02/07/2025: Still Illegal to Retaliate Against Discussing Wages
Also two ALJ cases involving unfair labor practices committed by unions.
GT Security Services, JD-05-25, 09-CA-312117 (ALJ Decision)
This case involves a security guard company, GT Security Services GTS, and allegations that it violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act through interrogation, threats, and discharge of an employee for discussing wages.
Gina Mahone was hired as a security guard at a higher wage rate than other guards due to her experience. When another guard, Woltz, learned of her higher pay through a workplace conversation, he complained to owner Matthew Adegoke. Adegoke then interrogated Mahone about her wage discussion with Woltz and told her not to have "personal" conversations at work, saying she was creating a "toxic environment."
After Mahone initially gave notice of resignation but then rescinded it, Adegoke accepted her rescission but informed her he would reduce her pay to match other guards to avoid "creating issues." When Mahone objected to the pay reduction, she was removed from the work schedule without explanation.
The ALJ found three violations of Section 8(a)(1):
Unlawful interrogation: Adegoke's questioning of Mahone about wage discussions was coercive given his high-ranking position, the lack of valid purpose communicated, and the implication that wage discussions were wrongdoing.
Unlawful threat: Announcing a wage reduction explicitly because Mahone discussed wages with coworkers was a clear violation, as wage discussions are protected concerted activity.
Unlawful discharge: The ALJ rejected the employer's claim that Mahone resigned, finding she reasonably believed she was discharged when removed from the schedule without explanation. The timing and circumstances showed the discharge was motivated by her protected wage discussions.
The ALJ ordered reinstatement with backpay, removal of discharge references from her file, and posting of notices.
Significant Cases Cited
Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, 361 NLRB 151 (2014): Defines protected concerted activity as seeking to improve terms and conditions of employment.
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984): Sets framework for analyzing coercive interrogation through totality of circumstances.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Establishes test for analyzing discriminatory discharge cases turning on employer motivation.
North American Dismantling Corp., 331 NLRB 1557 (2000): A discharge occurs when employer's statements would reasonably lead employee to believe they were terminated.
Teamsters Local 728 (BFI Waste Services, LLC), JD-06-25, 10-CB-335036 (ALJ Decision)
A verbal confrontation occurred between Teamsters Local 728 shop steward Jeffrey Rolland and non-union member Anthony Williams at Republic Services' Atlanta facility in September 2023. The incident happened during tense contract negotiations after union members had voted down the employer's last, best, and final offer that would have changed drivers' pay from piecemeal to hourly rates.
Williams questioned the union's negotiating tactics and called the union "weak." In response, Rolland became agitated and threatened to "take Williams outside and whoop his ass." Rolland also allegedly threatened to block Williams from receiving future bonuses. Williams filed unfair labor practice charges against the union.
The ALJ found that Rolland was acting in his capacity as a union agent during the confrontation, as he was engaged in shop steward duties discussing contract negotiations. The ALJ determined that Rolland's threat of violence violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act because it would reasonably tend to coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, which include the right to question union leadership's decisions.
However, the ALJ dismissed the allegation regarding bonus threats, finding insufficient evidence that Rolland's vague comments about bonuses would reasonably be interpreted as a threat, particularly since Rolland had no actual authority over bonus payments.
As remedy, the ALJ ordered the union to cease and desist from threatening employees with physical harm for questioning bargaining strategy and to post notices about employees' rights.
Significant Cases Cited
Teamsters Local 823 (Roadway Express, Inc.), 108 NLRB 874 (1954): A union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it restrains or coerces employees in exercising their Section 7 rights.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 70 (United Parcel Service), 372 NLRB No. 19 (2022): The test for determining if a statement violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) is whether it can reasonably be interpreted as a threat based on protected concerted activity.
Branch 3126, National Association of Letter Carriers (United States Postal Service), 330 NLRB 587 (2000): A union steward's statements can convey willingness to retaliate against nonmember employees for exercising Section 7 rights, violating Section 8(b)(1)(A).
I.B.E.W. Local 606 (Walt Disney World Resort), JD-07-25, 12-CB-315874 (ALJ Decision)
This case involves an alleged violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act by IBEW Local 606 at Walt Disney World. The key issue was whether the union unlawfully refused to honor Paul George Meckes' resignation from union membership and revocation of his dues checkoff authorization.
Meckes had previously been a union member from 2008-2016/2017, then worked without union membership until April 2020, when he rejoined and signed a new dues authorization. In July 2022, he attempted to resign from the union and revoke his dues authorization. The union failed to respond to his initial request and continued having dues deducted from his wages. After several attempts to resolve the issue, Meckes filed charges with the NLRB.
The union argued that Meckes was not actually a union member but rather paying a "fair share" fee for representation. The ALJ rejected this defense, finding that Meckes was indeed a union member based on his April 2020 membership application and agreement to pay initiation fees. The ALJ noted that the union could not simply relabel dues as "fair share" fees in a right-to-work state.
The ALJ determined that the union violated the Act in two ways:
By failing to honor Meckes' timely resignation from union membership
By causing Disney to continue deducting dues after Meckes' valid revocation request in April 2023
The ALJ emphasized that dues or fair share deductions cannot be irrevocable for longer than one year under Section 302(c)(4) of the Labor Management Relations Act. As remedy, the ALJ ordered the union to notify Disney to honor the revocation, reimburse Meckes for dues collected after April 2023 with interest, and post appropriate notices.
Significant Cases Cited
Affiliated Food Stores, 303 NLRB 40 (1991): Union must honor timely requests to stop dues withholding
Frito Lay, 243 NLRB 137 (1979): Dues checkoff authorizations cannot be irrevocable for longer than one year
Atlanta Printing Specialties, 215 NLRB 237 (1974): Confirms one-year maximum for dues authorization irrevocability
Rhode Island CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C., 01-RC-339980 (Regional Election Decision)
The case involves a union election at a CVS pharmacy in Wakefield, RI, where staff pharmacists voted 3-1 in favor of union representation by The Pharmacy Guild/IAM. CVS objected to the election results, claiming that pharmacist Chris Eggeman was a supervisor who engaged in pro-union conduct that tainted the election.
CVS argued that Eggeman had authority to hire, assign work to, and direct pharmacy technicians. As evidence of pro-union conduct, CVS cited Eggeman's quote in a post-election press release supporting unionization and testimony that he discussed the union with colleagues.
The Regional Director overruled CVS's objection on two grounds. First, CVS's offer of proof was procedurally deficient because it failed to identify specific non-supervisory witnesses who would testify about Eggeman's conduct. Second, even if proven, the alleged conduct would not warrant overturning the election under the Harborside test because:
Eggeman had no supervisory authority over the voting pharmacists, only technicians who were not in the bargaining unit
The conduct was minimal - just statements supporting unionization without any coercion
The key press release statement came after the election and focused on patient care rather than employee benefits
The Regional Director certified the union as the exclusive bargaining representative for the pharmacists.
Significant Cases Cited
Harborside Healthcare 343 NLRB 906 (2004): Established two-factor test for evaluating whether supervisory pro-union conduct warrants overturning election
Glen's Market 344 NLRB 294 (2005): Pro-union supervisory conduct is not objectionable when supervisor has no authority over voting employees
Connecticut Humane Society, 358 NLRB 187 (2016): Supervisor attending union meetings and encouraging others to attend was not coercive
Werthan Packaging 345 NLRB 343 (2005): Strong opinions about unions, even if offensive, do not alone constitute coercive conduct