05/21/2025: Doctor Pepper Did Not Illegally Fire Worker
Employer illegally ceased payments to union welfare funds.
American Bottling Company D/B/a Keurig Dr. Pepper, JD-44-25, 13-CA-344573 (ALJ Decision)
This case involves the discharge of Vince Leeloy from American Bottling Company (Keurig Dr. Pepper) and events leading to his termination. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan dismissed the complaint in its entirety, finding that the General Counsel failed to establish that Leeloy's union activities were a motivating factor in his discharge.
Background
Leeloy was hired as a maintenance planner on April 8, 2024, along with Marilyn Hodel. Their supervisor was Audrey Ganschar, a senior maintenance manager. Around May 1, 2024, Leeloy began discussing joining the Union with colleagues. He and Cornelia Williams (a maintenance coordinator) signed union authorization cards on May 8, while Hodel expressed no interest in joining.
On May 15, 2024, Ganschar changed Leeloy and Hodel's job responsibilities. Leeloy was made responsible for preventive maintenance on all six production lines, while Hodel was responsible for annual overhaul of machinery. The General Counsel contended this change increased Leeloy's workload in retaliation for his union activity, which Respondent disputed.
On May 31, Ganschar presented Leeloy with a memorandum listing behaviors that needed correction, primarily concerning his failure to respond to emails and communication issues. Respondent also changed Leeloy's work schedule.
The Union requested recognition of the maintenance planner/coordinator unit and filed for a representation election scheduled for August 1, 2024. Throughout June and July, Ganschar documented concerns about Leeloy's job performance, including failure to update the Fuguai Board (which tracks parts for maintenance), not replicating corporate maintenance instructions, and being unprepared for meetings. Mechanics also reportedly complained about his performance.
Respondent terminated Leeloy on July 23, 2024, though he did not receive a written termination notice until August 12.
Legal Analysis
The case turned almost exclusively on witness credibility. Judge Amchan did not find Leeloy more credible than Respondent's witnesses, particularly Ganschar. The judge noted that while Ganschar's testimony contained some inconsistencies, it was corroborated by other witnesses and circumstantial evidence, unlike Leeloy's testimony.
The judge applied the Wright Line framework, requiring the General Counsel to make an initial showing that protected conduct was a motivating factor in the employer's decision. While acknowledging that Leeloy engaged in union activity and Respondent was aware of this when it discharged him, the judge found insufficient evidence that Respondent was aware of Leeloy's union activity prior to June 7 when some of the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred.
Several factors influenced the judge's credibility determination against Leeloy:
The facility was heavily unionized, making discriminatory discharge of a single employee less likely than in a non-unionized workplace.
Mike Hendrickson, the union steward who initially put the Union in contact with Leeloy, reportedly complained about Leeloy's job performance.
Respondent's decision to send Leeloy to Texas for five days of training was inconsistent with having a discriminatory motive for termination.
Leeloy worked for Respondent for a very short period, with negative assessments beginning before the date on which the General Counsel established employer knowledge of his union activity.
The judge did find that Ganschar interrogated Leeloy at least once about why he wanted to join the union, and that corporate representatives likely encouraged workers to vote against union representation. However, these findings were insufficient to establish that union animus motivated Leeloy's termination.
Conclusion
Judge Amchan concluded that Respondent did not violate the Act by:
Terminating Vince Leeloy
Increasing Vince Leeloy's workload
Interrogating Vince Leeloy about his union activities
Impliedly promising employees increased paid time off if they rejected union representation
The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.
Significant Cases Cited
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Established the framework for analyzing discrimination cases requiring General Counsel to show protected conduct was a motivating factor in employer's decision.
NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983): Supreme Court approval of the Wright Line framework for analyzing discrimination cases.
American Gardens Management Co., 338 NLRB 644 (2002): Application of the Wright Line burden-shifting framework.
General Motors, 369 NLRB No. 127 (2022): Recent Board decision reaffirming the Wright Line standard.
Fields Fire Protection, LLC, JD-45-25, 04-CA-311903 (ALJ Decision)
This case involves unfair labor practice allegations against Fields Fire Protection, LLC, a sprinkler installation contractor. The Sprinkler Fitters Local 692 filed charges alleging that Fields Fire violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by failing to comply with their collective bargaining agreement.
Background
In 2016, Fields Fire entered into a "me too" agreement with the Union, binding itself to the terms of a pre-existing collective bargaining agreement between the Union and the National Fire Sprinkler Association (NFSA). The agreement included an evergreen provision that automatically renewed the contract annually unless either party provided written notice to terminate or modify it.
The "me too" agreement required Fields Fire to:
Make contributions to various union benefit funds (health and welfare, pension, education)
Remit dues checked off from employees' paychecks to the Union
Fields Fire complied with these obligations from 2016 through 2021, though often requiring reminders and making late payments. In March 2022, the company's owner informed the Union that he would not make payments for three employees because of their allegedly "shoddy" work. Fields Fire ultimately submitted dues payments for January and February 2022, but made no further payments after October 2022.
In February 2023, the Union initiated an unfair labor practice strike against Fields Fire. The company failed to appear at the hearing and did not comply with a subpoena for relevant documents.
Legal Analysis
The ALJ determined that Fields Fire remained bound by the terms of the "me too" agreement due to the evergreen provision. Since neither party provided written notice to terminate or modify the agreement, it automatically renewed each year.
The ALJ rejected any potential time-bar defense, noting that each refusal to pay within the Section 10(b) period constitutes a separate violation. The complaint only addressed payments due starting August 10, 2022, which fell within the statutory period.
Finding that Fields Fire failed to make required fund contributions and dues remittances after August 2022, the ALJ concluded that the company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally modifying the parties' collective bargaining agreement.
Remedy
The ALJ ordered Fields Fire to:
Cease and desist from refusing to bargain with the Union
Make whole the Union for lost dues
Make whole the benefit funds and affected employees
Post appropriate notices
Significant Cases Cited
John Deklewa & Sons, 282 NLRB 1375 (1987): Established that parties are bound to Section 8(f) agreements for their terms, but either party can repudiate the relationship once the contract expires.
Cedar Valley Corp., 302 NLRB 823 (1991): Determined that renewal provisions in multiemployer agreements bind "me-too" employers.
Fortney & Weygandt, 298 NLRB 863 (1990): Found contractual relationships between employers and unions can be defined by both "me too" agreements and underlying agreements.
Anderson Excavating Co., 365 NLRB 640 (2017): Held that failing to make contractually required fringe benefit contributions violates Section 8(a)(5).
Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213 (1979): Established the requirement for employers to pay additional amounts due to benefit funds.