loader
Page is loading...
generic_insight_detail

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of Nov. 7-10


The summary of NLRB decisions for the week of Nov. 7-10 is now available.
Summarized Board Decisions Component Bar Products, Inc.  (14-CA-145064; 364 NLRB No. 140)  O’Fallon, MO, November 8, 2016. The Board found that an employee’s actions in calling a coworker to warn him that his job was in jeopardy and to try to help the coworker retain his employment were both “inherently concerted” and concerted under Meyers Industriesprinciples, and that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging the employee for his protected concerted activity.  The Board further found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by informing the employee that he was discharged for his protected concerted activity and by so informing another employee.  The Board also found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging the employee pursuant to an unlawful work rule.  Further, in the absence of supporting argument for the Respondent’s exceptions, the Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by applying two handbook rules to restrict the employee’s Section 7 activity.  Finally, the Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining unlawful handbook rules prohibiting insubordination or other disrespectful conduct and boisterous or disruptive activity in the workplace. Member Miscimarra concurred in part and dissented in part.  Regarding the allegations related to the discharged employee, Member Miscimarra disagreed with the majority’s finding that the employee engaged in inherently concerted activity.  He agreed with the majority, however, that the employee engaged in concerted activity under Meyers Industriesand was unlawfully discharged for that activity.  Member Miscimarra dissented from the majority’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by informing the employee that he was discharged for his protected concerted activity.  In addition, Member Miscimarra found it unnecessary to pass on whether the employee was discharged pursuant to an unlawful work rule.  Further, citing his dissent in William Beaumont Hospital, Member Miscimarra disagreed with the majority regarding the two work rules and stated that he would find them to be lawful. Charge filed by an individual.  Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl issued his decision on August 7, 2015.  Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra and McFerran participated. Continue reading on the NLRB’s website.

LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

RELATED ARTICLES

Why It's Critical That Employers Choose Words Carefully at the Bargaining Table

September 20, 2019 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Uh-Oh: Company’s Social Media Policy Ruled Unlawful

September 18, 2019 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Another Win for Employer Property Rights: NLRB Loosens Discrimination Definition

September 13, 2019 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

At Long Last, NLRB Adopts Contract Coverage Over Waiver

September 12, 2019 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Labor Board Clears Boeing For Takeoff, Ices Funky Bargaining Unit

September 10, 2019 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Subscribe

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center
RELATED TOPICS
NLRB
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.