05/01/2024: Putting the Union President on Unpaid Leave in Retaliation Is Illegal
Duh.
United Natural Foods, Inc., 12-RM-339485 (Regional Election Decision)
The Teamsters petitioned for a unit of drivers at UNFI. UNFI has been attempting for a while now to block an election over the unit by arguing that the driver positions are going to be eliminated imminently as a result of a transportation subcontracting agreement that UNFI has entered into with J.B. Hunt. The region has been trying to get UNFI to disclose more information about this agreement to determine whether it does in fact amount to an imminent elimination of the driver jobs but UNFI keeps objecting to these information requests or providing very limited information that does not really seem to prove that the jobs are going to be imminently eliminated. Thus, the regional director has ordered an election.
Compañia Cervecera de Puerto Rico, Inc., 373 NLRB No. 47, 12-CA-295428 (Published Board Decision)
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision finding that Compañía Cervecera de Puerto Rico (employer) violated Sections 8(a)(3), 8(a)(5), and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Key findings and legal analysis:
The employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by placing union president Abel Luciano on a 6-month unpaid leave in retaliation for his protected union activity. The union activity in this case was simply being the union president. The Board applied the Wright Line burden-shifting framework and found that the General Counsel established a prima facie case of discrimination, which the employer failed to rebut by showing it would have taken the same action absent Luciano's protected activity.
The employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally imposing the 6-month unpaid leave on Luciano without providing the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain. The Board found this constituted a unilateral change to the status quo under the expired collective-bargaining agreement (CBA), as the employer did not have a clear right under the CBA to forcibly impose such leave (NLRB v. Katz).
The employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally implementing changes to the work schedule under Article 27 of the successor CBA without first bargaining to a good-faith impasse. The Board applied the single-issue impasse test from CalMat Co., finding the employer failed to establish: (1) a good-faith impasse existed on Article 27, (2) Article 27 was of "overriding importance," and (3) the alleged impasse led to a breakdown in overall negotiations.