Key NLRB Decisions in October 2016; Christine K. D. Belcaid

Prime Healthcare Services-Encino, LLC d/b/a Encino Hospital Medical Center and Prime Healthcare Services-Garden Grove, LLC d/b/a Garden Grove Hospital & Medical Center, 364 NLRB No. 128 (October 17, 2016).

The employers violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by: (1) failing to pay anniversary step wage increases to eligible employees after the collective bargaining agreements expired; and (2) by failing to furnish the unions with requested relevant and necessary healthcare information.  The Administrative Law Judge explained that contractual wage obligations are a mandatory subject of bargaining which must continue in effect post-expiration of the collective bargaining agreement until the parties reach a new agreement or a valid impasse, or unless there is a clear and unmistakable waiver.

Interactive Communications International, Inc. d/b/a INCOMM. 364 NLRB No. 129 (October 19, 2016).

The employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by: (1) making statements that employees could not discuss wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment on the employer's property; and (2) by threatening employees with discharge for doing so. 

The Ardit Company, 364 NLRB No. 130 (October 27, 2016).

The employer, whose employees were represented by a union under Section 8(f), violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by: (1) failing to respond to the union's information requests; (2) by unilaterally implementing changes to terms and conditions of employment after the Section 8(f) agreement expired but while the union's certification - after a majority of employees voted for the union in a Section 9(a) election - was pending; and (3) by laying off employees without first notifying or bargaining with the union.  Although a Section 8(f) employer (engaged primarily in the building and construction industry) upon contract expiration may unilaterally change existing terms and conditions of employment without bargaining and may refuse to meet or bargain with the union altogether, in an issue of first impression, the Board found that an employer whose employees are represented by a union under a Section 8(f) pre-hire agreement may not implement changes in terms and conditions of employment upon that agreement's expiration if the employees subsequently selected the union as their exclusive bargaining representative, even if the union's certification is pending at the time of the changes.

Categories: Labor Law Blog