International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 557 (Hiring Hall/Multiemployer), JD-67-26, 07-CB-347313 (ALJ Decision)
An administrative law judge found that an IBEW local union violated the NLRA when it refused to recognize a member's resignation, then disciplined and fined him for working as a non-union electrical contractor afterward.
Troy Lapine, a member of Local Union 557, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Saginaw, Michigan, told the union's business manager, Evan Allardyce, in April 2024 that he was starting his own non-union electrical business. Lapine followed up with an email stating he was resigning his membership effective that day. Allardyce told Lapine weeks later that an emailed resignation was not sufficient and that the union required a signed, written resignation to guard against fraud. The union then filed internal charges against Lapine for violating its working agreement, constitution, and bylaws by performing non-union work, and ultimately fined him more than $6,000.
The judge rejected the union's position that its unwritten signature requirement was a legitimate anti-fraud measure, noting that in practice the union never checked signatures against any exemplar and simply relied on personal familiarity with members who dropped off resignations in person. Because that signature requirement served no real verification purpose and was never written down or disclosed to Lapine until after he had already emailed his resignation, the judge found Lapine's email was an effective resignation. Citing Pattern Makers League v. NLRB, the judge explained that once a resignation is effective, a union's power to discipline a former member for later conduct ends. The judge also found insufficient evidence that Lapine's pre-resignation non-union work exceeded the kind of minor side jobs the union had long tolerated among its members, undermining the union's alternative argument that the discipline was justified by conduct predating the resignation.
The judge did, however, dismiss separate allegations that the union unlawfully threatened Lapine with loss of benefits if he did not remain a member or become a signatory contractor, finding that the union's warnings about losing pension, health, and scholarship-related benefits were adequately grounded in objective facts rather than being unsubstantiated threats. A claim that the union continued collecting dues from Lapine after his resignation was also dismissed for lack of evidence.
As a remedy, the union was ordered to honor Lapine's resignation, expunge the internal charges and fines from its records, reimburse any fines paid with interest, make Lapine whole for any resulting financial losses, and post a notice to members describing the violations.
Significant Cases Cited
Pattern Makers League v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985): Union members are traditionally free to resign and thereby escape future union discipline.
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Workers Local 148 (Douglas Aircraft, McDonnell-Douglas), 296 NLRB 970 (1989): A rule requiring members to submit written resignations to a designated officer is lawful because it serves the legitimate purpose of maintaining accurate membership records.
NLRB v. Granite State Joint Board, 409 U.S. 213 (1972): Once a member lawfully resigns from a union, the union's power over that person ends.
Carpenters Union Local 180 (Condiotti Enterprises, Inc.), 328 NLRB 947 (1999): A union's statement that resignation would cause loss of benefits violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) absent evidence the statement was a truthful prediction with a reasonable factual basis.
NLRB v. Constr. & Gen. Laborers' Union Local No. 534, 778 F.2d 284 (6th Cir. 1985): A union that merely and objectively informs employees of consequences beyond its control is not making an unlawful threat.
Clinicas De Salud Del Pueblo, Inc., D/B/a Innercare, JD(SF)-18-26, 21-CA-344340 (ALJ Decision)
An administrative law judge found that a community health system operating as InnerCare committed numerous violations of the NLRA during a union organizing campaign by SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West at its clinics across Imperial and Riverside Counties in California.
The judge found that the company unlawfully discharged five employees because of their union activity or, in one case, because of a spouse's union activity. The judge rejected the company's stated reasons for these terminations, including accessing confidential financial information, time theft, and food theft, finding each to be pretextual. The judge pointed to shifting and exaggerated testimony from HR officials, a never-disseminated and inconsistently applied "zero tolerance" policy, after-the-fact investigative summaries, and far more lenient treatment of other employees who committed comparable or worse infractions. The judge also found Ascolani was unlawfully demoted and that telehealth technician Maabel Quevedo's travel assignments were unlawfully curtailed because of her union activity, though the judge declined to find her ultimate termination unlawful, concluding the company proved she would have been fired regardless based on a documented history of attendance and performance problems.
Separately, the judge found several standalone violations of Section 8(a)(1), including unlawful interrogations of employees about their union sympathies, an instruction to an employee to remove union flyers from his desk while others kept personal items, a manager's statement suggesting an employee's job depended on the election outcome, creation of an impression of surveillance, and an unlawful instruction barring an employee from arriving early to distribute literature.
On the representation case, the judge declined to issue a bargaining order under either Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC or NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., finding the General Counsel failed to prove the union actually held majority support in the stipulated bargaining unit because the vast majority of electronically submitted authorization cards were not properly authenticated. The judge also found the company's misconduct, while serious, was not pervasive enough across the roughly 463-employee unit to meet the stringent standard for a Gissel category I order. However, the judge found that the unfair labor practices required setting aside the July 2024 election result and ordered a second election, along with a notice-reading remedy to counteract the lingering coercive effects of the unlawful conduct.
Significant Cases Cited
NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969): Established the standards under which the Board may issue a bargaining order as a remedy for employer misconduct that undermines a fair election, including the "category I" and "category II" frameworks.
Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023): Set forth the Board's current framework for when a bargaining order is warranted when an employer declines to recognize a card-majority union and instead commits unfair labor practices during the representation process.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Established the burden-shifting framework for analyzing mixed-motive discrimination claims under Section 8(a)(3), requiring the General Counsel to show protected activity, employer knowledge, and animus before the burden shifts to the employer.
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984): Set forth the totality-of-circumstances test, including the Bourne factors, for evaluating whether employer questioning of employees constitutes unlawful interrogation.
NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404 (1962): Addressed the standards for crediting witness testimony and resolving credibility disputes in Board proceedings.
Professional Transportation, Inc. (PTI), 13-RC-388027 (Regional Election Decision)
A regional director dismissed a union petition seeking to represent drivers at a trucking company, finding that the proposed unit covered only a fraction of a longstanding nationwide bargaining unit already represented by another union.
The Petitioner, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, filed to represent drivers at roughly 72 of the employer's locations, estimating about 989 employees. The employer, Professional Transportation, Inc., and the incumbent union, United Professional & Service Employees Union Local 1222, argued that this unit was far too narrow because their collective bargaining agreement covered a single nationwide unit of drivers spanning approximately 170 locations and over 1,700 employees, with only limited exceptions for locations represented by other unions.
The regional director reviewed the bargaining history between the employer and the Intervenor, which dated back to 1999 and included contract language recognizing the Intervenor as the exclusive bargaining representative for drivers at all of the employer's locations nationwide, aside from specific carve-outs. The most recent agreement, running from 2023 through 2026, continued this nationwide recognition structure and had been ratified by the full nationwide unit.
The Petitioner argued that some locations included in the employer's larger unit count had been unlawfully added through improper recognition of the Intervenor, and asked for a hearing to prove this. The regional director rejected this argument, explaining that allegations of unlawful recognition amount to unfair labor practice claims that cannot be litigated or resolved in a representation case hearing, and noting that the Petitioner offered no specifics about which locations or how many employees were supposedly affected.
The regional director also addressed whether the case should be analyzed as a unit merger issue under NBC Universal Media LLC, agreeing with the Petitioner that it should not, since there was no dispute about two separate units merging. Rather, the only question was which locations fell within the single, already-established nationwide unit.
Because the existing nationwide unit was found to be the only appropriate unit, and it was substantially larger than what the Petitioner had calculated, the Petitioner's showing of interest fell well short of the 30 percent threshold required to proceed to an election. The regional director declined to allow time to cure the deficiency given its scale, and ordered the petition dismissed.
Significant Cases Cited
NBC Universal Media LLC, 369 NLRB No. 134 (2020): Addresses the standard for analyzing whether separate bargaining units have merged into a single unit.
Sewell-Allen Big Star, Inc., 294 NLRB 312 (1989): The Board allowed a unit to stand even after the employer had granted unlawful voluntary recognition outside the Section 10(b) limitations period.
Pearl Packing Co., 116 NLRB 1489 (1957): Establishes that a petitioner must show interest from 30 percent of employees in the appropriate unit to support a representation petition.
S. H. Kress & Co., 137 NLRB 1244 (1962): Reaffirms the 30 percent showing of interest requirement for representation petitions.
Chicago Historical Society, 13-UC-365716 (Regional Election Decision)
A regional director has ordered an existing bargaining unit at the Chicago History Museum, represented by Chicago History Museum Workers United, AFSCME Council 31, to be expanded to include six job classifications whose eligibility had been left unresolved after an earlier election.
The classifications at issue, Lead Building Maintenance Technician, Lead Cashier, Digital Humanities Fellow, Photographer Imaging Specialist, Bar Services Supervisor, and Accounting Coordinator, had voted under challenge in an April 2025 election because the museum and the union disagreed over whether they belonged in the unit. The museum later withdrew its objections to three of those roles. That left three disputed positions for a December 2025 hearing: the Lead Building Maintenance Technician and Lead Cashier, which the museum claimed were supervisors exempt from coverage under Section 2(11) of the NLRA, and the Accounting Coordinator, which the museum argued was a confidential employee.
The regional director found the museum failed to prove any of the three exclusions applied. On the Lead Building Maintenance Technician, the evidence showed the role had been vacant and, when filled, performed only routine prioritization of maintenance tasks using an employer-set rating scale, without real authority to hire, discipline, assign overtime, or be held accountable for a coworker's performance. The Lead Cashier similarly lacked proven authority over hiring, discipline, work assignment, or responsible direction of staff; testimony about participating in interviews or disciplinary meetings was either unsupported by concrete examples or contradicted on cross-examination.
On the Accounting Coordinator, the director found no evidence the position assisted anyone who formulates or effectuates labor relations policy, since that role belonged to the chief financial officer rather than the coordinator's direct supervisor. The coordinator's exposure to attorney invoices during contract negotiations was limited to checking dates and totals for accuracy, not learning the substance of bargaining strategy, so it did not meet the standard for confidential status, consistent with the Board's reasoning in The Washington Post Co.
Because the museum, as the party asserting the exclusions, bore the burden of proof and failed to meet it, the petition to clarify the unit was granted and all six classifications were added to the certified bargaining unit description.
Significant Cases Cited
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001): The burden of proving supervisory status rests on the party asserting it, and any one of the Section 2(11) indicia, exercised with independent judgment, is sufficient to establish supervisory status.
Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006): Defined "independent judgment" and "assign" and "responsibly direct" for purposes of determining supervisory status under Section 2(11).
NLRB v. Hendricks County Rural Electric Corp., 454 U.S. 170 (1981): Affirmed the two-prong test for confidential employee status, based on confidential labor relations work or access to advance bargaining information.
The Washington Post Co., 254 NLRB 168 (1981): Held that an accounts payable employee's access to invoices from labor counsel did not make the employee confidential.
MV Transportation, Inc., 373 NLRB No. 8 (2023): Unit clarification petitions are the proper vehicle to resolve the status of nondeterminative challenged voters left unresolved after certification.