NLRB Advice Memoranda, Insituform Technologies, LLC., National Labor Relations Board, (Jan 16, 2025)

Hello Region 4 friends. The Region submitted these cases for advice on whether the Region should pursue a bargaining order under Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023), against Insituform Technologies, LLC (the “Employer”), where the Union had evidence of majority support in the unit for which it had demanded recognition but not in the expanded unit it subsequently agreed to in a stipulated election agreement. [1] We need not decide whether a Cemex order would be appropriate under such circumstances because the Union did not file a timely Section 8(a)(5) charge. [2] As explained in Memorandum GC 24-01 (Revised), Guidance in Response to Inquiries about the Board's Decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC (Apr. 29, 2024), at 4 n.23, “the filing of a charge alleging a Section 8(a)(5) violation is necessary in order to obtain a Cemex remedial bargaining order. Thus, … Regions should not seek a bargaining order under Cemex absent a timely filed Section 8(a)(5) charge.” See also, e.g., Spike Enterprise, Inc., 373 NLRB No. 41, slip op. at 8 n.26 (2024); Starbucks Corp., 374 NLRB No. 9, slip op. at 2 n.6 (2024).

​     ​

​     ​ [3] This email closes the case in Advice as of today.

​     ​

​     ​

National Labor Relations Board

Division of Advice

​     ​

​     ​

Follow us on Twitter: @NLRBGC/@NLRB

En español: @NLRBGCes/@NLRBes

Please be aware that this email may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or other authorities, though exceptions may apply for certain case-related information, personal privacy, and other matters.