Source: https://www.oliverbell.com/todays-labor-updates-june-28-2018
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:13:11+00:00

Document:
Today's Labor Updates, June 28, 2018 | Oliver Bell, Inc.
Headcount Reduction: NLRB Reportedly To Offer Buyouts In Effort To Trim Staff.
Following reports earlier this year regarding potential efforts by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to reduce headcount, it appears the agency is heading in that direction. According to a new report from Bloomberg BNA, the agency is poised to start offering “buyouts” and early retirement packages to some staffers in the near future.
The anticipated move toward headcount reduction follows a significant announcement by NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb earlier this year regarding a potential complete reorganization of the agency. Specifically, Robb reportedly has informed agency employees that “he is considering reorganizing the agency’s 26 regional offices into a smaller number of districts or regions supervised by officials who would report directly to the general counsel, several sources said. Sources told Bloomberg Law they’re concerned that the general counsel wants to limit regional directors’ authority and possibly reduce the rank of at least some regional office officials. Regional directors currently have the authority to issue complaints and dismissals of unfair labor practice cases, and they render decisions in union representation cases.” Needless to say, such changes would have a significant impact on how the board operates and handles cases.
The ongoing reorganization plans and staffing levels at the agency remain an important issue to watch on the private sector U.S. labor relations front.
The decades-long battle over union security faces two important pivot points during the summer of 2018. On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States handed unions a major defeat in the season’s first major fight. With its 5-4 decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, the Court prohibited union security in the public sector, even in the form of “fair share” fees aimed at representational expenses, as impermissible violations of the First Amendment. Meanwhile, in Missouri, an August vote could tip the national scales in favor of right-to-work legislation in the private sector.
1956-1963: The Supreme Court first confronted compulsory union dues in Railway Employees’ Dept. v. Hanson, and first examined their First Amendment implications in Machinists v. Street. The Street Court found that union security itself does not violate the First Amendment in the private sector. Instead, the Court allowed unions covered by the Railway Labor Act to collect fees supporting negotiation and contract administration expenses. On the other hand, it prohibited compulsory fees supporting costs such as political activities. In NLRB v. General Motors, the Court applied this standard to the vast majority of private-sector employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act.
1977: The Court first addressed the First Amendment implications of union security for public-sector employees in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. There, the Court extended its Street and General Motors holdings to the public sector. As in Street and General Motors, the Abood Court permitted compulsory dues for the purpose of contract negotiation and administration expenses, but disallowed compulsory dues supporting “ideological causes.” For the first time, it found the First Amendment imposed this limitation on the use of dues in the public sector. The Court reasoned that public sector employees possess a property interest in their jobs, and governmental actors cannot deprive them of that interest due to a refusal to support unions’ ideological causes.
2016: The Abood decision raised significant questions about the distinction between political and non-political activities in the public sector. For example, if a public entity spends money on higher wages in a union contract, doesn’t that expenditure present a public policy question? The Court appeared set to address these questions, and likely overturn Abood, in its 2016 Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case. However, Justice Scalia passed away prior to the issuance of a decision. As a result, the Court issued a deadlocked 4-4 decision, resulting in maintenance of the lower courts’ decisions relying on Abood’s validity.
Janus presented the Court with its first opportunity to overturn Abood following Justice Gorsuch’s replacement of Justice Scalia. In its 5-4 decision authored by Justice Alito, the Court held in no uncertain terms that all public sector union activities, not just those identified as “ideological,” implicate the First Amendment. Consequently, unions may not require that public-sector employees pay dues as a condition of employment.
As a result, nearly half (7.2 million) of the 14.8 million union members in the United States work in the public sector, even though the private sector employs approximately five times as many workers. Due to Janus, all 7.2 million of those public sector employees now work in a right-to-work environment as a matter of federal constitutional law. Moving forward, unions must convince those public employees to pay dues as a matter of individual choice, rather than compulsion.
While Janus represents the capstone of decades of legal advances on public-sector union security issues, in only two months the Show Me State may provide right-to-work advocates with a significant milestone in the private sector. If Missouri voters approve of right-to-work legislation on August 7, 2018, then, for the first time, the majority of private-sector U.S. workers will work in right-to-work states.
Congress gave states power to enact right-to-work legislation when it amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) with the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. Taft-Hartley added Section 14(b) to the NLRA, thus permitting states to enact measures prohibiting union security clauses. Section 14(b) is the only explicit portion of the NLRA that exempts state laws from pre-emption. Now, 27 states maintain right-to-work statutes and/or state constitutional provisions. Kentucky became the 26th right-to-work state in 2016, meaning that, for the past two years, a majority of states have prohibited union security. See Chart 2: Number of Right to Work States Since 1943.
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 540 (Tyson Foods) (16-CB-193820; 366 NLRB No. 105) Richland Hills, TX, June 11, 2018.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by telling an employee that it would not file a grievance on his behalf because he was not a union member.
Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his decision on February 27, 2018. Members Pearce, McFerran, and Kaplan participated.
Hard Hat Services, LLC (04-CB-196783; 366 NLRB No. 106) Norristown, PA, June 12, 2018.
The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminatorily refusing to hire two employee-applicants because of their union affiliation, and violated Section 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating another employee-applicant regarding his union support and activities.
Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 98. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued his decision on December 27, 2017. Members Pearce, Kaplan, and Emanuel participated.
Denton County Electric Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Co-Serv Electric (16-CA-149330; 366 NLRB No. 103) Corinth, TX, June 12, 2018.
The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing recognition from the Union, by unilaterally increasing the unit employees’ wages, and by failing and refusing to provide the Union with requested information regarding the unit employees’ current wages. The Board also severed and retained for further consideration the complaint allegations that the Respondent unlawfully maintained overbroad handbook rules. The panel majority consisting of Members Pearce and McFerran ordered the Board’s notice be read aloud to the Respondent’s employees by the Respondent’s chief executive officer or senior vice president of employee relations or, at the Respondent’s option, by a Board agent in either officer’s presence and, if the Union so desires, a Union agent’s presence. Chairman Ring disagreed with the majority that a notice-reading remedy is warranted in this case.
Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 220, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on June 28, 2016. Chairman Ring and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
Airgas USA, LLC (09-CA-158662; 366 NLRB No. 104) Cincinnati, OH, June 13, 2018.
The Board (Members Pearce and McFerran; Member Kaplan, dissenting) adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s rulings, findings and conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) by disciplining an employee for filing charges with the Board and participating in Board processes. The majority agreed with the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s espoused reason for issuing a written warning to the employee, a safety violation, was simply pretext for unlawful animus towards his charge-filing activity. This animus was evidenced by the suspicious timing of the discipline, as well as the Respondent’s seeming disregard for rectifying the safety violation, instead focusing on collecting evidence with which to punish the employee. Further, the majority found that the Respondent issued the employee a disproportionate punishment in comparison to other employees who had engaged in comparable safety violations.
Dissenting, Member Kaplan would have found that the Respondent acted unlawfully in issuing the written warning to the employee. In his view, the Respondent acted in an objectively reasonable manner in addressing the employee’s safety violation, and did not issue disproportionate discipline to the employee when this violation was compared to similar infractions.
Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Donna N. Dawson issued her decision on July 7, 2016. Members Pearce, McFerran, and Kaplan participated.
Labor Plus, LLC, and its Successor Wynn Las Vegas, LLC and Wynn Las Vegas, LLC (28-CA-161779 and 28-CA-166890; 366 NLRB No. 109) Las Vegas, NV, June 14, 2018.
The Board (Members Pearce and Kaplan; Member McFerran, dissenting) adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of the complaint, which alleged that Respondent Wynn Las Vegas violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to (1) recognize and bargain with the Union, (2) furnish the Union requested relevant information, and (3) provide the Union notice and opportunity to bargain over a decision to subcontract unit work, and its effects. The majority found that no successorship bargaining obligation attached to the Respondent because at the time it employed a substantial and representative complement of employees, a majority of its work force was not comprised of former predecessor bargaining-unit employees. Member McFerran would have reversed the judge and found that the Respondent was a legal successor because, in her view, an employee whose hire date was dispositive should have been counted toward the predecessor-majority in the Respondent’s work force.
Charges filed by International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States and Canada Local Union 720 (IATSE). Administrative Law Judge John T. Giannopolous issued his decision February 16, 2017. Members Pearce, McFerran, and Kaplan participated.
Circus Circus Casinos, Inc. d/b/a Circus Circus Las Vegas (28-CA-120975; 366 NLRB No. 110) Las Vegas, NV, June 15, 2018.
The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening an employee with discharge and by suspending and discharging him because of his protected concerted complaints about work conditions.
A Board majority (Members Pearce and McFerran) also adopted the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by refusing to grant the employee’s request for a union representative at an investigatory meeting with Respondent officials concerning his suspension. Chairman Ring dissented from that ruling because, in his view, the employee had not made a legally sufficient request for a union representative.
Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Mary Miller Cracraft issued her decision on December 30, 2014. Chairman Ring and Members Pearce and McFerran participated.
San Francisco Zoological Society (20-UC-210602) San Francisco, CA, June 12, 2018. The Board denied the Employer’s Request to Stay the Regional Director’s Decision and Order Clarifying Bargaining Unit to Include Dietician. Chairman Ring and Member Kaplan expressed no view with respect to whether they agreed or disagreed with revisions made by the Board’s Election Rule, but they agreed that it applied and warranted denial of the Employer’s Request to Stay the unit clarification determination, without prejudice to the Board’s subsequent consideration of the merits of the Employer’s Request for Review. Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 856. Chairman Ring and Members Pearce and Kaplan participated.
ADT Security Services (19-RD-206496) Bothell, WA, June 14, 2018. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Objection and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—an individual. Union—IBEW Locals 46 and 76. Chairman Ring and Members Pearce and Kaplan participated.
Kava Holdings, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, f/k/a Kava Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation d/b/a Hotel Bel-Air (31-CA-074675) Los Angeles, CA, June 12, 2018. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Special Permission to Appeal from the Administrative Law Judge’s April 23, 2018 Order reprimanding the Respondent’s counsel, her April 26, 2018 Order excluding one of the Respondent’s counsel to the extent that he was not permitted to question witnesses, and her April 30 and May 4, 2018 Orders denying the Respondent’s request for a copy of the audio recording and/or preservation of the audio tape of the April 26, 2018 session of the hearing. The Board found that the Respondent failed to show that the judge abused her discretion in denying its request for a copy of the audio recording and/or preservation of the audio tape, and that because the hearing had concluded, the exclusion of the Respondent’s counsel could be considered on exceptions before the Board, if appropriate. In addition, the Board found that the Respondent failed to establish that the judge’s remaining rulings could not be appropriately addressed at a later stage of the proceeding. Charge filed by UNITE HERE — Local 11. Members McFerran, Kaplan, and Emanuel participated.
Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (20-CA-215028 and 20-CA-215743) Honolulu, HI, June 13, 2018. The Board denied the Employer’s Petition to Revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum because the petition was filed untimely. Even assuming that the petition was timely filed, the Board found that it sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought. The Board also found that the Employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charges filed by International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America, Local 650. Members Pearce, McFerran, and Emanuel participated.
Savera Industries Inc., Superior Building Services, Inc., d/b/a Savera Industries, Inc., Superior Cleaning Services d/b/a Savera Industries, Inc., a single employer, and Industrial Steam Cleaning of Long Island, a joint employer (29-CA-1930680) Brooklyn, NY, June 14, 2018. No exceptions having been filed to the May 1, 2018 decision of Administrative Law Judge Benjamin W. Green’s finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions, and ordered the Respondents to take the action set forth in the recommended Order. Charge filed by an individual.
Preferred Home Care of New York (29-CA-208111, et al.) Brooklyn, NY, June 14, 2018. In this case alleging Section 8(a)(3), (2), and (1), and Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2), violations, the Board approved a formal settlement stipulation between the Respondents, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel, and specified actions the Respondents must take to comply with the Act. Charges filed by 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. Chairman Ring and Members Pearce and Kaplan participated.
In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order issued against this franchisee of several Burger King restaurants in the Kansas City, Missouri area. The Board (Acting Chairman Miscimarra and Members Pearce and McFerran) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) when it disciplined 6 employees for engaging in a one-day strike from their jobs at the 47th Street Restaurant in Kansas City to participate in a rally and related activities organized by the Workers’ Organizing Committee – Kansas City as part of the “Fight for $15” campaign. In doing so, the Board agreed with the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the employees’ one-day strike did not constitute unprotected intermittent-strike activity as the Employer had argued. On review, the Court agreed with the Board’s reasoning and enforced the Board’s order in full.
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order issued against these two manufacturers of custom wood office products located in Ronkonkoma, New York, as alter egos. In doing so, the Court undertook a comprehensive review of the alter ego doctrine and upheld the Board’s finding of alter ego status as supported by substantial evidence.
For 20 years, the Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters, Local 252, has represented Island’s production employees and installers under a series of collective-bargaining agreements. In 2013, Island created Verde as a non-union shop to specialize in producing one of Island’s products (a moveable office partition) for the express purpose of lowering its production costs. Verde set up shop in the back building on Island’s property and was under the leadership of the daughter of Island’s president and CEO. Thereafter, Island’s managers insisted to Island employees that no union members were allowed to enter the back building. To get the new business up and running, Island conferred substantial, uncompensated economic benefits on Verde through a set of informal agreements that were not memorialized in writing until months later when the companies were subject to the General Counsel’s investigatory subpoena. From the start, Verde’s employees largely did the same work, on the same equipment, and on the same property as Island’s unionized workers. Later, when Island and the Union were negotiating a successor contract, Island conditioned its signing of any agreement on the Union waiving any claim to represent Verde’s employees.
After an investigation, the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging that Verde was the alter ego of Island, and that Island and Verde together violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to bargain with the Union as the representative of their employees. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision dismissing the complaint.
On exceptions, the Board (then-Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran) disagreed with the judge and found that Island and Verde were alter egos that had violated the Act as alleged. Specifically, the Board found that the two entities share numerous indicia of alter egos, including substantially identical business purposes, operations, premises, and equipment, and that the transfer of the partition work from Island to Verde was less than an arm’s-length transaction. On the basis of uncontroverted testimony, the Board found that Verde was created to evade Island’s bargaining obligations to the Union. The Board further found that Island exercised substantial financial control over Verde, and that the delay in memorializing their business agreements, and the agreements’ highly favorable terms, allowed Verde to save and defer half a million dollars in costs and operating expenses. Thus, the Board concluded that the two companies were alter egos, that their refusal to bargain was unlawful, and that Island impermissibly conditioned the successor contract on the Union waiving any claim to represent Verde’s employees.
On review, the Court (Circuit Judges Srinivasan and Pillard; Circuit Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting) upheld the Board’s finding of alter ego status. As the Court noted, the “alter ego test is contextual and requires the Board to consider the circumstances of each case,” which include factors such as “‘substantial identity of management, business purpose, operation, equipment, customers, supervision, and ownership’ between the two entities,” quoting Fugazy Cont’l Corp. v. NLRB, 725 F.2d 1416(D.C. Cir. 1984). Further citing its own precedent, the Court reiterated that the Board will give substantial weight to evidence of a company’s motive to evade its obligations under the Act, but that no single factor is dispositive, and not every factor need be present in a particular case to establish alter ego status. On the basis of those principles, the Court held that the Board’s findings were “supported by substantial evidence and comport with the alter ego doctrine under our case law.” Finally, the Court upheld the Board’s finding that Island impermissibly insisted, as a condition of reaching an overall successor contract, that the Union agree to waive any claim to represent Verde’s employees.
In a published opinion, the Court granted the petition filed by four employees, who were Beck objectors and charging parties before the Board, for review of the Board’s order dismissing the complaint issued against Unite Here! Local 5. The complaint alleged that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it sent the employees, and similarly situated nonmember objectors, a letter demanding payment of full-membership dues and stating that, unless paid, their wages would be garnished. The Board (then-Chairman Pearce and Member Hirozawa; Member McFerran, dissenting) found, in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, that the employees objectively would have understood that the Union had sent the letters to them by mistake. On review, the Court disagreed, stating that “[t]he Board has provided no rational basis for concluding that the Dues Letter’s garnishment threat and the garnishment process it triggered did not ‘reasonably tend to restrain or coerce employees’ in the exercise of their Section 7 right not to pay full union membership dues.” Accordingly, the Court vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings on the allegation that the Union engaged in unfair labor practices.
No Administrative Law Judge Decisions Issued.
Delaware-based DuPont and Michigan-based Dow Chemical had their $150 billion merger approved worldwide in August 2017. Now they’re preparing for a split into three independent businesses. Read how Steelworkers are being affected.
DowDuPont is busy cutting $3.3 billion in costs before its planned split into three independent businesses, but so far the impact on USW chemical workers has been minimal.
The company shut down its manufacturing plant in La Porte, Texas, and its Kevlar facility in Charleston, S.C. Last March, it decided to move DuPont’s production of aramid intermediates at the Chambers Works site in Deepwater, N.J., to a supplier from India that had newer process technology. Decommissioning of the manufacturing section is expected to be finished this summer.
The company said it would help the 100 USW-represented Chambers Works employees laid off from the production move with transfer to other jobs within the corporation or to other positions with local employers.
DuPont is a tenant at Chambers Works. The company spun off its performance chemicals division to a new company called Chemours on July 1, 2015. Chemours took control of the Chambers Works site.
So far, the merged company has not shuttered any Dow sites or laid off any Dow workers, according to Kent Holsing, chair of the DowDuPont North American Labor Council (DNALC).
DowDuPont Chief Executive Officer Ed Breen is shutting down research and development projects that are expensive, require years of work and may have poor investment returns. He calls these projects, “moonshots,” and considers them a waste of money. One such project was DuPont’s $200 million cellulosic ethanol bio-refinery in Iowa that opened in 2015. The plant turned corn stalks, leaves and cobs left in fields into 30 million gallons of ethanol a year. That business is for sale.
Instead, DowDuPont will invest in smaller projects that cost no more than $30 million, carry less risk and improve profit margins. Plans are for the material sciences division to have incremental capacity expansions over several years to make it a “cash machine.” Recently, the newly designed laboratories in the Experimental Station building in Delaware received a $200 million facelift to attract top scientists for the company’s consolidated industrial biosciences division. It creates enzymes for a variety of products.
The materials science division will be the first to split around April 2019, and it will have headquarters in Michigan. The agriculture division will separate by June 1, 2019. It will be called Corteva Agriscience and be headquartered in Delaware. Then, the specialty products division will be formed, and it will be called DuPont. Its headquarters will be in Delaware, too.
Marc Doyle, chief operating officer for the specialty products division, has not said if he will be the CEO for the new DuPont. He told the media that management is working on how to handle DuPont’s billions of dollars in pension liabilities, and will discuss it later this year.
DowDuPont earned $1.1 billion profit for the first quarter of 2018. The materials science division increased sales 17 percent, and the specialty products division had an 11 percent increase in sales. The agriculture division saw net sales decrease 25 percent because of weather delays in the northern hemisphere and Brazil.
Delaware-based DuPont and Michigan-based Dow Chemical had their $150 billion merger approved by all regulatory authorities worldwide in August 2017.
The 2017 DowDuPont merger was about satisfying Wall Street and the companies’ shareholders, and the company’s leaders continue to pander to these investment interests through their plan to chop over $3 billion in expenses. They say they will run the merged organization “lean and mean” by shutting down plants, eliminating jobs, laying-off employees and reducing the number of suppliers.
In response, the DowDuPont North American Labor Council (DNALC) launched a global petition to DowDuPont CEO Jim Fitterling. The council is challenging the multinational corporation to focus on the interests of its employees, their families and their communities instead of paying attention solely to Wall Street.
“Globally, DowDuPont employees will face many changes and challenges in the coming months, so the company’s unionized workers around the world are mobilizing together to ensure that everyone’s best interests are represented,” said USW Local 12075 President Kent Holsing from the Midland, Mich., facility. Holsing chairs the DNALC.
“We also are speaking for the non-union employees who do not have a voice. Our goal is to use this petition as a platform to ensure the employees and their communities are represented and heard,” he added.
Please post and share the petition on social media and your local union webpage.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.