« NLRB Law Memo 02/01/2008 | Main | NLRB Law Memo 02/22/2008 »
NLRB Law Memo 02/15/2008
by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
NLRB Law Memo 02/15/2008
by LawMemo - First in Employment Law.
Also by free weekly email.
NLRB - Staff summarized 3 decisions.
Hercules Drawn Steel Corp.
(7-CA-48573, et al.; 352 NLRB No. 10) Livonia, MI Feb. 7, 2008.
http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Board%20Decisions/352/v35210.htm
The Board affirmed the
administrative law judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in surveillance.
The Board also affirmed that the Respondent did not violate Section
8(a)(1) by: threatening its employees that if the Union ever goes on strike,
employees would never again see the inside of the shop; threatening to fire
any millwright who gave a statement in support of an employee grievance;
threatening employees with job loss if they did not accept the
Respondent’s contract proposal; telling an employee that it would not
recall certain employees, or that recalled employees who refused to return
to work would be terminated; and stating in a letter that employees who
refused to return to work after being recalled could be permanently
replaced. Additionally, the
Board affirmed that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) by
engaging in direct dealing or by presenting a regressive contract proposal.
Further, the Board affirmed that the Respondent did not violate
Section 8(a)(3) by: assigning clean-up duties to employee L. Lewis; locking
out its employees; and partially recalling its skilled employees.
In affirming that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) by
locking out or partially recalling its employees, the Board found that the
Respondent showed that it could not maintain production during the lockout
without these specific employees to operate its machinery, and thus, clearly
established a legitimate and substantial business justification.
See Bali Blinds Midwest, 292 NLRB 243, 246-247 (1988).
(Members
Liebman and Schaumber participated.)
Charges filed by Auto Workers Local 174; complaint alleged violations
of Sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (5). Hearing
at Detroit, May 15-18 and June 21, 2006.
Adm. Law Judge George Alemán issued his decision on Dec. 8, 2006.
***
Laborers Local 169 (32-CB-5976;
352 NLRB No. 8) Reno, NV Feb. 6, 2008.
http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Board%20Decisions/352/v3528.htm
The Board adopted the
administrative law judge’s finding that the Respondent Union violated
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by refusing to meet and bargain with the Employer
for a new agreement upon its certification as the 9(a) representative of the
Employer’s employees.
(Members
Liebman and Schaumber participated.)
Charge filed by Frehner Construction Co., Inc.; complaint alleged
violation of Section 8(b)(3). Hearing
at Reno, May 17 - 18, 2006. Adm.
Law Judge Burton Litvack issued his decision Nov. 16, 2006.
***
Windstream Corp. (6-CA-35290; 352
NLRB No. 9) Little Rock, AR Feb. 7, 2008.
http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Board%20Decisions/352/v3529.htm
The Board affirmed the
administrative law judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally implementing a zero tolerance
disciplinary policy for violations of its ethics and integrity rules.
In doing so, the Board also affirmed the judge’s finding that the
allegation was not appropriate for deferral to arbitration pursuant to
Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837 (1971), and its progeny.
The Respondent distributed an email to bargaining unit members
indicating that an employee found to have violated one of the Respondent’s
ethics rules would be automatically terminated.
The Board affirmed the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by making a material and substantial change in
employees’ conditions of employment unilaterally during the term of a
collective-bargaining agreement.
In declining to defer the allegation that the Respondent unilaterally
implemented a “zero tolerance” policy in violation of the Act to
arbitration, the Board found that the Respondent failed to request deferral
on an inextricably related direct dealing allegation covering the same
subject matter. Accordingly,
the Board concluded that deferral of one aspect of the parties’ dispute to
the grievance-arbitration machinery would be inappropriate.
(Members
Liebman and Schaumber participated.)
Charges filed by Electrical Workers IBEW on behalf of its affiliated
Locals 463, 1189, 1507, 1929, 2089, and 2374; complaint alleged violations
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). Hearing
at Pittsburgh on Feb. 1, 2007. Adm.
Law Judge Michael A. Marcionese issued his decision April 9, 2007.
|
|
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
