The Board adopted the judge’s conclusion that neither Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging another employee. The Board reversed the Administrative Law Judge and found that Respondent Capstone violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging an employee because she engaged in protected concerted activity and/or because Respondent Capstone believed she engaged in protected concerted activity, and that Respondent Capstone further violated Section 8(a)(1) by informing the employee that she was discharged for engaging in protected concerted activity. Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty participated.Ĭapstone Logistics LLC and Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. Dibble issued her decision on February 3, 2023. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to furnish relevant information requested by the Union.Ĭharge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1, AFL-CIO. Inquiries should be directed to the Office of the Executive Secretary at 202‑273‑1940.ĪDT, LLC( 14-CA-281518 372 NLRB No. The Summary of NLRB Decisions is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for the opinions of the NLRB. Federal Employee and Applicant EEO Policies.Impact of the NLRB on Professional Sports.1947 Taft-Hartley Substantive Provisions.1947 Taft-Hartley Passage and NLRB Structural Changes.Office of Inspector General - Peer Review.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |