Free Trial / Sign Up Products / Prices / Samples About Us / Contact FAQs Home
Latest employment law cases 
Summaries and links to full text
LawMemo - First in Employment Law Emailed directly to you
and online all the time
Latest Cases Advanced Search Law Firm Directory Arbitrator Directory Law School Directory Legal Resources / Memos
Employment Law Memo
Arbitration Law Memo
NLRB Law Memo
Employment Low Blog
Arbitration Law Blog
Employment Law 101
Articles
Supreme Court Cases
EEOC Info
NLRB Info

NLRB Law Memo 
Also available by email 

All Archives

« NLRB Law Memo 12/09/2008 | Main | NLRB Law Memo 12/22/2008 »

NLRB Law Memo 12/12/2008
by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

NLRB Law Memo 12/12/2008
by
LawMemo - First in Employment Law.
Also by email.

NLRB - Staff summarized 1 decision.

Atrium at Princeton, LLC d/b/a Pavilions at Forrestal and Princeton Healthcare, LLC d/b/a Pavilions at Forrestal (22-CA-27066, et al.; 353 NLRB No. 60) Wayne, NJ Dec. 5, 2008.
http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Board%20Decisions/353/v35360.htm

In this case, the Board adopted the administrative law judge's finding that Respondent Princeton violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by bypassing the Union and dealing directly with unit employees. The Board also adopted, on modified grounds, the judge's finding that Respondent Atrium, the successor to Respondent Princeton, violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing and refusing to meet with the Union for the purpose of negotiating a successor collective-bargaining agreement. The Board found it unnecessary to pass on the judge's finding that Respondent Princeton also violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing and refusing to bargain for a successor agreement prior to the transfer of operations to Respondent Atrium, as any such finding would be cumulative and would not materially affect the remedy.

The Board further affirmed the judge's findings that Respondent Atrium violated Section 8(a)(5) by making unilateral changes and by refusing to supply information requested by the Union. However, reversing the judge, the Board found that the social security numbers requested by the Union were not presumptively relevant and it therefore modified the recommended order to exclude social security numbers from the information Respondent Atrium was required to provide.

Finally, the Board observed that the judge's recommended order would effectively require the Respondents jointly and severally to remedy all of the unfair labor practices. The Board found no basis in the record for imposing joint and several liabilities and in order to clarify the remedial obligations of the Respondents, it substituted separate orders and notices for the common order and notice recommended by the judge.

(Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman participated.)

Charges filed by SEIU 1199 New Jersey Health Care Union; complaint alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5). Hearing at Newark, July 9, 10, 13, and Oct. 9 and 18, 2007. Adm. Law Judge Steven Davis issued his decision April 15, 2008.

***



LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.
LawMemo.Com

EEOC | NLRB | Supreme CourtEmployment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101

 
Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. It does not include the Caselaw Database.