« NLRB Law Memo 06/30/2008 | Main | NLRB Law Memo 07/17/2008 »
NLRB Law Memo 07/09/2008
by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
NLRB Law Memo 07/09/2008
by LawMemo - First in Employment Law.
Also by free weekly email.
NLRB - Staff summarized 2 decisions.
Dedicated
Services, Inc. (29-CA-28447; 352 NLRB No. 93) Richmond Hill, NY June 27, 2008.
http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Board%20Decisions/352/v35293.htm
The Board
adopted the administrative law judge's findings that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by informing applicants that they must sign
dues-checkoff authorization cards for Journeymen and Allied Trades Local 713 as
part of the application process and by recognizing Local 713 at a time when it
lacked majority support among employees at the Respondent's Richmond Hill
facility. In making the latter
finding, the Board rejected the Respondent's defense that the Richmond Hill
employees had been lawfully accreted into an existing unit of employees at its
Queens Village, NY facility. The
Board assumed, without deciding, that the date on which the Respondent
recognized Local 713 was the operative date for the accretion analysis. Because Local 713 did not have majority support at the time of
recognition, Member Liebman found it unnecessary to rely upon the judge's
discussion of the General Counsel's alternative theory that the recognition was
otherwise premature and unlawful. Finally,
the Board adopted the judge's finding that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3), (2), and (1) by executing a collective-bargaining agreement with Local
713 that contained a union-security clause.
(Chairman
Schaumber and Member Liebman participated.)
Charge filed by
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181-1061; complaint alleged violation of
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3). Hearing
at Brooklyn on Dec. 17, 2007. Adm.
Law Judge Steven Fish issued his decision March 4, 2008.
***
Northeastern
Land Services, Ltd. d/b/a The NLS Group (1-CA-39447; 352 NLRB No. 89)
Providence, RI June 27, 2008.
http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Board%20Decisions/352/v35289.htm
The Board
reversed the administrative law judge's decision dismissing the complaint.
The Board concluded that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by maintaining an overbroad confidentiality provision in its employment
contracts. Specifically, the Board
found that the confidentiality provision - which provided, in pertinent part,
that an employee's disclosure of his terms of employment to other parties could
constitute grounds for dismissal - was unlawfully overbroad because employees
reasonably would construe it as prohibiting discussions of terms and conditions
of employment with union representatives, activity protected by Section 7 of the
Act.
Further,
relying on Board precedent establishing that an employer's imposition of
discipline pursuant to an unlawfully overbroad rule is necessarily unlawful, the
Board additionally concluded that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by terminating employee Jamison Dupuy
for discussing terms of his employment with a client, i.e., breaching the above-described confidentiality provision.
Chairman Schaumber noted, however, that he "questions the theory
that an employer's imposition of discipline pursuant to an unlawfully overbroad
rule is necessarily unlawful."
(Chairman
Schaumber and Member Liebman participated.)
Charge
filed by Jamison Dupuy, an individual; complaint alleged violation of Section
8(a)(1). Hearing at Providence on
May 8, 2002. Adm. Law Judge Joel P.
Biblowitz issued his decision June 27, 2002.
|
|
|
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.
