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
Apple, Inc. (02-CA-295979; 373 NLRB No. 52) New York, NY, May 6, 2024. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating an employee; confiscating union fliers left for distribution in the employee breakroom; and selectively and disparately enforcing its Solicitation and Distribution Policy.Charge filed byCommunications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Administrative Law JudgeLauren Esposito issued her decision onJune 20, 2023 Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Starbucks Corporation (18-CA-293653; 373 NLRB No. 53) Oak Creek, WI, May 7,2024.
The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening an employee that the Respondent would enforce work rules more strictly because of employees’ union activities and that employees could be terminated because of that stricter enforcement and threatening unspecified reprisals against employees if employees unionized In addition, the Board adopted the judge’s finding that, based on current Board law, the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by holding mandatory captive audience meetings with employees during worktime to express to them its views about their organizing campaign. A Board majority consisting of Members Prouty and Wilcox adopted the judge’s conclusions that the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1) by unlawfully threatening unspecified reprisals against employees if they unionized and unlawfully interrogating an employee as to her support for the Union when a manger asked the employee if organizing was “worth the risk” and if employees “knew what they were signing up for.” A different Board majority consisting of Members Kaplan and Wilcox adopted the judge’s finding that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by threatening an employee with job loss when the manager expressed his fear that he would lose his job because of employees’ organizing campaign. In a footnote, Members Prouty and Wilcox also expressed their willingness to reconsider the legality of mandatory captive audience meetings in a future appropriate case.
Charge filed byChicago and Midwest Regional Joint Board,Workers United/SEIU. Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carterissued his decision on March 3, 2023. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
District Hospital Partners, L.P. d/b/a The George Washington University Hospital, a Limited Partnership, and UHS of D.C., Inc., General Partner (05-CA-216482, et al.; 373 NLRB No. 55) Washington, DC, May 8, 2024.
The Board adopted the Administrative La w Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by engaging in bad-faith bargaining with the Union for a successor collective-bargaining agreement.The Board found that Respondent’s bargaining proposals, taken as a whole, would have left employees and the Union with substantially fewer rights and less protection than provided by law without a contract. The Board concluded that taken together, the Respondent’s bargaining proposals evidenced its effort to frustrate the reaching of a collective-bargaining agreement. Member Kaplan dissented, on the basis of his previously-expressed position in this case that the Board’s 2021 decision dismissing the complaint should be controlling, and the Board should not have vacated that decision.
Charges filed by 1199 Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers East, MD/DC Region. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on September 4, 2019. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
***
RadNet Management Inc. d/b/a San Fernando Valley Advanced Imaging Center (31-CA-235878; 373 NLRB No. 58) San Francisco, CA, May 10, 2024.
The unanimous Board determined that the Regional Director acted permissibly in reissuing a settled complaint based on the Respondent’s alleged breach of the informal settlement agreement. The Board found that the General Counsel’s reissued complaint was properly before the Administrative Law Judge, and adopted the judge’s determination that the Respondent did, in fact, violate the terms of the settlement agreement by refusing to reinstate an employee and make her whole for her unlawful layoff. The Board rejected the Respondent’s argument that it was prejudiced by the reissuance of the complaint because it had partially complied with the settlement agreement, noting there was no evidence of such compliance, and even if there was, the Respondent failed to comply with the essential terms of the agreement: specifically, its reinstatement and backpay obligations.
Member Kaplan agreed with his colleagues in the above findings, but would not rely on their citation toGeodis Logistics,372 NLRB No. 128 (2023) (Member Kaplan, dissenting), and would instead rely on the plain language of the settlement agreement, which permitted the General Counsel to take “further action” if the Respondent failed to comply with its terms.
As the Respondent did not contest the complaint allegation that it unilaterally laid off an employee without giving the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain, the Board adopted the judge’s determination that the Respondent’s unilateral layoff violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
Charge filed by National Union of Healthcare Workers. Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone issued her decision on October 11, 2023. Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
No Unpublished R Cases Issued.
C Cases
Amazon.com, Inc. (12-CA-308502) Deltona, FL, May 7, 2024. The Board granted the Respondent’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s order denying its motion for an in-person hearing and granted the appeal on the merits. The Board found that the judge abused his discretion in denying the Respondent’s motion in the absence of good cause based on compelling circ*mstances justifying holding a hearing via videoconference over a party’s objection. Charge filed byan individual. Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.
Accel Logistics, Inc. (16-CA-291891) Arlington, TX, May 8, 2024. No exceptions having been filed to the March 27, 2024 decision of Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler’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. Charge filed by an individual.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Intertape Polymer Corp.,Board Case No. 07-CA-273203 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 133) (6th Cir. decided May 9, 2024).
In an unpublished decision. the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this manufacturer of adhesive tape at its Marysville, Michigan facility where 140 production and maintenance employees are represented by Local 1149, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO. In the decision under review, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty; Member Kaplan, concurring) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by disciplining two employees, who were both union representatives, under the pretext that they allegedly had failed to properly clean their work area at the end of a shift. In doing so, the Board clarified that its earlier decision in Tschiggfrie Properties, Ltd., 368 NLRB No. 120 (2019), “did not add to or change the General Counsel’s burden” in establishing a violation under Wright Line.
Before the Court, the Employer argued only that its otherwise admitted knowledge of the employees’ union activity could not be imputed to the supervisor who recommended the disciplines, and thus, it argued, the disciplines were improperly found unlawful. In rejecting that contention, the Court recognized the “well established” principle that “the Board imputes the knowledge of other supervisors and managers to the decisionmaker, unless the employer affirmatively establishes a basis for negating such imputation.” The Court noted that it was uncontested that the Employer knew of the employees’ union activities, which included one of them having represented a unit member in a dispute with a manager, and the other having filed grievances and an unfair-labor-practice charge. The Court also noted that the supervisor submitted his disciplinary recommendations to human resources and management officials to whom knowledge of the employees’ union activities could be imputed. In turn, the Employer put forth only the testimony of the supervisor in which he stated that he had no knowledge of the charge filing. The Court held that testimony insufficient to meet the Employer’s burden of affirmatively establishing a basis for negating the imputation of knowledge to the supervisor, and enforced the Board’s order.
The Circuit Court decision, dated May 9, 2024, may be found here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
United States Postal Service (06-CA-277831; JD-27-24) Pittsburgh, PA.Administrative Law Judge G. Rebekah Ramirez issued her decision on May 8, 2024. Charge filed by Branch 84, National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO.
Starbucks Corporation (08-CA-290673, et al.; JD-26-24) Cleveland, OH. Administrative Law Judge Christal J. Key issued her decision on May 8, 2024. Charges filed by Chicago and Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/SEIU.
County Concrete Corporation (22-CA-278328, et al.; JD(NY)-08-24) Newark, NJ. Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey P. Gardner issued his decision on May 8, 2024. Charges filed by Local 863, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Atlantic American Fire Protection Company, Inc. (13-CA-309518; JD(NY)-09-24) Elgin, IL. Administrative Law Judge Michael P. Silverstein issued his decision on May 9, 2024. Charge filed by Sprinkler Fitters Local 281.
Starbucks Corporation (15-CA-296254 and 15-CA-298665; JD-28-24) New Orleans, LA.Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter issued his decision on May 10, 2024. Charges filed by Workers United, a/w Service Employees International Union.
Starbucks Corporation (29-CA-305960; JD(NY)-11-24) Seattle, WA. Administrative Law Judge Michael P. Silverstein issued his decision on May 10, 2024. Charge file by Workers United, a/w Service Employees International Union.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.
