NLRB News Release – January 14, 2022

Excerpt:

Findings of Fact
At all material times, the National Union and the Employer have maintained and enforced a collective-bargaining agreement covering the terms and conditions of employment of the Unit, including a grievance and arbitration procedure.

At all material times, the Respondent has been an agent of the National Union for purposes of administering the collective-bargaining agreement and representing the Employer’s employees at the Employer’s Baldwin Facility and Addis Facility.

Since about March 12, 2019, Davis-James, a member of the Unit, in writing, asked the Respondent to represent her during a meeting with the Employer regarding terms and conditions of employment. Since about March 12, 2019, the Respondent has failed to respond to Davis-James’s request to represent her during the meeting. Since about April 1, 2019, Davis-James, in writing, asked the Respondent to represent her regarding a debit letter from the Employer. Since that time, the Respondent has failed to respond to Davis-James’s request to represent her regarding the debit letter. Since about April 1, 2019, the Respondent has failed to file a grievance on behalf of Davis-James regarding a debit letter from the Employer which Davis James requested to file under the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement.

Since about June 12, 2019, the Respondent has failed to process a grievance relating to the assignment of hours that Stokes, a member of the Unit, requested to file under the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement.

Since about October 27, 2020, the Respondent has failed to file and/or process grievances under the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement, requested by Davis, a member of the Unit, relating to the Employer’s assignment of hours to Davis, the Employer’s conversion of Davis to a full-time position, Davis not being paid the correct wage for certain work she performed, and uniforms.

The Respondent’s above conduct was arbitrary and perfunctory and by engaging in such conduct, the Respondent has failed to represent Davis-James, Stokes, and Davis for reasons that are arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith and has breached the fiduciary duty it owes the Charging Parties.

Furthermore, the Respondent has failed to respond to Stokes’s and Davis’s written and oral requests for information about the status of their grievances. Stokes asked the Respondent, in writing, to provide information about the status of her grievance relating to the assignment of hours at the Employer’s facility, on or about the following dates: June 17, 18, 21, and 26, 2019. About June 22, 2019, Stokes orally asked the Respondent to provide information about the status of her grievance relating to the assignment of hours at the Employer’s facility. Since about June 17, 2019, and the dates listed, the Respondent has failed to provide Stokes with information about the status of her grievance relating to the assignment of hours at the Employer’s facility.

On or about the following dates, Davis asked the Respondent, in writing to provide information about the status of her grievances relating to her conversion to full-time employment, correcting the wage amount for certain work she performed, and uniforms: November 19 and 24, 2020, December 3, 4, 10, and 28, 2020 and January 7, 8, 11, 27, and 29, 2021, February 2, 9, and 24, 2021, March 17, 2021, and May 3, 2021. Davis also orally asked the Respondent to provide information about the status of her grievances on or about the following dates: October 27, 2020, November 19 and 24, 2020, March 4, 11, 12, and 17, 2021, and May 10, 2021. Since about October 27, 2020, and the dates listed, the Respondent has failed to provide Davis with information about the status of her grievances.

REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A), we shall order that the Respondent promptly process the grievances requested and described herein by Davis-James, Stokes, and Davis, and to pursue the grievances in good faith with due diligence, including permitting Davis James, Stokes, and Davis to have counsel, at the Respondent’s expense, present at the grievance-arbitration proceedings. If it is no longer possible for the Respondent to pursue the grievances that Davis-James, Stokes, and Davis requested, and if the General Counsel of the Board shows in a subsequent compliance proceeding that such grievances would have been successful if the Respondent had timely pursued them, the General Counsel also requests that the Respondent be ordered to make Davis-James, Stokes, and Davis whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the Employer having breached the collective-bargaining agreement in the manner described in the grievances that Davis-James, Stokes, and Davis attempted to file.

Having found that the Respondent has been restraining and coercing unit employees and in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act and within the meaning of the PRA by not responding to Stokes and Davis about the status of their grievances after their numerous requests, we shall order the Respondent to promptly inform Stokes and Davis about the status of their grievances in response to their requests since June 17, 2019, and October 27,
2020, respectively.

By the Respondent’s above-described conduct, the Respondent has been restraining and coercing the Charging Parties in the exercise of their Section 7 rights guaranteed under the Act.

Read the entire NLRB Decision: