28 Day Trial   Products / Prices / Samples   About Us / Contact   FAQs   Home  
Newest employment law cases  
Summaries and links to full text

LawMemo - First in Employment Law

Emailed directly to you
and online all the time
Home 28 Day Trial MyLawMemo Custom Alerts Newest Cases Key Word Search Employment Law Memo
EEOC Info NLRB Info Supreme Court Arbitration Articles Law Firms Arbitration Blog Employment Law Blog

NLRB Law Memo 
Also available by email 

All Archives


« NLRB Law Memo 05/12/2009 | Main | NLRB Law Memo 06/12/2009 »

NLRB Law Memo 06/09/2009
by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

NLRB Law Memo 06/09/2009
LawMemo - First in Employment Law.
Also by email.

NLRB - Staff summarized 3 decisions.

Community Medical Center (4-CA-34888, et al.; 354 NLRB No. 26) Toms River, NJ May 29, 2009.

The Board adopted the administrative law judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (1) directing union representatives to retrieve their vehicles from its parking garage and to leave the parking garage, and (2) promising employees improved terms and conditions of employment through a “shared governance” concept in order to discourage employees from selecting the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. The Board reversed, in the absence of pertinent precedent, the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by hiring a former union organizer and assigning him to campaign against the Union without providing assurances to employees that information received from the former union organizer concerning who supported the Union would not be used against them. The Board reasoned that extant Board precedent does not establish that the Respondent had an affirmative duty to provide assurances to its employees regarding the hiring of a former union organizer.

Based on the two Section 8(a)(1) violations found, the Board further adopted the judge’s recommendation to set aside the election results and finds it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s findings regarding the Union’s Objections 1 through 5.

(Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber participated.)

Charges filed by New York State Nurses Assn.; complaint alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1). Hearing at Philadelphia, Aug. 13-15, Oct. 1-4, 22-25, Nov. 13-15, and Dec. 3, 2007. Adm. Law Judge Bruce D. Rosenstein issued his decision March 14, 2008.


International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 378 (32-CD-167, et al.; 354 NLRB No. 19) Oakland, CA, May 21, 2009.

Relying on factors such as existence of collective-bargaining agreements, employer preference, employer past practice, industry practice, workers’ relative skills, and economy and efficiency of operations, the Board determined that employees of American Bridge/Flour Enterprises, Inc., a Joint Venture, represented by Iron Workers, Local 378, are entitled to perform the line handling, signaling, and rigging, associated with offloading of ships and vessels arriving at Pier 7 in Oakland, CA, with structural steel supports and other construction materials for the Bay Bridge Project.

(Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber participated.)


Regional Emergency Medical Services, Inc. (7-RC-23217; 354 NLRB No. 20) Southfield, MI May 21, 2009.

The Board reversed the hearing officer’s finding that contingent emergency technician (EMT) Tara Dibler belonged in the stipulated bargaining unit and that the challenge to her ballot should be overruled. The Employer maintained three distinct categories of EMT employees: full-time, part-time, and contingent. Contingent employees were expressly included in the Union’s petition but not mentioned in the parties’ unit stipulation, which expressly included only full-time and parttime EMTs. The Board, in reversing the hearing officer’s finding and sustaining the challenge to Dibler’s ballot, found that the language of the parties’ unit stipulation reflected their clear and unambiguous intent to exclude contingent employees. The Board noted that weight should be given to the fact that the Petitioner was aware of the distinct contingent EMT classification, included that classification in the petition’s unit description, but stipulated to a unit description that failed to mention contingent employees.

(Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber participated.)

LawMemo publishes Employment Law Memo.

Home | MyLawMemo | Custom Alerts | Newest Cases | Key Word Search | Employment Law Memo 
EEOC Info | NLRB Info | Supreme Court | Arbitration | Articles | Law Firms
Employment Law Blog | Arbitration Blog | Employment Law 101 


Get your 28 day trial now 

Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. 
It does not include Key Word Search.



28 day Trial