10/14/2024: Predecessor Employer's Recognition of Union Was a Sham
Another Starbucks decertification dismissal.
Organic Life, LLC, JD–63–24, 13-CA-328056 (ALJ Decision)
In this case, OrganicLife, LLC, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) focused on whether the company had violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by failing to recognize and bargain with UNITE HERE Local 1, the union representing certain food service workers. The central issue revolved around whether OrganicLife, as a successor employer to Aramark, had an obligation to recognize and bargain with the union.
Key Findings:
Successor Employer: The ALJ found that OrganicLife was indeed a successor to Aramark, the previous employer providing food services at Chicago International Charter Schools (CICS). This conclusion was based on the fact that OrganicLife took over the same services in substantially unchanged form and employed a majority of Aramark's former employees.
Valid Bargaining Obligation: The ALJ concluded that Aramark did not have a valid bargaining obligation with the union because:
The card-check recognition agreement between Aramark and the union required approval from CICS, the client. There was no evidence that CICS had granted such approval, which was essential for the recognition process to be valid.
The recognition agreement also stipulated that arbitrator Daniel Silverman would verify the union's majority status, but the record did not show that Silverman or an agreed substitute conducted this verification as required.
The timing of the recognition (shortly before Aramark lost the contract) and the fact that most of Aramark’s employees were furloughed or not working at the time of the card check raised concerns that the recognition was not based on a representative workforce.
Sham Bargaining Obligation: The ALJ found that the recognition and agreement to bargain between Aramark and the union appeared to be a "sham," given that Aramark was about to lose the contract and there was no realistic opportunity for genuine bargaining to take place.
No Violation by OrganicLife: Since Aramark did not have a valid bargaining obligation, the ALJ concluded that OrganicLife was not required to recognize or bargain with the union. Therefore, OrganicLife did not violate Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to recognize the union.
The ALJ dismissed the complaint, finding that OrganicLife had no obligation to recognize and bargain with the union because its predecessor, Aramark, did not have a valid bargaining obligation.
Significant Cases Cited:
NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, Inc., 406 U.S. 272 (1972) – The Court held that a successor employer must honor the bargaining obligations of its predecessor if those obligations were validly established.
Pick-Mt. Laurel Corp., 239 NLRB 1257 (1979) – Successor employers must honor union recognition even if it arises through voluntary recognition, not just a Board election.
Elmhurst Care Center, 345 NLRB 1176 (2005) – An employer’s voluntary recognition of a union is only lawful if the employer had a substantial and representative complement of its workforce when recognition was granted.
Starbucks Corporation, 14-RD-327273 (Regional Election Decision)
In this regional election decision involving Starbucks Corporation, the petitioner, Amy Smith, sought to decertify the Chicago & Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/SEIU (Starbucks Workers United) as the exclusive bargaining representative for certain employees at a Starbucks store in Nichols Hills, Oklahoma City. The decision ultimately denied the petitioner's request to reinstate the decertification petition due to ongoing unfair labor practice allegations and pending complaints.
Key Findings:
Background:
The petitioner filed for decertification of the union representing employees at Starbucks Store 6490 in Nichols Hills. The petition was initially dismissed by the Acting Regional Director in December 2023 due to pending unfair labor practice charges against Starbucks related to the union's ability to bargain.
The dismissal of the petition was subject to potential reinstatement, depending on the outcome of these unfair labor practice cases. On October 3, 2024, the petitioner sought reinstatement of the decertification petition, arguing that the resolution of certain complaints justified the reinstatement.
Ongoing Unfair Labor Practices:
While a previous consolidated complaint was resolved, a new Consolidated Complaint (Case 01-CA-307838) was issued on January 9, 2024, alleging further violations by Starbucks. These allegations included failure to provide necessary information to the union and unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment without bargaining with the union.
The complaint sought a bargaining order under Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, which could result in an extension of the union's certification year and a requirement for Starbucks to bargain with the union at Nichols Hills.
Legal Basis for Denial:
Citing the legal principle that decertification petitions can be dismissed when there are allegations of unfair labor practices related to a refusal to bargain (as outlined in Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962)), the Regional Director concluded that the decertification petition should not be reinstated while the unfair labor practice charges remain pending.
The Director further noted that under Rieth-Riley Construction Co., 371 NLRB No. 109 (2022), where the General Counsel seeks a bargaining order, there is no need to prove a direct causal link between the employer’s unlawful conduct and the loss of union support to dismiss a decertification petition.
Conclusion:
The Regional Director denied the reinstatement of the decertification petition due to the ongoing allegations in Case 01-CA-307838. The petitioner was informed that they would be notified of the final outcome of these related cases, which could affect the decertification process.
The petition remains subject to potential reinstatement depending on the outcomes of the unfair labor practice cases.
Significant Cases Cited:
Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962): Established that certification years may be extended due to employer unfair labor practices that hinder the union's ability to bargain.
Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc., 371 NLRB No. 109 (2022): Clarified that decertification petitions can be dismissed in cases involving refusal to bargain without needing to establish a direct connection between the unlawful conduct and the loss of union support.
Big Three Industries, 201 NLRB 197 (1973): Discussed the dismissal of decertification petitions in the presence of Section 8(a)(5) violations.
Brannan Sand & Gravel, 308 NLRB 922 (1992): Supported the dismissal of decertification petitions during the pendency of unresolved unfair labor practices.