BUSINESS TEL:   281.593.1690

BUSINESS FAX:  832.218.1996

Breaking News

Today’s Labor Updates, January 12, 2018

German Union Steps Up Fight for ‘Modern’ 28-Hour Workweek.

Thanks to strong bargaining power, the IG Metall union, which represents some 3.9 million workers in the metal and electrical industries, is pushing for a 6% wage increase and a 28-hour week for a two-year period — with limited impact on wages.

By Michelle Fitzpatrick with Isabelle Le Page Agence France-Presse | Dec 29, 2017

BERLIN — Germany’s largest union is bracing for a combative start to the new year as it presses demands for a 28-hour working week, warning employers to expect mass strikes in the battle for a better work-life balance.

The mighty IG Metall union, which represents some 3.9 million workers in the metal and electrical industries, says it is ready to flex its muscles after initial negotiations with employers made little headway.

An agreed no-strike period ends on December 31, and IG Metall CEO Joerg Hofmann has told employers to expect brief “warning strikes” from January 8, and he said more widespread action could follow.

“If by the end of January the employers have not changed their stance, we will consider resorting to 24-hour strikes or calling a vote for a general strike,” Hofmann told DPA news agency this week.

Seeing its bargaining power strengthened at a time of bulging order books and record-low employment in Europe’s top economy, the union is pushing for a 6% wage increase. The Gesamtmetall employers’ federation has so far offered 2%, setting the stage for both sides to meet somewhere in the middle.

Far more controversial is IG Metall’s call for employees to be allowed to switch to a 28-hour week for a two-year period — with limited impact on wages. That demand has been met with fierce resistance from company bosses, and stirred wider debate about quality of life and the future of work in booming Germany.

In certain circumstances, IG Metall says reduced working hours must not go hand-in-hand with a drastic salary cut — for instance when staff are caring for young children or ailing relatives. In those cases, the union wants employers to top up workers’ salaries to help make up for the shortfall that comes with clocking up fewer hours.

It also wants employees to be guaranteed a return to a 35-hour week after two years.

Radical Rethink

“I think IG Metall’s proposal is very modern,” professor Gustav Horn of the Hans-Boeckler Foundation think tank told the Nordwest Zeitung daily. He said it would inevitably lead to higher costs that would hurt the bottom line, but could also be a way for firms to hold onto their best workers.

“In future, well-qualified employees will select those companies that offer flexible hours that suit their lives at that time,” he predicted.

But Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg bank, said a shorter week would mainly hurt small and medium-sized companies who could struggle to meet production targets.

“If it would be replicated throughout the economy, it could do serious damage,” he said, in a nod to IG Metall’s track record of paving the way for major changes to the work environment.

IG Metall, which represents the powerful car and machine manufacturing sectors so crucial to Germany’s economic success, led the campaign for a 35-hour week in the 1990s. But this time, it is pushing for a radical rethink on part-time work.

“The time has come for workers to demand more self-determination to adapt working hours to their personal situation,” Hofmann told reporters in October. He said the trend for more flexible working hours in recent years had mainly benefitted bosses who got staff to work longer days.

‘Costly, Unfair’

The Gesamtmetall employers’ federation has slammed IG Metall’s demand for less work at roughly the same pay as “too costly” and “unfair”.

It says employees already have the option of working part-time if they wish, with a pay packet to match.

“Our rule is: if you work more, you earn more. If you work less, you earn less,” Gesamtmetall chief Rainer Dulger said in a recent interview with regional media. He added that the proposed measure could lead to a shortage of skilled workers in sectors crucial to the country’s economy.

IG Metall has hit back at the criticism, saying firms were losing out on skilled workers by not meeting their needs, particularly among the female workforce.

The controversy is likely to spill over into politics in coming weeks, as Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives head into negotiations with the Social Democrats on forming another coalition government.

Former labour minister Andrea Nahles, who will be a main negotiator for the Social Democrats in the upcoming talks, has already said it was “a good thing” that IG Metall was putting working time at the heart of its demands.

 

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of January 2 – 5, 2018

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

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 332 (Rudolph and Sletten and George Family Enterprises)  (32-CD-198681; 365 NLRB No. 171)  Cupertino, CA, January 3, 2018.  Errata issued January 4, 2018.  Errata   Amended Decision.

In this jurisdictional dispute under Section 10(k), the Board found that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 332, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 405, claimed certain illuminated and non-illuminated stretch fabric ceiling system work at one of the Employer’s job sites; that there was reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) had been violated by the Electrical Workers’ threat to “wobble” the worksite; and that there was no voluntary method for adjusting the dispute.  The Board then evaluated the dispute under its established 10(k) factors and awarded the disputed work to employees represented by the Carpenters, based on the factors of collective bargaining agreements, employer preference, current assignment and past practice, industry and area practice, relative skills, and economy and efficiency of operations.

Charge filed by Rudolph and Sletten.  Chairman Kaplan and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

***

Pro Works Contracting, Inc.  (21-CA-120477 and 21-CA-121946; 366 NLRB No. 1)  El Cajon, CA, January 4, 2018.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the General Counsel’s compliance specification.  Accordingly, the Board ordered the Respondent to make the discriminatees whole by paying the backpay due as stated in the compliance specification.

Charges filed by Iron Workers Local 229, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, AFL-CIO.  Members Pearce, McFerran, and Emanuel participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

National Express The Ride  (01-RC-212044)  Hyde Park, MA, January 2, 2018.  The Board granted a postponement requested by the Employer.  Petitioner – International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 25.  Members Pearce, McFerran, and Emanuel participated.

New Foundations Charter School, Inc.  (04-RC-199928)  Philadelphia, PA, January 3, 2018.  The Board (Members Pearce and McFerran; Member Emanuel, dissenting)  denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election, finding that it raised no substantial issues warranting review of the decision.  The majority rejected the Employer’s assertion that the Board should decline to assert jurisdiction over the Employer, a charter school, under Sec. 14(c)(1) of the Act.  It also agreed with the Regional Director that the petitioned-for unit, consisting of employees working at the Employer’s high school facility was presumptively appropriate and the Employer had failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating that the operations of the high school had merged with those of the Employer’s elementary school facility.  The majority did not rely on the Regional Director’s finding that the petitioned-for unit was appropriate under the test set out in Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011), enfd. sub nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013), overruled by PCC Structurals, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 160.  Member Emanuel, dissenting, would find that the high school and the elementary school had merged and that therefore the petitioned-for unit was not an appropriate one.  Petitioner – Philadelphia Alliance of Charter School Employees, Local 6056, AFT-PA, AFT, AFL-CIO.  Members Pearce, McFerran, and Emanuel participated.

Clifford W. Perham, Inc., a subsidiary of Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc.  (01-RC-191238)  Wells, ME, January 4, 2018.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Regional Director had directed an election in a unit of drivers, yardmen, mechanics, and parts specialists at the Employer’s facilities in Maine.  In denying review, the Board found that the petitioned-for unit shared a community of interest that was sufficiently distinct from an excluded facility to make the unit appropriate under the Board’s traditional multi-facility community of interest test.  Petitioner – International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 340.  Chairman Kaplan and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.

C Cases

Communication Workers of America AFL-CIO, Local 1101  (02-CB-176719)  New York, NY, January 2, 2018.  No exceptions having been filed to the November 21, 2017 decision of Administrative Law Judge Mindy E. Landow’s finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions, and ordered the Respondent to take the action set forth in the judge’s recommended Order.  Charge filed by an individual.

United States Postal Service  (16-CA-169367, et al.)  Richmond, TX, January 3, 2018.  In this case alleging independent Section 8(a)(5) and (1) allegations, the Board approved a formal settlement stipulation between the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel, and specified actions the Respondent must take to comply with the Act.  Charges filed by National Association of Letter Carriers, Branches 283, 23, and 1179, and National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association.  Members Pearce, McFerran, and Emanuel participated.

United States Postal Service  (10-CA-188508)  Columbus, GA, January 3, 2018.  In this case alleging independent Section 8(a)(5) and (1) allegations, the Board approved a formal settlement stipulation between the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel, and specified actions the Respondent must take to comply with the Act.  Charge filed by American Postal Workers Union, Area Local 118.  Members Pearce, McFerran, and Emanuel participated.

United States Postal Service  (01-CA-186158)  Nashua, NH, January 3, 2018.  In this case alleging independent Section 8(a)(5) and (1) allegations, the Board approved a formal settlement stipulation between the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel, and specified actions the Respondent must take to comply with the Act.  Charge filed by National Mail Handlers Union, Branch 83, Local 301, a/w Laborers’ International Union of North America.  Members Pearce, McFerran, and Emanuel participated.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

United Parcel Service, Inc.  (18-CA-193426; JD-01-18)  Coralville, IA.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on January 5, 2018.  Charge filed by an individual.

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of December 26 – 29, 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

No Published Decisions Issued

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

No Unpublished R Cases Issued

C Cases

Kapstone Paper and Packaging Corporation  (19-CA-188182)  Longview, WA, December 27, 2017.  No exceptions having been filed to the November 8, 2017 decision of Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone’s finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions, and ordered the Respondent to take the action set forth in the judge’s recommended Order.  Charge filed by Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers Local 153, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

Baylor University Medical Center  (16-CA-195335)  Dallas, TX, December 27, 2017.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the Respondent had failed to establish there are no genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  While Chairman Kaplan and Member Emanuel agreed that there were genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing,  they noted their belief that, to the extent not already permitted under Board precedent, the legality of confidential severance agreements for former employees should be reconsidered.  Charge filed by an individual.  Chairman Kaplan and Members McFerran and Emanuel participated.

Benedictine Health Center, Benedictine Sisters Benevolent Association, Benedictine Health Services, and St. Scholastica Monastery, as a single employer  (18-CA-196456)  Duluth, MN, December 27, 2017.  The Board denied the Petition to Revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum filed by Benedictine Sisters Benevolent Association and the Joint Petition to Revoke and/or Quash investigative subpoenas duces tecum filed by Benedictine Health Center and Benedictine Health Services, as the subpoenas sought information relevant to the matters under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and the Petitioners failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoenas.  The Board evaluated the subpoenas in light of the Region’s clarifications and limitations, and noted that the order was without prejudice to the Petitioners’ submission of a privilege log regarding documents they believe in good faith to be subject to attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.  Charge filed by AFSCME Council 5.  Members Pearce, McFerran, and Emanuel participated.

JKJ Workforce Agency, Inc.  (01-CA-129948, et al.)  Upton, ME, December 28, 2017.  The Board approved a formal settlement stipulation between 34 Respondents, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel, and specified actions the Respondents must take to comply with the Act.  The Respondents admitted that sufficient facts exist to warrant Board findings of specified unfair labor practices, and the parties agreed that the amounts of backpay due, if any, will be determined in a compliance proceeding.  The Board found that approval of the settlement would effectuate the purposes of the Act in the extraordinary circumstances of this case, as well as the fact that earlier informal settlements relating to the issues in the cases settled here contained provisions that would normally be included in, but are absent from, this formal settlement stipulation.  Charges filed by Comite de Apoyo a Los Trabajadores Agricolas.  Members Pearce, McFerran, and Emanuel participated.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Rush University Medical Center, Board Case No. 13-CA-152806 (reported at 362 NLRB No. 163) (D.C. Cir. decided December 20, 2017)

In an unpublished judgment, the Court enforced the Board’s technical 8(a)(5) bargaining order.  The Employer, an acute-care hospital, refused to bargain after its previously unrepresented warehouse supply-chain tech employees and operating-room tech employees voted in separate self-determination elections to join an existing unit of nonprofessionals.  The Board found that refusal violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).  The Court enforced the Board’s order, explaining as follows:

Last year, this court held that the NLRB’s decision in St. Vincent Charity Medical Center, 357 N.L.R.B. No. 79 (August 26, 2011), which allowed nonconforming units to expand via an Armour-Globe election without becoming a standardized unit, was “fully consistent with” the Board’s Health Care Rule. Rush University Medical Center v. National Labor Relations Board, 833 F.3d 202, 207 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). Now, the same hospital argues that the NLRB did not adequately respond to its argument that this interpretation of the

Rule improperly allows unions to hold a series of allegedly disruptive elections. But, as the Regional Director explained in his opinion, the Board does not interpret the Health Care Rule to apply to an Armour-Globe election. See Crittenton Hospital, 328 N.L.R.B. No. 120, at 880 (June 30, 1999) (“By its own terms, the Rule applies only to initial organizing attempts or, where there are existing nonconforming units, to a petition for a new unit of previously unrepresented employees, which would be an addition to the existing units at the Employer’s facility.”); St. Vincent, 357 N.L.R.B. No. 79, at 855 (explaining that the Health Care Rule was promulgated “to avoid undue proliferation of bargaining units,” and that “[a]n Armour-Globe self-determination election . . . undeniably avoids any proliferation of units, much less undue proliferation, because it does not result in the creation of an election in a separate, additional unit”). Having permissibly held that the Health Care Rule is concerned only with disruption caused by unit proliferation, the Board may follow that precedent without elaborate explanation of why some other sort of disruption does not implicate the Rule. See WLOS TV, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 932 F.2d 993, 995 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (Where “an agency merely implements prior policy, an explanation that allows this court to discern the agency’s path will suffice.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Circuit Court’s judgment may be found here.

IATSE Local 720, Board Case No. 28-CB-131044 (reported at 362 NLRB No. 148) (9th Cir. decided December 18, 2017)

In an unpublished memorandum decision, the Court enforced the Board’s order requiring the Respondent Union, which operates an exclusive hiring hall, to provide two members with referral information they had requested based on a reasonable belief that the Union was discriminating against them in operating the hall.  The Court found that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the Union operated an exclusive hiring hall, and agreed with the Board’s rejection of the Union’s various defenses, including its contention that the charge was time-barred and its assertion that disclosure would infringe the associational or privacy rights of the Union or its members.

The Court’s decision may be found here.

Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, d/b/a The Sheraton Anchorage, Board Case No. 19-CA-032735 (reported at 363 NLRB No. 6) (9th Cir. decided December 28, 2017)

In an unpublished memorandum, the Court enforced the Board’s order in full.  The Board found that the Hotel-Employer committed numerous unfair labor practices, only a few of which the Hotel challenged on appeal.  The Court summarily enforced the Board’s order with respect to the uncontested violations, and found that substantial evidence supported the Board’s disputed findings that the Hotel unlawfully discharged two employees for engaging in union activity and/or participation in Board proceedings, and that it violated § 8(a)(5) by scheduling employees in the engineering and maintenance departments without regard to seniority.

The Court’s decision may be found here (link is external).

Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, d/b/a The Sheraton Anchorage, Board Case No. 19-CA-032148 (reported at 362 NLRB No. 123) (9th Cir. decided under the name Unite Here! Local 878 v. NLRB)

In an unpublished memorandum, the Court enforced the Board’s order in full and denied the Petition for Review filed by the Charging-Party Union.  The Hotel contested only a few of the numerous unfair labor practices found by the Board, and the Court enforced the order with respect to both the uncontested and contested findings.  Specifically, the Court upheld the Board’s findings that the Hotel’s unilateral changes in working conditions were unlawful, notwithstanding an impasse in negotiations, because the Hotel had failed to give the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service timely notice of its intent to modify the parties’ collective bargaining agreement; that later unilateral changes to health benefits were unlawful because the impasse had been broken at the time of the changes; that the Hotel unlawfully discharged four employees for distributing literature in exterior areas found by the Board and the Court to be non-working areas, despite some incidental work performed there by bellmen, valets, and security personnel; and that the Hotel unlawfully withdrew recognition from the Union based on a decertification petition that was tainted by Hotel coercion in obtaining signatures.  Denying the Union’s Petition for Review, the Court found that it could not consider the Union’s challenge to the Board’s modification of the Administrative Law Judge’s proposed remedy because the Union had not made its arguments to the Board in the first instance.

The Court’s decision may be found here (link is external).

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, CLC, Local 99 (various employers)  (27-CB-193546; JD(SF)-56-17)  Salt Lake City, UT.  Administrative Law Judge John T. Giannopoulos issued his decision on December 26, 2017.  Charge filed by an individual.

Hard Hat Services, LLC  (04-CA-196783; JD-93-17)  Norristown, PA.  Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued his decision on December 27, 2017.  Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 98.

Bodega Latina Corporation d/b/a El Super  (21-CA-183276; JD(SF)-55-17)  Anaheim, CA.  Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham issued his decision on December 29, 2017.  Charge filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 324.

Comments are closed.