« 06/13/2005 | Main | 06/28/2005 »
06/17/2005
by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
NLRB Law Memo 06/17/2005
by LawMemo - First in Employment Law
NLRB - Staff summarized 2 decisions.
Guardsmark, LLC (20-CA-31495-1, 31573-1; 344 NLRB No. 97) San Francisco, CA June 7, 2005.
The Board unanimously adopted the administrative law judge's finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining a rule that prohibits its employees from complaining about their terms and conditions of employment to the Respondent's customers.
Chairman Battista and Member Schaumber also adopted the judge's conclusion that the Respondent did not violate the Act by maintaining a rule that forbids employees from fraternizing with co-employees or with the employees of the Respondent's customers. Member Liebman found, contrary to her colleagues, that the Respondent's rule prohibiting employees from "fraterniz[ing]" with coemployees or customers offends Section 8(a)(1). She adhered to the views expressed in her dissent in Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824 (1998), enfd. 203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999), where she concluded that a similar rule did not adequately define what is proscribed and that the ambiguity in the rule tended to chill reasonable employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
The judge concluded that the Respondent's "no-solicitation-in-uniform" rule did not violate the Act. Unlike the judge, Chairman Battista and Member Liebman held that Section 8(a)(1) prohibits the Respondent from maintaining a rule that proscribes employee solicitation at any time while in uniform. In accord with their finding, they modified the judge's proposed order to require immediate rescission or modification of the unlawful rules and to provide for nationwide posting of a remedial notice.
Contrary to his colleagues, Member Schaumber found that the Respondent's "no-solicitation-in-uniform" rule did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and, like the judge, would dismiss this complaint allegation. He agreed with the judge that: (1) the rule is sufficiently clear on its face to advise employees that they should not engage in unofficial business while in uniform, which implies that such activities are permissible while not in uniform; and (2) that employees would reasonably understand, without having to be specifically told, that removing or covering their uniforms would constitute compliance with this provision.
(Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Schaumber participated.)
Charges filed by Service Employees Local 24/7 and Jee Venish, an Individual; complaint alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3). Hearing at San Francisco, April 29-30, 2004. Adm. Law Judge Gerald A. Wacknov issued his decision July 28, 2004.
***
Maryland State Teachers Assn. (5-CA-31962, 31963; 344 NLRB No. 98) Annapolis, MD June 9, 2005.
The Board agreed with the administrative law judge's finding that Respondent Assistant Executive Director Dale Templeton's remarks to Charging Parties Jeffrey J. Dean and Edward Charles Fortney that she was tired of receiving their letters regarding the terms and conditions of their employment, and her admonition that such letters would have to stop if they were to remain Respondent's employees, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. No exceptions were filed to the judge's dismissal of complaint allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by making job-security threats and by interrogating employees.
(Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Schaumber participated.)
harges filed by Jeffrey J. Dean and Edward Charles Fortney, Individuals; complaint alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1). Hearing at Baltimore on Jan. 20, 2005. Adm. Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision March 24, 2005.
|
|
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
