Corporate, Litigation, and Labor & Employment Lawyers

Honolulu and Hilo, HI

January 2021 Labor Blog; Recent NLRB Decisions

Medic Ambulance Service, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 65 (January 4, 2021)

The Board unanimously found the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining rules prohibiting conducting personal business on company time or property and soliciting or distributing literature during working hours.  However, in a 2-1 split with Member McFerran dissenting, the Board found the employer did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining provisions in its Social Media Policy prohibiting inappropriate communications, disclosure of confidential information, use of the company’s name to denigrate or disparage causes or people, and the posting of photos of coworkers.  The majority found those rules are not unlawful when read in the context of the specific guidelines that followed.  The majority also reversed the administrative law judge’s findings that the employer unlawfully maintained rules prohibiting the sharing of employee compensation information and the use of social media to disparage the company or others.

Triumfo, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 61 (December 21, 2020)

The Board found the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by subcontracting work in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement, refusing to use the hiring hall, failing to remit required contributions to various pension, welfare, and benefit funds on behalf of employees, and failing to provide the Union with relevant information.

S & S Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Appalachian Heating, 370 NLRB No. 59 (December 17, 2020)

The Board unanimously found the employer did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by denying an employee a promotion and by reassigning him because the General Counsel did not establish the employer had knowledge of the employee’s union activity. The Board majority (Member McFerran dissenting) found the employer did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by distributing a leaflet included with the employees’ paystubs which stated in part, “Anyone caught threatening our employees or otherwise violating their rights will be subject to criminal prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.”  The General Counsel did not establish the language in the leaflet was reasonably understood as a new rule, and the General Counsel did not accurately quote the language in the insert.

Murray American Energy, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 55 (December 15, 2020)

The Board found the employers violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to provide, and delaying to provide, the Unions with information regarding the use of contractors and information related to a grievance.  The information requested regarding contractors was relevant for the Union to assess compliance with the subcontracting provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement.  The Board declined the employers’ request to alter the standard of relevance to “proportionality” when determining the relevance of requested information.

Categories: Labor Law Blog