NLRB Has Busy Last Week of 2010 Issuing Twelve Published Decisions
The National Labor Relations Board was busy during the last week of 2010, issuing twelve published decisions and a number of additional unpublished decisions in representation cases. Interesting decisions handed down last week include:
- Salon/Spa at Boro, Inc., 356 NLRB No. 69 (Dec. 30, 2010): In this straightforward 8(a)(1) interrogation and discharge case, the Board approved the ALJ's Recommended Order directing electronic posting of the remedial notice via the employer's intranet system. While the ALJ granted this remedy, sought by the General Counsel, prior to the Board's recent J. Picini Flooring decision, the Board (without Member Hayes' agreement) found it consistent with its current position and modified the Order accordingly. The evidence found by the ALJ to justify this new remedial approach was that the employer maintained an internal "intercom" system, similar to e-mail, which it used to announce to its hair stylists things like staff meetings. Expect electronic posting to continue to trend toward the presumed appropriate remedy.
- Sidhal Industries, LLP, 356 NLRB No. 67 (Dec. 30, 2010): This decision involved another judgment granted pursuant to the more aggressive "performance" language being included by Regional Offices in connection with settlement agreements. The agreement settling discrimination and refusal to bargain allegations in this case included a lengthy provision indicating that non-compliance with the settlement would result in re-issuance of the complaint, to be deemed admitted by the Board, leaving only the issue of compliance or non-compliance for dispute. The Board here found non-compliance and, as a result, entered judgment on all the complaint's allegations.
- New England Confectionary Co., 356 NLRB No. 68 (Dec. 30, 2010): Chairman Liebman, and Members Becker and Pearce, found a number of 8(a)(1) violations in promises of better benefits made by supervisors to encourage a decertification effort. The Board dismissed a number of allegations, however, that the employer's H.R. Generalist violated the Act by soliciting petition signatures and promising employees benefits. The Board found that the H.R. Generalist lacked "apparent authority" to speak for management, as her role was largely administrative and not managerial in nature.
More information regarding these and the Board's other recent decisions is included in the Board's Weekly Summary of Cases.
