06/21/2024: Charter School Operator KIPP Hired Union-Busting Firm That Made Illegal Threats
A USPS termination was not illegal.
Maverick Fulfillment, Inc., 373 NLRB No. 57, 04-CA-323653 (Published Board Decision)
This is a decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) granting a Motion for Default Judgment against Maverick Fulfillment, LLC for violating Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The key points of the Board's legal analysis are:
The Respondent failed to file a timely answer to the complaint, and therefore under Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the allegations in the complaint are deemed admitted as true.
The admitted allegations establish that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by discharging employee Mary Weaver for engaging in protected concerted activity with other employees regarding workplace concerns.
As a remedy, the Board orders the Respondent to cease and desist from the unlawful conduct, reinstate Weaver, make her whole for lost earnings and other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms, remove references to the unlawful discharge from its files, post a notice, and provide other standard remedies.
KIPP Columbus, JD-39-24, 09-CA-310589 (ALJ Decision)
This is an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in an unfair labor practice case against KIPP Columbus, a charter school. The ALJ found that KIPP Columbus violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in several ways:
KIPP Columbus, through the union-busting firm Labor Pros, violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees that it would freeze their wages during years of contract negotiations if they chose to be represented by the Ohio Federation of Teachers (OFT) union.
KIPP Columbus violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees that it had rescinded a previously announced stipend for intervention specialists because the OFT filed a representation petition.
KIPP Columbus violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) by actually rescinding and failing to pay the intervention specialist stipend because the OFT filed the representation petition.
However, the ALJ dismissed allegations that KIPP Columbus unlawfully terminated employee Julia Niedzwiecki for her union and protected concerted activities. The ALJ found that despite KIPP Columbus's unlawful anti-union statements and actions, the General Counsel did not meet its burden to show Niedzwiecki's union activities were a motivating factor in her termination. Rather, the evidence showed she was fired for making threatening statements about wanting to murder her students.
Key cases relied upon:
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980) - Established the burden-shifting framework for analyzing discrimination allegations under the NLRA.
Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, Inc., 361 NLRB 151 (2014) - Seeking help from coworkers for a workplace issue is protected concerted activity even if the issue appears to only concern the soliciting employee.
Pleasant Travel Servs., 317 NLRB 996 (1997) - An employer may lawfully defer expected raises to avoid the appearance of interfering with a representation election only if it had not previously announced or promised the raise.
United States Postal Service, JD-40-24, 09-CA-278765 (ALJ Decision)
This is an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in an unfair labor practice case against the United States Postal Service (USPS). The ALJ dismissed the complaint, finding that the USPS did not violate Sections 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by placing employee Antwon Thompson on emergency placement leave and then discharging him.
The key points of the ALJ's legal analysis are:
Thompson engaged in protected union activity by requesting a union steward on at least two occasions and filing grievances over not being provided one in a timely manner. The USPS was aware of this protected conduct.
However, the General Counsel did not establish that the USPS bore animus towards Thompson based on his protected conduct or that his protected conduct was a motivating factor in the decision to place him on emergency leave and discharge him.
The ALJ credited the testimony of USPS managers over Thompson, finding no basis to conclude they were untruthful or that the USPS fabricated records to get Thompson in trouble. Requesting a steward and filing grievances were routine occurrences.
Even assuming some of the USPS's testimony was inaccurate, the record did not establish animus or that Thompson's protected activity motivated the adverse actions against him. His confrontation with a manager, in which the manager confiscated a Gatorade bottle and Thompson grabbed the bottle out of the manager’s hand, was not protected activity.
The USPS established a non-pretextual reason for the discharge - Thompson's attendance issues. Any irregularities in how his case was handled were not due to his protected activity.
The key case relied upon was:
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980) - Established the burden-shifting framework for analyzing discrimination allegations under the NLRA, requiring the General Counsel to first show protected activity was a motivating factor, then shifting the burden to the employer to demonstrate it would have taken the same action absent the protected activity.