« 02/25/2005 | Main | 03/16/2005 »
03/04/2005
by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
NLRB Law Memo 03/04/2005
by LawMemo.Com - First in Employment Law
NLRB Adopts Alternative Procedure In Representation Election Cases.
Press release: http://www.lawmemo.com/nlrb/r2555.htm
Effective March 1, the NLRB has a new (and third) voluntary method for conducting representation elections. The new "Full Consent Election" Agreement allows the Regional Director to make a final determination as to all election disputes, with that decision having the same force and effect as a Board decision.
NLRB - Staff summarized 1 decision.
Family Fare d/b/a Glen's Market (7-RC-22118; 344 NLRB No. 25) Oscoda, MI Feb. 22, 2005.
The Board adopted the hearing officer's recommendation to overrule the Employer's objections and certified the Petitioner (Food & Commercial Workers Local 87) as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. The tally of ballots showed 28 for and 20 against, the Petitioner, with 8 challenged ballots. One of the challenges was resolved by stipulation of the parties before the hearing and as a result, the remaining challenged ballots are not determinative.
Relying on the Sixth Circuit's decision in Harborside Healthcare Inc. v. NLRB, 230 F.3d 206, 212 (6th Cir. 2000), the Employer argued that the prounion activities of Deli Manager Vicki Doran and Bakery Manager Matt Kovachevich prior to the election had interfered with employees' free choice. In overruling the objections, the hearing officer held that even assuming that the department managers were statutory supervisors, their conduct was not objectionable because it was devoid of any threats of reprisal or promises of benefit.
In an earlier determination, the Regional Director found that the department managers are statutory supervisors solely because they have authority to evaluate employees, and their independent assessment of an employee's progress determines how the employee will fare under the reward system. This authority extended only to the employees in each manager's department. The Board concluded that because there was no evidence in the record that Doran and Kovachevich directed their prounion activities toward any employee over whom they exercised their supervisory authority, their conduct could not reasonably have coerced or interfered with employees' free choice in the election.
(Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Schaumber participated.)
|
|
|
Home | Free Trial | Products & Prices
| Feeds
| Caselaw Database
| Sample
EEOC
| NLRB
| Nat'l Arbitration Ctr
| Supreme Court
| Articles
| Lawyers
Employment Law
Blog | Arbitration Blog
| Employment Law 101
Employment Law Memo | NLRB Law Memo | Arbitration Law Memo
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
