NLRB Law Memo 02/01/2012
by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
NLRB - Staff summarized 2 decisions.
Reliant Energy aka Etiwanda LLC (31-CA-25155 and 31-RC-08023; 357 NLRB No. 172) Rancho Cucamonga, CA, December 30, 2011.
The Board majority (Chairman Pearce and Member Becker) found that the employer violated the Act and engaged in objectionable conduct related to a representation election by: promising the employees that they would be eligible for an extra benefit if they voted against the Union; withholding the extra benefit and double-time holiday pay from the employees; and causing the removal of an employee employed by a contractor from its facility because the employee engaged in union activity. Member Hayes dissented to the finding regarding the removal of an employee, asserting that the majority should have distinguished between the rights of a property owner's employees and those of non-employees in their respective rights to access private property to engage in union or other concerted activity.
Charge filed by/Petitioner - Utility Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Administrative Law Judge Gregory Z. Meyerson issued his decision on April 29, 2002. Chairman Pearce and Members Becker and Hayes participated.
Road Sprinkler Fitters, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 669, AFL-CIO (21-CE-00374; 357 NLRB No. 176) Orange, CA, December 30, 2011.
The Board majority (Chairman Pearce and Member Becker) dismissed the complaint and found that the Union had not violated the Act by entering into a collective-bargaining agreement that required the employer to cease doing business with another person. Specifically, the provision in question required that the agreement would be applied to operations "establish[ed] or maintain[ed]" by the Employer to do the same type of work covered by the agreement and within the Union's territorial jurisdiction. The majority found that the provision in question merely sought to preserve the unit's work and therefore did not violate the Act. Member Hayes dissented, asserting that the provision would clearly force the Employer to cease doing business with entities that it did not control, therefore violating the Act.
Charge filed by Cosco Fire Protection, Inc. and National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., Party in Interest and Firetrol Protection Systems, Inc., Party in Interest. Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol issued his decision on November 3, 2008. Chairman Pearce and Members Becker and Hayes participated.
| MyLawMemo | Custom
Alerts | Newest Cases | Key
Word Search | Employment