Nissan Dodges Union Effort in US as Workers Vote Against UAW.

Workers at the facility in Canton voted nearly two-to-one against joining the UAW.

Bloomberg [3] | Aug 06, 2017 By John Lippert

Nissan Motor Co. workers dealt the United Auto Workers another blow in its decades-long attempt to organize Japanese automakers’ U.S. car plants, as employees at a Mississippi factory voted against joining the union.

Workers at the facility in Canton voted nearly two-to-one against joining the UAW, Nissan spokesman Paul Barage said in an email. The union has largely failed for years to organize Japanese, German or Korean automakers’ American factories.

The vote results are another setback to labor groups in the U.S., where the total share of workers who belong to a union fell to a record low last year. The campaign leading up to balloting Thursday and Friday was bitter, with UAW President Dennis Williams accusing Nissan managers of intimidation. The company fired back by arguing unionization could hurt the factory’s global competitiveness.

“With this vote, the voice of Nissan employees has been heard,” Barage said. “They have rejected the UAW and chosen to self-represent, continuing the direct relationship they enjoy with the company. Our expectation is that the UAW will respect and abide by their decision and cease their efforts to divide our Nissan family.”

The vote opposing joining the UAW was won 2,244 to 1,307. Voting was supervised by the National Labor Relations Board.

“The result of the election was a setback for these workers, the UAW and working Americans everywhere, but in no way should it be considered a defeat,” UAW President Dennis Williams said on the union’s website.

The Canton plant’s 6,400 workers build Altima sedans, Titan and Frontier pickups, Murano sport utility vehicles and NV commercial vans. About half the employees there were eligible to vote.

Short-Lived Victory for Employers? NLRB Chairman Reportedly Stepping Down in December
Barnes & Thornburg LLP – David Pryzbylski

USA August 9 2017

BNA Bloomberg and Law360 are reporting that National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chairman Philip Miscimarra is stepping down when his current five-year term expires in December rather than seeking reappointment. Miscimarra reportedly is leaving the agency for personal reasons.

Having been the lone pro-management voice on the NLRB for an extended period and consistently being out-voted by his pro-union counterparts, Chairman Miscimarra’s dissents have been colorful and may provide a glimpse as to what pro-management majority NLRB decisions will look like in the near future. Indeed, in just the past few months he issued scathing dissents regarding the agency’s stance on micro-units and Facebook discipline cases.

The NLRB currently is deadlocked with two pro-management and two pro-labor members, as pro-management member Marvin Kaplan joined the board just last week. Another pro-management member, William Emmanuel, is expected to be confirmed soon, giving the NLRB a pro-management majority for the first time in nearly a decade. Given Miscimarra’s imminent departure later this year, however, the pro-management majority may be short-lived – at least until President Trump can get a replacement lined up and confirmed.

NLRB’s Acted More Like “Advocate Than Adjudicator” In Issuing Decision, DC Court of Appeals Concludes

Article By:Mark Theodore

When bargaining over an agreement, it is common to hear union representatives ask “why do we need such elaborate language in an agreement?  We are always reasonable.”  To which, the company usually responds, “We think you’re nifty but the next person holding your job may not be as reasonable; better to have it in writing so there is no confusion.”  Clear contract language can solve a lot of issues but only if it is read and followed.  This is why it is sometimes perplexing and irksome that the NLRB will occasionally ignore clear contract language when deciding cases.

A federal appeals court has refused to enforcement of a Board decision finding an employer violated the Act when some union representatives were arrested for trespassing at a store in clear violation of the parties’ longstanding access agreements.  The court, calling the agency more of an “advocate than adjudicator” employed unusually strident language to criticize the Board’s decision.

In Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 15-1135 (D.C. Cir. August 1, 2017), the employer was faced with a situation that is all too common in labor relations,–a change in leadership at the local union representative level which brought with it more confrontational tactics, as well as a clear disregard of the parties’ agreement.

Background

The employer operates big box retail stores selling groceries and other items.  The employees of the employer have been represented by the union for over twenty years.  In connection with this relationship the parties had negotiated a detailed access provision in the collective bargaining agreement that expressly stated that when the union visits it “shall first contact the store manager” to notify the employer of the visit, and any contact between union representatives and employees should “not interfere with service nor unreasonably interrupt employees with the performance of their duties.”  The parties also had a written memorandum governing visits to the store, which is nothing if not emphatic:

Business agents have the right to talk BRIEFLY with employees on the floor, to tell those employees they are in the store, to introduce themselves, and to conduct BRIEF conversations as long as the employees are not unreasonably interrupted.  Such conversations should not occur in the presence of customers.

Business Representatives have the right to distribute fliers to employees on the floor AS LONG AS IT IS DONE QUICKLY. THE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT URGED TO STOP WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO READ THE MATERIALS AT THAT TIME AND FURTHER, THAT THE MATERIALS ARE NOT PASSED OUT IN THE PRESENCE OF CUSTOMERS.

Business agents have the right to distribute materials in the break room.  Lengthy conversations and discussions should always take place in the break room.

The parties agreed that the term “briefly” meant no longer than two minutes.  The practice of the parties up to the point of the case was that such visits were limited to two union representatives.

“But then things changed.”

When bargaining for a successor agreement began in 2008 the leadership of the union changed.  The new union president called in “reinforcements” from the International to “energize” the union’s efforts.  This resulted in groups of union representatives visiting the stores, not the agreed upon two.  As the union disregarded the access provisions the visits resulted in confrontations.  The employer developed a protocol to handle the confrontations which included reminding the union of the access policy, and in cases where there were violations of the access policy, asking the representatives to leave the store. If the representatives would not leave the police would be called.

We have a right “under Federal law”

In the showdown that would result in the charges, eight union representatives entered a store.  A dispute about access occurred with the employer asserting the visit had to be limited in accordance with the parties’ agreement.  One union representative asserted she had a right under “federal law” to “talk to employees as long as [she] wanted.”  The conversation grew more heated and the union representatives refused to talk about the access policy, bluntly stating “you do what you have to do and I’ll do what I have to do.”

The store manager was on the phone with loss prevention when a union representative got in his face and repeatedly called him a liar.  The store manager called the union representatives “jerks” and stated that unions were “outdated” and that paying union dues was “ridiculous.”  The police were called.  When the police told the union representatives to depart the store or face arrest, one union representative refused and was arrested.  The other representatives left the store.  Thereafter, one of the representatives tried to talk to the police about his “federal rights” and was informed by a police officer “another word and you’re done.”  Another word was uttered and that union representative was arrested.  Charges were filed with the Board over the arrests and the manager’s remarks.

NLRB Finds Violation

Against this backdrop, the NLRB found that the employer violated the Act “by limiting the agents’ right to contact store employees,” by “disparaging the union” and by threatening and causing the arrest of the union representatives.  The original Board decision was issued by a two member panel, which  was nullified by the Supreme Court.  The reconstituted Board reaffirmed its findings, but this time including a strong dissent by Board Member Johnson.  The employer appealed.

Court Refuses Enforcement, Has Harsh Words For NLRB

The Court began its analysis employers generally can prohibit labor organization activities by non-employee union representatives conducted on employer property.  Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527 (1992) (holding property rights generally prevail over the rights of non-employees when it comes to the NLRA).  Therefore “any right of the Union representatives to enter the Store . . must derive from the parties’ Access Agreement and past practice, not federal law.”  Under this legal authority, the “NLRB carries the burden to show the Union representatives were in compliance with the parties’ Access Agreement.”  The Court noted that under the facts in the record the union was in violation of the access agreement “the moment Union representatives walked through the doors to the Store without notifying management–at least 5 minutes before [the manager] first opened his mouth and long before anyone was arrested–they had become trespassers [the employer] could lawfully expel from the Store.”

The Court then examined the Board’s findings and its reasoning, and concluded that “the Board’s opinion is more disingenuous than dispositive; it evidences a complete failure to reasonably reflect upon the information contained in the record and grapple with contrary evidence–disregarding entirely the need for reasoned decisionmaking.”  Specifically, the Court noted:

• “[M]ost egregiously, the Board stated the ALJ had found ‘the parties did not have a clearly defined practice with regard to the number of union agents permitted to be in a store at any one time.’” Yet, the ALJ expressly stated he made no such finding.  The Court found this to be “pernicious” and went on to state, “The Board’s tone deafness–even after the dissent drew attention to the error–is the antithesis of reasoned decisionmaking.”
• The Board concluded the employer’s manager declined the union representative’s offer to read the parties’ access policy.  The Court noted that even the ALJ could not conclude what was said during the confrontation as the union representatives and the manager were engaged in an “intense debate” and the ALJ “declined to determine precisely what occurred. . .”  The Court characterized this finding as “the product of unmoored supposition rather than reasoned decisionmaking.”

The Court remanded the issue of whether the union representatives’ actions were protected noting, “the Board –purposefully or absentmindedly–misrepresented several of the ALJ’s findings and failed to respond to key points raised by the dissent.”

Having essentially concluded that the union was trespassing and that the Board’s findings to the contrary were unsupported (to say the very least), the Court turned its attention to the arrests.  Here the Court recited the NLRB case law that employers are liable when arrests occur when there is a persistent effort to maintain and enforce unlawful policies and “thwart the protected organizational activities of the employees.”  The Court noted the Board adopted the ALJ’s finding that the “causation [was] linear” in that the manager summoned the police and arrests occurred.  The Court rejected this analysis as ignoring the Board’s own precedent and concluded that the “intervening illegal acts” of the union representatives broke the chain of causation.  Thus, the union representatives essentially failed to follow the officers’ directives and were arrested, not because the manager called the police.  Had the union representatives left the store when the police asked no one would have been arrested.  The Court stated the Board’s analysis amounted to the creation of a duty by the manager to prevent the arrests, which was unsupported by the law.

Finally, the Court noted the manager’s statements did not unlawfully disparage the union.  Here the Court cited the very language in its Board case law used to justify employee remarks:  “the Act countenances a significant degree of vituperative speech in the heat of labor relations.”  Under the circumstances, the remarks of the manager were directed at the representatives not employees and were uttered in the heat of the moment.  The Court concluded no violation occurred.

Takeaways

Once again, a Court has refused to enforce a Board order as unreasonable.  This case demonstrates the importance of having clear access language in a collective bargaining agreement.  While we have seen cases where the Board appears to ignore or minimize contract language it is still best to be as explicit as possible because courts like to see it. And, the Board itself is in transition and the law likely will change substantially.

The employer avoided liability in this case by being able to point to a clear written agreement to demonstrate that it was the union, not the employer, that was in the wrong.  Having clear access language also is invaluable in cases like this where union leadership changes and suddenly wants to become more “energized” in its dealings with the employer.

Employers always need to be careful about calling the police in response to protests.  Calling the police should be the last resort and only when all other options have been exhausted.  Even then, a manager should not press for arrest unless circumstances exist warranting it (like a clear disruption to business).  Employers also need to be careful about summoning the police for trespass and should review state law.  In some states, like California, this case might have turned out differently because state law grants access to union representatives to property that is otherwise open to the public.

NLRB: Employer Should Not Have Asked an Employee How Things Were Going During a Union Campaign
Blog Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Foley & Lardner LLP – Philip B. Phillips

USA August 7 2017

Employers must tread carefully when communicating with employees during union organizing campaigns. A seemingly innocuous question can violate the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) prohibition on employers soliciting grievances during a union organizational campaign and accompanying the solicitation with a promise, express or implied, to remedy such grievances. However, it is not always clear what type of question or statement constitutes soliciting or promising to remedy grievances.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or “the Board”), in a recent 2-1 decision, ruled that an employer violated the NLRA by asking an employee how things were going and stating it would follow-up and look into the employee’s complaints. Republican Board member and recently appointed Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra dissented, concluding that the employer’s actions were not sufficient to constitute soliciting grievances or impliedly promising to remedy them.

The employer in this case operates a long-term care and rehabilitation center. One of the center’s employees made complaints about a supervisor, which were relayed to the Chief Operations Officer (COO). While visiting the center, the COO approached the employee and asked her how things were going. After the employee voiced her complaints, the COO stated he would “follow up and look into” those concerns. He also inquired about the employees’ union activities at the center. Soon thereafter, the employee and others delivered a Union election petition to the company.

The Board stated that “the solicitation of grievances in the midst of a union campaign inherently constitutes an implied promise to remedy the grievances.” An employer can rebut this presumption of an implied promise by, for example, “establishing that it had a past practice of soliciting grievances in a like manner prior to the critical period, or by clearly establishing that the statements at issue were not promises.” The Board found that the COO’s comments above amounted to soliciting grievances and impliedly promising to remedy them in violation of the NLRA. The Board also found there was no evidence the COO had previously addressed employee complaints in the same manner. As a result of the above (and other) violations, the Board ordered a new election.

The above case is a reminder that employers must exercise caution when addressing employee complaints and grievances during union organizing campaigns. Employers should not depart from their normal pre-campaign practices for addressing employee concerns, and should be prepared to provide evidence of those past practices.

The NLRB recently moved one step closer to a Republican majority when on August 2, 2017 the Senate approved President Trump’s first pick (Marvin Kaplan) to fill one of the two vacancies on the Board, which now creates a 2-2 Democrat-Republican split on the Board. If approved, President Trump’s other pick (William Emmanuel), would give the Board a Republican-led majority, which certainly could change the outcome of matters that are decided by the Board. We’ll be watching the Board makeup and its decisions closely and will provide updates on important developments.

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of July 24 – 28, 2017

The Summary of NLRB Decisions is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for the opinions of the NLRB.  Inquiries should be directed to the Office of the Executive Secretary at 202‑273‑1940.

Summarized Board Decisions

Garda CL Atlantic, Inc.  (22-CA-196340; 365 NLRB No. 108)  Edison, NJ, July 24, 2017.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground that the Respondent failed to raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding.  The Board also found without merit the Respondent’s affirmative defenses, which asserted that the complaint is barred based on the doctrines of laches, waiver, and/or unclean hands; that, to the extent the complaint fails to give the Respondent fair and adequate notice of the underlying charges, it denies the Respondent its right to due process under the U.S. Constitution, its right to notice of the charges under Section 10, and its right to notice and a fair hearing under the Board’s Rules and Regulations; and that the complaint is invalid to the extent that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Charge filed by United Federation of Special Police and Security Officers, Inc.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

***

Premier Environmental Solutions, LLC  (14-CA-191378; 365 NLRB No. 111)  Kansas City, MO, July 25, 2017.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the complaint.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)  by failing to furnish the Union with requested information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s unit employees, and ordered the Respondent to furnish the requested information in a timely manner.  Chairman Miscimarra noted that he adheres to his views regarding the duty to disclose witness statements, but, in the absence of any response to the complaint or the Board’s Notice to Show Cause, he concurred in finding that the Respondent unlawfully failed to provide the requested information regarding witness statements.

Charge filed by Teamsters Local Union No. 838, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

***

Mek Arden, LLC d/b/a Arden Post Acute Rehab  (20-CA-156352, et al.; 365 NLRB No. 109)  Sacramento, CA, July 25, 2017.

The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by instructing employees not to visit other areas of the facility, directing employees not to wear union scrubs or logos, directing employees to wear attire associated with the Respondent’s campaign, creating the impression that the employees’ union or protected activities were under surveillance, and prohibiting the posting of union literature and removing such postings.  The Board majority (Members Pearce and McFerran), reversing the judge, found that the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1) by soliciting employee grievances and impliedly promising to remedy them.  The Board adopted the judge’s recommendations to sustain the Union’s objections and conduct a second election.

Charges filed by Service Employees International Union, United Long Term Care Workers. Administrative Law Judge Ariel L. Sotolongo issued his decision on May 27, 2016.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

***

Butler Medical Transport, LLC  (05-CA-094981 et al.; 365 NLRB No. 112)  Owings Mills, MD, July 27, 2017.

The Board (Members Pearce and McFerran; Chairman Miscimarra, dissenting in part) adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging an employee because his Facebook posts constituted protected concerted activity.  The Board majority (Members Pearce and McFerran) further found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging the employee pursuant to its unlawful social media policy.  Dissenting, Chairman Miscimarra would have found that the employee did not engage in protected concerted activity and that the Board’s decisions in Double Eagle Hotel & Casino, 341 NLRB 112 (2004), and Continental Group, Inc., 357 NLRB 409 (2011), were wrongly decided and should be overruled.

The Board unanimously adopted the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by discharging another employee because his Facebook post was unprotected.  The Board majority further found that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by discharging the employee pursuant to its unlawful social media policy; again, Chairman Miscimarra did not rely on Double Eagle and Continental Group in concurring that the discharge was lawful.

Charges filed by individuals.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on September 4, 2013.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

***

Roy Spa, LLC  (19-CA-083329; 365 NLRB No. 114)  Great Falls, MT, July 27, 2017.

The Board (Members Pearce and McFerran; Chairman Miscimarra, dissenting) adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the General Counsel’s position on the merits was substantially justified, and therefore adopted his order denying Respondent’s application for an award under the Equal Access to Justice Act .  Chairman Miscimarra dissented based on his view, in the Board’s previous consideration of this case (363 NLRB No. 183), that the judge abused his discretion by accepting the General Counsel’s untimely filed motion to dismiss.

Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2.  Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued his supplemental decision on July 12, 2016.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

***

UPS Ground Freight, Inc.  (04-RC-165805; 365 NLRB No. 113)  Kutztown, PA, July 27, 2017.

The Board granted the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election and Supplemental Decision on Objections to Election and Certification of Representative as to the supervisory status of a dispatcher.  On review, the Board found that the dispatcher was not a statutory supervisor.  In so finding, the Board agreed with the Acting Regional Director that the Employer had failed to establish either that the individual was a statutory supervisor or that he engaged in conduct that would be objectionable if he were a supervisor.  The Board (Members Pearce and McFerran; Chairman Miscimarra, dissenting) denied the Employer’s request for review in all other respects as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Chairman Miscimarra would have also granted review with respect to procedural rulings made by the Hearing Officer and/or the Acting Regional Director that were based on the Election Rule.  In his view, the Employer’s Request for Review raised substantial issues warranting review to determine whether the disputed rulings were unfair, arbitrary, contrary to the Act, and a denial of due process.  The Chairman concurred with his colleagues’ disposition of the case in all other respects.

Petitioner – Teamsters Local 773.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

CTS Construction, Inc. (09-RD-187368) Cincinnati, OH, July 26, 2017.  Erratum to May 31, 2017 Board Order.  Erratum

C Cases

Apex Linen Service, Inc.  (28-CA-193128 and 28-CA-193231)  Las Vegas, NV, July 25, 2017.  The Board denied the Employer’s Petition to Revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum, as the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and the Employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena.  Charges filed by International Union of Operating Engineers Local 501, AFL-CIO.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

SEIU, United Healthcare Workers-West (Cedars Sinai Medical Center)  (31-CB-188979)  West Hollywood, CA, July 25, 2017.  The Board denied the Union’s Petition to Revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum, as the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and the Union failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena.  Charge filed by an individual.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

Elite Ambulance, Inc.  (31-CA-122353, et al.)  Los Angeles, CA, July 25, 2017.  The Board denied the Employer’s Petition to Revoke the subpoenas duces tecum addressed to a bank, finding that the Employer lacked standing to file the petition because it failed to substantiate its assertion that it had any personal right or privilege with respect to the bank records sought, which were the personal bank records of non-party individuals and not the corporate records of the Employer.  In addition, the Board found that, even if the Employer had standing, its petition would be denied as the subpoenas sought information relevant to the matter under investigation, described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and there was no other legal basis for revoking the subpoenas.  Charges filed by International Association of EMTs and Paramedics (IAEP)/NAGE/SEIU Local 5000.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

Local 876, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), AFL-CIO (Newkirk Electric Associates, Inc.)  (07-CD-182456)  Muskegon, MI, July 27, 2017.  The Board denied Intervenor Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL–CIO’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and Order reported at 365 NLRB No. 81 (2017), awarding the work in dispute in a Section 10(k) jurisdictional dispute to the employees represented by Charged Party, Local 876, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), AFL-CIO.  Charge filed by Newkirk Electric Associates, Inc.  Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

T-Mobile USA, Inc., and MetroPCS Communications, Inc., Board Case No. 02-CA-115949 (reported at 363 NLRB No. 171) (5th Cir. decided July 25, 2017)

In a published opinion, the Court enforced, in part, the Board’s order issued against these two companies that provide telecommunications services and operate retail stores throughout the United States and Puerto Rico, for maintaining, collectively at all their locations, 15 work rules in violation of Section 8(a)(1).

After decision by the Administrative Law Judge on a stipulated record, no exceptions were filed to the judge’s findings that 11 of the rules were unlawful, which included the 4 maintained by MetroPCS Communications.  On review, the Board (then-Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran) adopted those 11 recommended findings in the absence of exceptions.  The Board found the 4 contested rules were unlawful under the framework of Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), because they would reasonably be read by employees as prohibiting Section 7 activity.

Specifically, the Board found that the “Workplace Conduct” policy—that employees must “behave in a professional manner,” and “maintain a positive work environment by communicating in a manner that is conducive to effective working relationships”—and the “Commitment to Integrity” policy—that employees must not “argu[e] . . . with co-workers, subordinates or supervisors,” “fail[] to treat others with respect,” or “fail[] to demonstrate appropriate teamwork”—contained broad, ambiguous language that employees would reasonably construe as prohibiting protected communications.  The Board found that the “Recording in the Workplace” rule contained an expansive ban on recordings that could be read as restricting recordings protected by Section 7.  Finally, the Board found that the non-disclosure provision of the “Acceptable-Use Policy” would be read by employees as restricting the protected disclosure of employee-related information, such as wages and terms and conditions of employment, to coworkers and outside parties.

The Court summarily enforced the Board’s findings that the 11 uncontested rules were unlawful.  On the contested issues, however, the Court upheld only the Board’s finding that the “Recording in the Workplace” rule was unlawful.  The Court explained that T-Mobile’s ban on all recordings was, “by its own terms alone, stated so broadly that a reasonable employee, generally aware of employee rights, would interpret it to discourage protected concerted activity.”  As to the “Workplace Conduct” and “Commitment to Integrity” policies, the Court held that the Board had failed to read the rules in context, from which the implication is that the rules are referring only to employee work conduct or “a common sense civility guideline.”  Finally, with regard to the “Acceptable-Use Policy,” the Court again stated that the Board failed to consider the rule’s context, and that the nondisclosure provision here does not define non-public information in a way that would lead a reasonable employee to believe that it includes protected wage and benefit information.

The Court’s opinion is here (link is external).

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Mike-Sell’s Potato Chip Company  (09-CA-184215; JD-55-17)  Dayton, OH.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on July 25, 2017.  Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers, Sales, and Service, and Casino Employees, Teamsters Local Union No. 957.

Apollo Health, Inc.  (13-CA-189486; JD-53-17)  Chicago, IL.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on July 26, 2017.  Charge filed by an individual.

Altura Communication Solutions, LLC  (13-CA-174605; JD-60-17)  Downers Grove, IL.  Administrative Law Judge David I. Goldman issued his decision on July 27, 2017.  Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 21.