07/22/2025: Local Plumber Engaged in All Sorts of Retaliation Against Unionization
Just one case today.
Reliance Plumbing, Sewer and Drainage, Inc., JD-62-25, 13-CA-328849 (ALJ Decision)
In this case, Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter found that Reliance Plumbing violated multiple sections of the National Labor Relations Act in response to its employees' unionization efforts.
The case stemmed from events in 2023-2024 when employees of Reliance Plumbing sought representation from Plumbers Local 130. After employees initiated contact with the union in August 2023, the company's owner, Alex Ortega, made several threatening statements, including that he would "cycle out" employees responsible for the organizing campaign.
On October 24, 2023, the union won a representation election. Later that same day, plumber Marco Ortega (acting as the company's agent) canceled his sponsorship of technician Antonio Oakley's apprenticeship license. Oakley had served as a union observer during the election. The company also sent all service employees home that day after a confrontation in the parking lot.
In November 2023, Reliance implemented a rotation system for helpers that significantly reduced their work hours, causing two helpers (Angel Alvarez and Julian Robledo) to resign in December 2023. The ALJ found these were constructive discharges. In February 2024, the company stopped allowing unlicensed employees to perform plumbing work that required a license, which further reduced work for some employees, including Oakley, who ultimately resigned in March 2024.
Throughout the bargaining process from January to October 2024, Reliance made proposals that effectively removed the union from representing bargaining unit members in critical areas including wages, benefits, and job security. The company engaged in regressive bargaining on certain issues and made unilateral changes to employment terms without notifying or bargaining with the union.
The ALJ applied the Wright Line framework to analyze the discrimination claims and found that the General Counsel successfully demonstrated that union activity was a motivating factor in the company's adverse actions. For the bad faith bargaining analysis, the ALJ examined whether Reliance's overall conduct demonstrated an intent to frustrate the possibility of reaching an agreement.
The ALJ ordered numerous remedies, including reinstatement and backpay for the constructively discharged employees, rescission of unilateral changes, and a 12-month extension of the certification year to allow for good-faith bargaining. The ALJ also ordered a notice reading to employees by the owner.
Significant Cases Cited
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Established the framework for analyzing discrimination cases where the General Counsel must show union activity was a motivating factor in the employer's decision.
Intertape Polymer Corp., 372 NLRB No. 133 (2023): Clarified that proof of discriminatory motivation can be based on direct evidence or inferred from circumstantial evidence.
District Hospital Partners, L.P., d/b/a George Washington University Hospital, 373 NLRB No. 55 (2024): Found bad-faith bargaining where employer proposals would leave the union with substantially fewer rights than provided by law without a contract.
Altura Communication Solutions, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 85 (2020): Held that proposals authorizing an employer to make unilateral changes to significant terms of employment are at odds with the basic concept of a collective-bargaining agreement.
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (PSO), 334 NLRB 487 (2001): Established that an inference of bad-faith bargaining is appropriate when employer proposals would leave the union with substantially fewer rights than provided by law without a contract.