decided that remand would be “’an idle and useless formality’ as there is no possibility that the Board will change its conclusion on this record,” quoting NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759 (1969).
The Court’s opinion is here.
Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company, Board Case No. 19-CA-289275 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 93) (D.C. Cir. decided March 28, 2024).
In an unpublished judgment, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this provider of specialty coffee and coffee products to remedy unfair labor practices committed during a campaign by Starbucks employees to organize a store in Seattle, Washington, in an effort to join Workers United, an affiliate of Service Employees International Union. Specifically, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox) found that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(1) by informing employees that they cannot testify pursuant to a Board subpoena without first securing coverage for their shifts, and by threatening employees with discipline if they did so. The Board also found that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(1) by prohibiting all union solicitation and distribution of union buttons and pins during company break periods, which was a prohibition that employees would reasonably understand to improperly extend beyond the selling floor to the entire store, and include non-public areas, like the backroom, which employees frequented on break.
Before the Court, Starbucks did not challenge the Board’s findings that it unlawfully informed and threatened employees that they could not testify pursuant to a Board subpoena without first securing shift coverage. On the contested issue of the unlawful prohibition on union solicitation and distribution, the Court held that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, and that Starbucks’ arguments to the contrary “fail[ed] to overcome the demanding substantial evidence standard.” Further, the Court held that a newly raised challenge to the Board’s remedy was jurisdictionally barred under Section 10(e) of the Act, and summarily enforced those portions of the Board’s order that remedy the remaining uncontested violations.
The Court’s judgment is here.
Stern Produce Company, Inc., Board Case No. 28-CA-282577 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 74) (D.C. Cir. decided March 26, 2024).
In a published opinion, the Court granted the petition filed by this wholesale distributor of produce and food products to review the Board’s order that issued against it for unfair labor practices committed during a long-running campaign at its Phoenix, Arizona facility by warehouse employees and truck drivers seeking to be represented by United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 99. This case arose after two prominent union supporters had been reinstated under the terms of a formal Board settlement that resolved a number of prior allegations of antiunion discrimination against the Employer and resulted in an unpublished court-enforced consent judgment. See Order Granting Enforcement, NLRB v. Stern Produce Co., No. 21-71140 (9th Cir. June 25, 2021).
Thereafter, reversing the Administrative Law Judge, the Board (Chairman McFerran, Members Wilcox and Prouty) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1)by creating an unlawful impression that it was surveilling one of the union supporters when a manager sent him a text message signaling that it was watching him through the camera installed in his truck—stating “you can’t cover the camera it’s against company rules.” Regarding the second organizer, the Board found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(4), (3), and (1) by issuing him a second-step written warning for a first-time infraction involving offensive language in retaliation for his participation in union activities and Board proceedings.
On review, the Court noted that the Board’s surveillance finding was founded on “a single phrase in one text message on a subject the manager never mentioned again,” and on that basis, the Court viewed the record evidence as insufficient to sustain the finding. Further, the Court stated that there was evidence that the Employer “puts drivers on notice that cameras ‘must remain on at all times,’” and informs drivers that they have no expectation of privacy in their trucks. Regarding the Board’s Wright Line analysis in finding the discriminatory conduct against the second union supporter, the Court found the evidence of animus insufficient to sustain the findings. In particular, the Court was not persuaded that the Employer’s prior unfair labor practices could be used to support a finding of animus, and that allegations of unlawful conduct that were part of the settlement agreement carried no weight. Finally, with regard to disparate treatment potentially supporting an animus finding, the Court stated that the record did not contain enough evidence that the union supporter was “singled out” for harsher discipline. Accordingly, the Court denied enforcement.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Amazon.com Services, LLC (29-CA-297454; JD(NY)-06-24) Staten Island, NY. Administrative Law Judge Benjamin W. Green issued his decision on March 26, 2024. Charge filed by Amazon Labor Union.
Starbucks Corporation (03-CA-315203, et al.; JD-19-24) Buffalo, NY. Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter issued his decision on March 26, 2024. Charges filed by Workers United.
Accel Logistics, Inc. (16-CA-291891; JD(SF)-11-24) Arlington, TX. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on March 27, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.
Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 18 -22, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 18 -22, 2024 mmeyers Fri, 03/29/2024 - 15:42
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

Midwest Division—RMC, LLC, d/b/a Research Medical Center (14-CA-278811, et al.; 373 NLRB No. 36) Kansas City, MO, March 20, 2024.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by engaging in a series of unlawful actions towards the Service Employees International Union HCII, Missouri/Kansas Division (SEIU) after the tally of ballots from a decertification election showed that SEIU had lost a decertification election but prior to the Region’s certification of the election results, including withdrawing recognition from SEIU, refusing to bargain collectively with SEIU by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested information, and failing and refusing to continue in effect all the terms of its collective-bargaining agreement with SEIU, and violated Section 8(a)(1) by coercing employees by distributing flyers inaccurately notifying them that SEIU had been decertified and no longer represented them prior to the certification of the decertification election results. The Board also adopted the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to bargain collectively with the National Nurses Organizing Committee – Missouri & Kansas/NNU, AFL-CIO (NNOC) by refusing to meet and bargain with NNOC’s designated representatives for processing grievances. In addition, the Board reversed the judge to find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to furnish responses to an additional SEIU information request because the judge should have ended her inquiry after correctly determining that the requested information was presumptively relevant, instead of improperly deciding a procedural timeliness issue, which should have been reserved for an arbitrator.

Charges filed by NNOC—Missouri & Kansas/NNU, AFL–CIO and Service Employees International Union HCII, Missouri/Kansas Division. Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued her decision on May 16, 2023. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.

***

Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc. (20-CA-328308; 373 NLRB No. 37) San Francisco, CA, March 21, 2024.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground 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 International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers, Local 39, AFL-CIO. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Ascension Seton, d/b/a Ascension Seton Medical Center Austin (16-RC-329698) Austin, TX, March 21, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election, as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC)—Texas/National Nurses United (NNU). Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.

C Cases

Reinhold Electric, Inc. (14-CA-313291) St. Louis, MO, March 20, 2024. The Board granted the Union’s unopposed motion requesting that the Board take administrative notice of a recently filed unfair labor practice charge and hold the Union’s previously filed special appeal in abeyance pending the results of the Region’s investigation of the aforementioned charge. Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.

United States Postal Service (07-CA-292942) Ann Arbor, MI, March 21, 2024. The Board denied the General Counsel’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling that denied its motion to amend the complaint. The Board found that there was no need for interlocutory relief because the General Counsel’s motion was made shortly before the hearing was concluded and the record was closed but noted that its denial of permission to appeal was without prejudice to the General Counsel’s right to renew its objections before the Board on exceptions, if appropriate. Charge filed by National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), AFL-CIO. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.

United States Postal Service (07-CA-299320, et al.) Colon, MI, March 22, 2024. The Board denied the General Counsel’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s evidentiary rulings that rejected several of the General Counsel’s exhibits. The Board found that there was no need for interlocutory relief because the hearing had concluded and the record was closed but noted that its denial of permission to appeal was without prejudice to the General Counsel’s right to renew its objections before the Board on exceptions, if appropriate. Charges filed by Southwest Michigan Area Local 143, American Postal Workers Union (APWU), AFL-CIO, Western Michigan Area Local 281, American Postal Workers Union (APWU), AFL-CIO and an individual. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.

The Growing Stage – Theatre for Young Audiences, Inc. (22-CA-286287) Netcong, NJ, March 22, 2024. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the 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 jurisdiction and timeliness issues raised in its motion. The denial was without prejudice to the Respondent’s right to raise its claim that the Board lacks jurisdiction and its defense under Section 10(b) of the Act at appropriate times during the proceeding. Charge filed by Actors Equity Association. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.

International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) (05-CA-314152 and 05-CA-322080) Arlington, VA, March 22, 2024. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint, finding that the Respondent had not demonstrated that the consolidated complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Charges filed by Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 2, AFL-CIO a/w Office and Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

TK, LLC, Board Case No. 10-CA-267762 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 60) (11th Cir. decided March 22, 2024).

In an unpublished opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this business that conducts pipefitting fabrication and installation out of its facility in Jefferson, Georgia, for unfair labor practices committed after it was hired by an electric battery manufacturer to perform pipefitting work at a new manufacturing facility. In 2020, to help staff that work, the Employer signed a project labor agreement (PLA) to join an area-wide collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Mechanical Contractors Association of Georgia and the Pipefitters Local 72, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, AFL–CIO.

The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty) found that the Employer agreed to be bound to the CBA by signing the PLA, and had otherwise adopted the CBA by its conduct. The Board concluded that, thereafter, the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when it terminated the PLA with the Union prior to its expiration, and took actions contrary to the CBA, including withdrawing recognition, discharging 5 union employees, and refusing to hire 13 other employees who were referred by the Union. Further, the Board found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging or refusing to hire those 18 discriminatees because of their union membership or referral.

On review, the Court held that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law. The Court recognized that “the core dispute” on appeal was whether the Employer, by entering the PLA, was bound to the terms of the CBA, which required participating employers to exclusively hire union workers. Rejecting the Employer’s contention that by signing the PLA it never agreed to be bound by the CBA, the Court agreed with the Board’s conclusion by applying ordinary principles of contract interpretation and assessing the credited record evidence to hold that the parties did reach the requisite “meeting of the minds,” and that thus the Employer was bound to the terms of the CBA. Further, the Court upheld the Board’s findings of discrimination, noting that conduct which discriminates solely on the basis of union status is so inherently destructive of employee interests that it may be deemed proscribed without need for proof of an underlying improper motive.

The Court’s opinion is here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Beatrice Loving Heart and Healthcare Agency (05-CA-301128; JD-17-24) Washington, DC. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on March 21, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.

Kroger Limited Partnership, d/b/a Kroger Delta Division (15-CA-280676 and 15-CA-315052; JD-18-24) New Orleans, LA. Administrative Law Judge Sarah Karpinen issued her decision on March 21, 2024. Charges filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 2008.

The Boeing Company (19-CA-272489; JD(SF)-10-24) Renton, WA. Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham issued his decision on March 22, 2024. Charge filed by Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, a/w International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 2001.

***

To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.
Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 11 - 15, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 11 - 15, 2024 mmeyers Fri, 03/22/2024 - 08:10
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
Flatline Construction, LLC (27-CA-317078; 373 NLRB No. 35) Middleton, ID, March 13, 2024.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment on the basis that the Respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by promulgating a rule prohibiting employees from discussing wages, informing employees that they were prohibited from discussing wages with each other and the Respondent’s owner, informing employees that they would not receive raises and could leave if they did not like it, informing employees that they were being discharged for discussing wages with each other, and discharging an employee because he did so.
Charge filed by an individual. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Starbucks Corporation (12-RD-320278) Tallahassee, FL, March 12, 2024. The Board denied the Employer's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order Dismissing Petition as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Union—Workers United a/w Service Employees International Union. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
Alante Security Group, Inc. (29-RC-335614) Jamaica, NY, March 12, 2024. The Board granted the Party in Interest’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Motion to Intervene, as it raised substantial issues warranting review. The Regional Director had denied the motion to intervene based on The University of Chicago, 272 NLRB 873 (1984). The Board also granted the Party in Interest’s request to stay the election. Petitioner—United Federation LEOS-PBA. Intervenor—International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA). Party-in-Interest—Local 32BJ, Service Employees International Union. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
Starbucks Corporation (03-RD-328126) Depew, NY, March 12, 2024. The Board denied the Petitioner’s and Employer’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order Dismissing Petition as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—an individual. Union—Starbucks Workers United. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
Tri Family, LLC, d/b/a Hand & Stone Massage (12-RC-320201) Gainesville, FL, March 15, 2024. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Order Overruling Objections, Order Directing Hearing, and Notice of Hearing, finding that it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1625, AFL-CIO. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (31-CA-307446, et al.) Hawthorne, CA, March 8, 2024. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the complaint. The Board found that the Respondent had not established that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the allegations in the consolidated complaint. The denial was without prejudice to the Respondent’s right to renew its request to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and/or to refer the matter to the National Mediation Board (NMB) on any exceptions that may be filed to the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, after development of a factual record at the hearing. Member Kaplan noted that he would grant the Respondent’s motion insofar as he would refer the matter to the NMB for an advisory opinion regarding jurisdiction. Charges filed by individuals. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Starbucks Corporation (01-CA-299987, et al.; JD-14-24) Biddeford, ME and Brookline, MA. Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl issued his decision on March 14, 2024. Charges filed by Workers United Labor Union International, a/w Service Employees International Union.
ExxonMobil Global Services Company (16-CA-269606; JD-15-24) Spring, TX. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on March 15, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.
Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 4 - 8, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 4 - 8, 2024 mmeyers Thu, 03/14/2024 - 17:43
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

Trustees of Dartmouth College (01-RC-325633; 373 NLRB No. 34) Hanover, NH, March 5, 2024.

The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Extraordinary Relief, finding that the Employer had not made a “clear showing” that extraordinary relief was “necessary under the particular circumstances of the case,” as required by Section 102.67(j)(2) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. Member Kaplan, dissenting, would have ordered a stay of the election.

Petitioner—Service Employees International Union, Local 560. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.

***

Valladares Landscaping Artists, LLC (15-CA-306672 and 15-CA-306769; 373 NLRB No. 29) Houma, LA, March 6, 2024.

The Board denied the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment and remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director for further appropriate action. The Board found that given the Respondent’s pro se status, default was not appropriate here. The Board found the Respondent’s letter sufficient to deny the substance of the Section 8(a)(1) allegations; however, all other complaint allegations, including jurisdiction, agency, and service, were deemed admitted.

Charges filed by individuals. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.

***

North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters and SAMAP USA, Corp. (01-CD-312891; 373 NLRB No. 27) Boston, MA, March 6, 2024.

In this Section 10(k) jurisdictional dispute proceeding, the Board found reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. The Board awarded the disputed work to employees represented by the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters, based on the of the collective-bargaining agreements, the employer preference and current assignment, and the economy and efficiency of operations.

Charge filed by SAMAP USA, Corp. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox participated.

***

Starbucks Corporation (31-CA-299257; 373 NLRB No. 33) Los Angeles, CA, March 6, 2024.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating an employee and by threatening her with economic reprisals as well as the judge’s dismissal of the Section 8(a)(1) captive-audience meeting allegation. The Board declined to order the extraordinary remedies recommended by the judge.

Charge filed by Worker’s United. Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on May 12, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.

***

3484, Inc., and 3486, Inc., as alter egos and/or single employer (27-CA-278463, et al.; 373 NLRB No. 28) Salt Lake City, UT, March 7, 2024.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent 3484, Inc., violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating an employee and by directing her to keep the interrogation confidential. The Board also adopted the judge’s conclusions that the Respondent 3486, Inc. violated (1) Section 8(a)(1) by both interrogating an employee and by threatening him with relocation of the business; and (2) Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by unlawfully refusing to reinstate nine unfair labor practice strikers.

Charges filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters Locals 399 and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Locals 222. Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham issued his decision on February 27, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Leo Marine Services, Inc. (19-RC-330385) Portland, OR, March 5, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request to Stay the election. Petitioner—International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.

Grow Op Farms, LLC (19-RC-315337) Spokane Valley, WA, March 7, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—United Food and Commercial Workers Local 3000. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.

Northeastern University (01-RC-313126) Boston, MA, March 8, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—American Coalition of Public Safety. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.

C Cases

Embraer Executive Jets (12-CA-318088) Melbourne, FL, March 4, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Petition to Revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum, finding that the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and that the Employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charge filed by an individual. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.

American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. (05-CA-300367 and 05-CA-302762) Washington, DC, March 6, 2024. The Board granted the Respondent’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s order denying its Motion to Defer the proceeding to the grievance and arbitration procedure set forth in the Respondent’s personnel policy. The Board denied the appeal on the merits and found that the Respondent had failed to establish that the judge abused his discretion in denying the Motion to Defer. The Board found that the public policy considerations underlying its deferral policies do not extend to a unilaterally imposed dispute-resolution procedure such as the one at issue in this case. Charges filed by Nonprofit Professional Employees Union (NPEU), International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 70 a/w International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, AFC-CIO, CLC. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

New Concepts for Living, Inc., Board Case No. 22-CA-187407 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 157) (3d Cir. decided March 4, 2024).

In a published opinion, the Court granted the petition for review filed by this operator of residential group homes and a day facility for developmentally disabled individuals in northern New Jersey, where Communications Workers of America Local 1040 has represented 90 employees since 2007. In late 2015, the Union launched an effort to more actively represent the employees, and in 2016, requested bargaining for a successor contract. Reversing the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of the complaint, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty; Member Ring, dissenting) found that in response to the stepped-up union activity the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by soliciting employees to resign from the Union and to revoke their dues-deduction authorization, and by polling employees regarding their views on the Union. The Board also found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by failing to bargain in good faith and later withdrawing recognition.

On review, the Court viewed the case differently. After deciding to reach some issues that the Board had considered forfeited, the Court concluded that the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. In so holding, the Court agreed with the Administrative Law Judge that the position of the General Counsel that was accepted by the Board “ignore[d] the fundamental truth underlying this case, that it was the Union’s own absence over the span of multiple years that ultimately led to its loss of support.”

The Court’s opinion is here.

Renew Home Health, A Division of Maxus Healthcare Partners, LLC, Board Case No. 16-CA-260038 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 165) (5th Cir. decided March 7, 2024).

In a published opinion, the Court enforced, in part, the Board’s order that issued against this provider of in-home nursing, therapy, and aide services out of its branch in Fort Worth, Texas, for unfair labor practices committed in 2020 after its employees began discussing and collectively raising pandemic-related workplace concerns. The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) in numerous ways. Specifically, the Board held that the Employer had coercively interrogated employees, maintained and enforced an oral workplace rule prohibiting employees from discussing their workplace grievances and requiring them to bring such concerns directly to management, and threatening and ultimately discharging one of its registered nurses (RNs) for engaging in such discussions. In doing so, the Board rejected the Employer’s defense that its RNs were exempt from the Act’s coverage because they were supervisors under Section 2(3), and that on that basis, the Employer contended, it had no liability for several of the unfair-labor-practice allegations.

On review, the Court agreed with the Board that the Employer had failed to carry its burden of proving that its RNs are statutory supervisors on the claimed bases that they assign work, discipline employees, recommend hires, and address grievances. The Court explained that: “At best, the RNs’ exercise of any supervisory function is limited to a purely clerical or reportorial nature, which is insufficient to establish supervisory status,” citing NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001). Rather, the Court found that such decisions “rest with branch managers and other senior leadership.”

Having affirmed that the RNs are employees within the coverage of the Act, the Court then reviewed the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings. The Court concluded that the findings that the Employer unlawfully conducted coercive investigations and unlawfully discharged the RN for engaging in protected concerted activities were supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court stated that it could not uphold the threat finding because it was too conclusory to be evaluated. Regarding the findings involving the oral workplace rule, the Court found them inconsistent with Board precedent, which the Court read as requiring that “an employer’s policy is only a workplace rule if it is communicated to more than one employee or otherwise conveyed with instructions to disseminate the policy to other employees.” The Court held that neither requirement was established on the record in this case.

The Court’s opinion is here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Lancaster Coffee Co. & Café LLC (03-CA-306479; JD-11-24) Buffalo, NY, March 4, 2024. Errata to Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas’ decision of February 26, 2024. Errata Amended Decision.

Starbucks Corporation (21-CA-295845 and 21-CA-312405; JD(SF)-08-24) Los Angeles, CA, March 4, 2024. Errata to Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind’s decision of February 22, 2024. Errata Amended Decision.

South Nassau Communities Hospital, d/b/a Mount Sinai South Nassau (29-CA-312425; JD(NY)-05-24) Oceanside, NY. Administrative Law Judge Benjamin W. Green issued his decision on March 5, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.

***

To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.
Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of February 26 - March 1, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of February 26 - March 1, 2024 mmeyers Tue, 03/12/2024 - 11:33
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
Collins Building Services, Inc. (29-RD-319570; 373 NLRLB No. 32) Long Island City, NY, February 27, 2024.
The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Dismissing Petition as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Regional Director found that the decertification petition was contract-barred. Writing separately, Member Kaplan stated that, in a future appropriate case, he would seek public input on whether contracts ratified by employees should be treated differently from contracts not ratified by employees under the contract bar doctrine.
Petitioner—an individual. Union—Production and Service Employees International Union, Local 143. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
***
Sunrise Operations, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Pasha Group (20-CA-219534, et al.; 373 NLRB No. 30) San Francisco, CA, February 27, 2024.
On remand from the D.C. Circuit Court, the Board found that the Respondent failed to establish that at least some of the Licensed Deck Officers (LDOs) are supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act and, accordingly, that the LDO unit constituted at least a “mixed” unit of statutory employees and statutory supervisors. The Board concluded that it has jurisdiction in this proceeding and that the Respondent, having voluntarily recognized the “mixed” unit of LDOs, could not invoke the “mixed” nature of the unit as a defense to the unfair labor practice allegations in this case. Thus, by refusing to provide the information requested by the Union or to arbitrate pursuant to the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
Charges filed by International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, ILA/AFL–CIO. Administrative Law Judge Lisa D. Ross issued her decision on May 11, 2020. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
***
The Healing Healthcare 3, Inc. d/b/a Curaleaf Camelback Dispensary (28-CA-329732; 373 NLRB No. 31) Phoenix, AZ, February 29, 2024.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground 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.
Charge filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 99. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Medieval Knights, LLC (22-RD-323558) Lyndhurst, NJ, February 27, 2024. The Board granted the Petitioner’s and Employer’s Requests for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Order Dismissing the Petition for Decertification and remanded the case to the Acting Regional Director to apply Master Slack, 271 NLRB 78 (1984), and, if the Acting Regional Director deems it necessary, to conduct a hearing pursuant to Saint Gobain Abrasives, Inc., 342 NLRB 434 (2004). Member Kaplan, concurring, would have also instructed the Acting Regional Director to conduct a Saint Gobain hearing. Petitioner—an individual. Union—American Guild of Variety Artists. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
No Unpublished C Cases Issued.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
NCRNC, LLC d/b/a Northeast Center for Rehabilitation and Brain Injury, Board Case No. 03-CA-252090 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 35) (D.C. Cir. decided March 1, 2024).
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this operator of a long-term, in-patient rehabilitation facility in Lake Katrine, New York, for unfair labor practices committed after an organizing campaign initiated in June 2019 by 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East among the Employer’s 415 employees. In doing so, the Court disagreed with one basis upon which a finding of unlawful surveillance was made, but found it fully supported on other record evidence, and enforced the Board’s order in full.
The Union filed a petition for representation in the fall of 2019, and thereafter the Employer’s senior managers, led by outside union-avoidance consultants, commenced a campaign to quash the union drive. In the span of three weeks, the Employer began coercively surveilling employees in an attempt to identify union supporters, called known union supporters into meetings to threaten and interrogate them about the Union, and discharged two prominent union supporters. When one manager refused to unlawfully surveil employees, she was discharged as well. And when the Union filed unfair-labor-practice charges, the Employer informed the employees that it was withholding a wage increase because the Union was “still organizing.” After complaint issued, the Board petitioned for interim injunctive relief under Section 10(j), which was granted.
On those facts, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty; Member Ring, dissenting in part) found that the Employer committed numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3). In finding unlawful surveillance, the Board relied on credited evidence that the Employer implemented a policy at the suggestion of its union-avoidance consultants in which senior managers began appearing at the facility at times outside their customary schedules to walk throughout the facility, observe employees, and report back on how employees reacted to the managers’ presence or to being handed anti-union fliers. That policy also required managers to start coming in on their off hours to “monitor” employees and to look for “suspicious activities” related to the union campaign.
On review, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determinations that the Employer unlawfully suspended and discharged two employees for their union activities, one of whom was also threatened and coercively interrogated, and for discharging the supervisor for refusing to commit unlawful surveillance. The Court noted, however, that the Board should not have relied on the distribution of flyers and observation of employee reactions “because the flyers were a protected exercise of Northeast’s free speech rights under Section 8(c) of the NLRA.” Nevertheless, the Court found that the Board’s other factual findings provided substantial evidence of unlawful surveillance and enforced on those grounds. Finally, the Court summarily enforced the remaining unfair labor practices, which were uncontested and thus barred from review under Section 10(e) of the Act.
The Court’s opinion is here.
J.G. Kern Enterprises, Inc., Board Case No. 07-CA-231802 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 91) (D.C. Cir. decided March 1, 2024).
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this operator of a facility engaged in the manufacture, machining, and non-retail sale of automotive parts in Sterling Heights, Michigan, where its employees voted in an October 2018 election to be represented by Local 228, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO. Two weeks after certification, the Union contacted the Employer to initiate negotiations for a first contract. Thereafter, the Employer engaged in conduct that the Board found unlawful. The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Ring and Wilcox) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by delaying bargaining for three months at the start of the certification year, refusing to furnish cost information about employee benefits to the Union that it needed for negotiations, and notifying the Union that it intended to keep its existing benefit plans and would not consider any proposal for union-administered benefits.
To remedy the Employer’s initial refusal to bargain and other bargaining violations that deprived the Union of its full year of good-faith bargaining, the Board determined that a 3-month extension of the certification was warranted, given it was a period of time comparable to the Employer’s unlawful delay. The Board then applied its twin precedents of Whisper Soft Mills, Inc., 267 NLRB 813 (1983), and New Madrid Nursing Center, 325 NLRB 897 (1998), to find that the withdrawal of recognition was unlawful because it occurred during the extended certification year. Therefore, the Board ordered a 6-month extension of the certification year and, among other remedies, required the parties to meet and bargain for at least 40 hours per month, and 8 hours per session, until they reach either an agreement or a good-faith impasse.
On review, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s unfair labor practice findings, and rejected the Employer’s challenges to the extension of the certification year. Consistent with settled law, the Court recognized that under the Board’s certification-year bar a newly certified union enjoys a conclusive presumption of majority status for one year following its certification, citing Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987), and that where an employer takes from the union a substantial part of that year through its refusal to bargain, the Board may remedy that deficit by extending the certification year, citing Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962).
The Court then rejected the Employer’s challenges to the Board’s determination to extend the certification year by 6 months. First, the Court held that the Board reasonably chose to apply Whisper Soft Mills and New Madrid in finding that the Employer unlawfully withdrew recognition based on a retroactive extension of the original certification year. The Court noted that in both cases the Board had extended the certification year by the length of time the Employer refused to bargain, and found that the withdrawal of recognition that occurred during the extended year was a prima facie violation of the Act. The Court acknowledged that the Board had a choice of precedent to apply, and rejected the Employer’s argument that the Board was required to apply the taint factors of Master Slack Corp., 271 NLRB 78 (1984), to find the withdrawal unlawful. The Court noted that the remedial approach in Master Slack has a different purpose, while Whisper Soft and New Madrid are “directly on point.” Finally, the Court held that the Board acted within its remedial discretion in ordering the certification-year extension in this case, which it explained is the “standard remedy” when an employer refuses to bargain for a significant part of the certification year.
The Court’s opinion is here.
Hospital Menonita de Guayama, Inc., Board Case No. 12-CA-214830 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 108) (D.C. Cir. decided February 27, 2024).
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this Hospital in Guayama, Puerto Rico for unfair labor practices committed after it purchased Hospital San Lucas and offered employment to all employees in five bargaining units represented by Unidad Laboral de Enfermeras (OS) y Empleados de la Salud. In doing so, the Court rejected the Hospital’s challenge to the Board’s successor-bar rule, upheld the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings, and found the remedies the Board ordered to be within its remedial discretion.
The Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Wilcox; Member Ring, dissenting in part) found that the Hospital, an undisputed successor, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) in numerous ways. The Board found that the Hospital conditioned the scheduling of bargaining sessions on first receiving written proposals from the Union, delayed submitting its own proposals, and unilaterally granted bonuses. Thereafter, the Board found, the Hospital unlawfully withdrew recognition from each of the five units before any bargaining sessions had taken place, failed to respond to the Union’s request for information, and made additional unilateral changes. Among other remedies, the Board ordered the Hospital to bargain in good faith, adhere to a bargaining schedule, comply with reporting requirements, upon request rescind the unilateral changes, and furnish the requested information to the Union.
Before the Board, the Hospital’s sole defense to its withdrawals of recognition was that it should have been permitted to challenge the Union’s majority status based on its belief that a majority of employees no longer supported the Union. It argued that the Board should overrule UGL-UNICCO Service Co., 357 NLRB 801 (2011), which held that a union enjoys an irrebuttable presumption of majority status for a reasonable period of time following successorship. Instead, the Hospital argued that the Board should return to the prior rule of MV Transportation, 337 NLRB 770 (2002), under which an incumbent union in a successorship relationship is entitled only to a rebuttable presumption of majority support. The Board declined, and applied UGL-UNICCO to find the Hospital’s withdrawals of recognition unlawful.
On review, the Court held that the Board properly adhered to UGL-UNICCO, its established precedent, in reaching its withdrawal-of-recognition findings, and rejected the Hospital’s suggestion that the case was a fragile precedent because it had resulted from a change in the Board’s policy regarding the successor bar 13 years earlier. The Court noted it is well settled that “[a]gencies are free to change their existing policies as long as they provide a reasoned explanation for the change,” Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016), and that they “do not establish rules of conduct to last forever; they are supposed, within the limits of the law and of fair and prudent administration, to adapt their rules and practices to the Nation’s needs in a volatile, changing economy,” American Trucking Ass’ns v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 387 U.S. 397 (1967). In that vein, the Court recognized that the Supreme Court has “explicitly blessed the NLRB’s refusal to stand by decisions that no longer serve appropriate policy ends,” referencing NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), in which the Supreme Court explained: “To hold that the Board’s earlier decisions froze the development of . . . the national labor law would misconceive the nature of administrative decision-making.”
Here, the Court held, there is no question that, in UGL-UNICCO, the Board permissibly changed its policy by acknowledging that it was overruling existing precedent and by providing a sound explanation for its decision. Therefore, the Court applied its “normal deference” to reasoned Board policy choices, and, on the record evidence, concluded that the case “fell easily within the compass of the successor bar rule.” Lastly, the Court held that the Hospital’s remaining contentions were without merit because substantial evidence supported the challenged Board findings, or because the contentions were barred from review under Section 10(e) of the Act.
The Court’s opinion is here.
Coreslab Structures (Tulsa) Inc., Board Case No. 14-CA-248354 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 31) (10th Cir. decided February 28, 2024).
In a published opinion, the Court remanded after granting, in part, the petition for review of the Board’s order that issued against this manufacturer of concrete bridge beams and slabs at its facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where its production and maintenance employees have been represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 627 since 2004. This case arose from events surrounding the parties’ bargaining for a successor contract in 2019.
The Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty; Member Ring, dissenting in part) found that prior to the contract’s expiration the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally modifying the parties’ agreement when it failed to pay contractually required pension contributions. After contract expiration, the Board found, the Employer further violated its bargaining duty by unilaterally changing its profit-sharing payments by providing them only to non-union members, ceased all pension contributions, failed to provide requested information, and unlawfully withdrew recognition from the Union. Among other findings, the Board found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminatorily ceasing payment of pension contributions and making profit-sharing payments based on union membership.
Among other remedies, the Board’s order required the Employer to make all delinquent payments to the pension fund for employees who were excluded from such payments because of their non-union member status, and also on behalf of all employees after it had ceased making all pension contributions. The order also required the Employer to make employees whole who were excluded from the profit-sharing plan because of their union-member status, and, among other unilateral changes, cease excluding union members from the profit-sharing plan.
On review, the Court upheld the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings as a product of reasoned decision-making and discerned no reason to disturb them. While the Court also upheld the bulk of the Board’s remedies, it took issue with two. First, the Court found that ordering the Employer to provide full back-pension contributions, and full back-profit-sharing payments, without offset for the compensation already provided to employees, were remedies not sufficiently tailored to the actual harms the employees had suffered. Second, the Court took issue with requiring the Employer to retain the profit-sharing plan, stating that whether to continue it is “a decision for the parties to make during the bargaining process the Act protects.” Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Lancaster Coffee Co. & Café LLC (03-CA-306479; JD-11-24) Buffalo, NY. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on February 26, 2024. Charge filed by an individual.
Starbucks Corporation (19-CA-296356, et al.; JD(SF)-09-24) Everett, WA. Administrative Law Judge Ariel L. Sotolongo issued his decision on February 28, 2024. Charges filed by Workers United Labor Union International a/w Service Employees International Union.
Starbucks Corporation (12-CA-308848 and 12-CA-308905; JD-12-24) Tallahassee, FL. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on February 29, 2024. Charges filed by Workers United, Southern Regional Joint Board a/w Service Employees International Union.
Starbucks Corporation (10-CA-305149; JD-13-24) Birmingham, AL. Administrative Law Judge G. Rebekah Ramirez issued her decision on February 29, 2024. Charge filed by Workers United, Southern Regional Joint Board.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.
Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of February 20 - 23, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of February 20 - 23, 2024 mmeyers Wed, 03/06/2024 - 10:08
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
Home Depot USA, Inc. (18-CA-273796; 373 NLRB No. 25) Minneapolis, MN, February 21, 2024.
A full-Board majority (Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox; Member Kaplan, dissenting in part), reversing the Administrative Law Judge, found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by requiring an employee to remove a BLM (Black Lives Matter) insignia from their work apron, constructively discharging the employee when they engaged in Section 7-protected activity by declining to remove the insignia, and applying its apron and dress code policies to prohibit the employee from displaying a BLM marking on their work apron. Further, in light of the Board’s recent decision in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), the Board severed and remanded to the judge, for further consideration under Stericycle, the allegation regarding the Respondent’s asserted direction that the employee keep a workplace investigation confidential.
Dissenting, Member Kaplan argued that the employee’s display of a BLM marking was not “concerted” for purposes of Section 7 because it was neither preceded by protected concerted activity nor fairly within the Board’s “logical outgrowth” precedent. Further, Member Kaplan asserted that, even if the employee’s BLM display was concerted, it was not for “mutual aid or protection” because a reasonable person would conclude that it concerned police violence against Black individuals rather than improving terms and conditions of employment.
Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas issued his decision on June 10, 2022. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
North Mountain Foothills Apartments, LLC (28-CA-286885; 373 NLRB No. 26) Phoenix, AZ, February 21, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by making several coercive statements to and then discharging an employee after learning that he shared information about his compensation with coworkers.
Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on May 30, 2023. Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Atlantic Veal and Lamb, LLC (29-CA-272677; 373 NLRB No. 19) Brooklyn, NY, February 22, 2024.
The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by laying off six unit employees without providing the Union with notice and the opportunity to bargain regarding the layoffs or their effects. A Board majority (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty) also adopted the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to provide the Union with requested information. The majority based this finding on its conclusion that the relevance of the non-unit information requested should have been apparent to the Respondent under the circumstances. Dissenting, Member Kaplan would dismiss the failure to provide information allegation because the Union did not demonstrate the relevance of the non-bargaining unit information, nor is there a basis for the conclusion that its relevance should have been apparent to the Respondent.
Charge filed by United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 342. Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito issued her decision on February 15, 2022. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. (06-RC-319142) Morgantown, WV, February 20, 2024. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Regional Director had concluded that the petitioned-for voting group of shuttle drivers could vote in a self-determination election whether they wish to join a unit of nonprofessional employees employed at the Employer’s acute care hospital. Petitioner— Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 814. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
United States Postal Service (07-CA-300756)Grand Rapids, MI, February 20, 2024. The Board denied the General Counsel’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling rejecting the General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 10 during the hearing. The denial was without prejudice to the General Counsel’s right to renew its objection before the Board on any exceptions that may be filed to the judge’s decision, if appropriate. Charge filed by American Postal Workers Union (APWU), AFL-CIO. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (31-CA-307446, et. al.) Hawthorne, CA, February 22, 2024. The Board granted the Respondent’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Regional Director’s January 17, 2024 order, but denied the appeal on the merits. The Board found that the Respondent failed to establish that the Regional Director abused her discretion in denying the Respondent’s motion to postpone the hearing. Charges filed by individuals. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Valley Hospital Medical Center Inc., Board Case No. 28-CA-213783 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 160) (9th Cir. decided February 20, 2024).
In an earlier review proceeding, the Court granted the petition for review filed by Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, which challenged the Board’s dismissal of the unfair-labor-practice complaint in Valley Hospital Medical Center, 368 NLRB No. 139 (Valley Hospital I). The complaint alleged that the operator of this healthcare facility located in Las Vegas, Nevada, acted unlawfully by unilaterally ceasing to check off and remit union dues, and challenged the Board’s then-rule that permitted an employer to unilaterally cease checking off union dues after the expiration of the contract that established the check-off arrangement. The Court remanded with the instruction that the Board must “provide an adequate explanation for its approach to dues checkoff by explicitly addressing the precedents cited by the Union that appear to contradict the * * * rationale used in this case.” Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. NLRB, 840 F. App’x 134 (9th Cir. 2020).
On remand, the Board (Chairman McFerran, Members Wilcox and Prouty; Members Kaplan and Ring, dissenting) issued its decision (Valley Hospital II), which reversed its prior decision and found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) as alleged. In accordance with the Court’s remand, the Board reexamined its decision in Valley Hospital I and the broader question of whether an employer violates the Act by unilaterally terminating a dues-checkoff arrangement following contract expiration. The Board determined that its decision in Valley Hospital I was mistaken, that the contrary rule described in Lincoln Lutheran of Racine, 362 NLRB 1655 (2015), better accords with Board precedent, and that such rule represents a better interpretation of the Act. As a result, the Board overruled Valley Hospital I and applied the change in law retroactively to find that the Employer violated the Act by ceasing dues checkoff without first bargaining.
Back on review, the Court upheld the Board’s decision as rational and consistent with the Act. The Court explained that “when an agency overrules its prior decisions, it must acknowledge the change and provide a reasoned explanation” for why “the new policy is permissible under the statute,” and that “the agency believes it to be better.” Here, the Court stated, the Board acknowledged that it departed from the precedent of Bethlehem Steel, 136 NLRB 1500 (1962), and Valley Hospital I and believed that it was adopting a better interpretation of the Act, having “weighed policy considerations and compared dues checkoff to other exceptions to the unilateral-change doctrine.” Further, the Court rejected the Employer’s contention that the Board on remand had acted beyond the Court’s mandate.
The Court’s decision is here.
Valley Health System LLC, et al., Board Case No. 28-CA-184993 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 33) (9th Cir. decided February 20, 2024).
In an earlier review proceeding, the Court granted the petition for review filed by the Service Employees International Union, Local 1107, which challenged the Board’s dismissal of a complaint against the operator of acute-care hospitals in Las Vegas, Nevada. In remanding, the Court had noted that the case presented the same question as in Valley Hospital I, 368 NLRB No. 139 (2019), remanded under the name, Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. NLRB, 840 F.App'x. 134 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2020)—whether the Act permits an employer to unilaterally cease checking off union dues after the expiration of the contract that established the check-off arrangement. Given the likelihood of further proceedings before the Board, the Court did not address the propriety of the Board’s retroactive application of the challenged rule.
On remand, the Board (Members Wilcox and Prouty; Member Ring, dissenting) applied Valley Hospital II, 371 NLRB No. 160 (2022), to find that the Employers violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally ceasing to deduct dues after the expiration of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreements. In doing so, the Board rejected the contention that the Employers were privileged to act unilaterally because the dues-deduction authorization forms employees used did not contain language that appears in Section 302(c)(4).
Back on review, the Court noted that, in its concurrently filed opinion in Valley Hospital Medical Ctr., Inc. v. NLRB, ___ F.4th ___, 2024 WL 678727 (9th Cir. 2023), it had reviewed and upheld the Board’s determination that an employer is not entitled to unilaterally cease checking off union dues after the expiration of a collective-bargaining agreement that established the check-off arrangement. Regarding the language used in dues check-off authorization forms, the Court held that Section 302(c)(4) “does not require specific recitals in written assignments,” and thus the Employers’ claim that the provision required them to cease dues checkoff was without merit.
The Court’s decision is here.
Grill Concepts Services, Inc. dba The Daily Grill, Board Case No. 31-CA-276950 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 30) (9th Cir. decided February 22, 2024).
In an unpublished memorandum decision, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this nationwide restaurant operator with a restaurant located inside the Westin LAX Hotel in Los Angeles, California, where all of its non-supervisory employees are represented by UNITE HERE Local 11. After the Union was certified, the parties began negotiations for a first contract. Thereafter, the Employer failed to make itself available for bargaining sessions, ignored the Union’s repeated attempts to schedule meetings, engaged in brief, infrequent negotiating sessions that prevented substantive discussion of proposals and counterproposals, and later expressly refused to bargain when it informed the Union it was not ready to negotiate and unprepared to reach a contract.
The Board (Members Ring, Wilcox, and Prouty) found that the Employer refused to bargain in good faith with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). The Board rejected the Employer’s contention that the violation was time-barred by Section 10(b), but limited it to conduct that began in November 2020. Further, the Board rejected the claims that the Union had lost majority support and that the COVID-19 pandemic presented an economic exigency that relieved the Employer of its duty to bargain.
Among other remedies, the Board ordered the Employer to bargain with the Union within 15 days of the Union’s request, and to compensate the Union for all bargaining expenses incurred. It also ordered that the Employer pay any lost wages the Union paid to employee bargaining-committee members for bargaining conducted during working hours from November 2020 through the date that good-faith negotiations ultimately began, and to make whole affected employee negotiators for any qualifying lost earnings not reimbursed by the Union. The Employer was also required to hold a meeting or meetings where the notice would be read to employees by a high-ranking management official or by a Board agent in the official’s presence.
On review, the Court held the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law. Before the Court, the Employer did not contest the remedies provided for in the Board’s order, which was enforced in full.
The Court’s opinion is here.
Colart Americas, Inc. and Staff Management Group LLC, Joint Employers, Board Case No. 22-CA-252829 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 9) (3d Cir. decided February 21, 2024).
In an unpublished opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this seller of art supplies that has a distribution warehouse in Piscataway, New Jersey, where half of the workers are employed directly by Colart, and the other half are temporary employees supplied by staffing agencies, including Staff Management. The Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Ring; Member Kaplan, dissenting in part) found that Colart and Staff Management were joint employers. The Board found that the Employers had violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with reprisal if they discussed workplace concerns, and by discharging an employee for raising concerted complaints about terms and conditions of employment. Further, the Board found that the Employers violated Section 8(a)(4) by discharging that same employee for threatening to file charges with the Board.
On review, the Court found no grounds to disturb the Board’s decision. The Court rejected the Employers’ challenges to the credibility determinations and agreed with the Board that a supervisor’s comments to employees constituted unlawful interference when he told them to follow the chain of command with their complaints, and threatened that there would “be a problem” if they discussed complaints amongst themselves. In upholding the unlawful discharge, the Court held that the Board correctly applied Wright Line, and that the Employers’ proffered reasons for the discharge were implausible or false. Specifically, the Court held that the employee engaged in protected concerted activity by raising concerns that were not merely gripes, that at least two decisionmakers knew of his protected activity, and that the discharge decision was close in time to his protected activity. The Court also upheld the Board’s finding that the Employers discharged the employee for threatening to file charges with the Board. Lastly, the Court found no merit to the evidentiary challenges. In particular, the Court rejected the argument that the Employers should have been permitted to admit evidence to show that the employee suffered no “adverse employment action,” noting that under Section 8(a)(1) all that needs to be demonstrated is a showing of interference with employee rights.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Starbucks Corporation (21-CA-295845 and 21-CA-312405; JD(SF)-08-24) Los Angeles, CA. Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind issued his decision on February 22, 2024. Charges filed by Workers United.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.

Local Officers & ICWUC Staff:

Sign in with Microsoft (using your Local/Staff Email) to access all available resources.

N.L.R.B. Weekly Summaries

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 22 - 26, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 15 - 19, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 8 - 12, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 1 - 5, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 25 - 29, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 18 -22, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 11 - 15, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 4 - 8, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of February 26 - March 1, 2024

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of February 20 - 23, 2024

ICWUC Online Store

I.C.W.U.C.

Contact Us

Links