NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,490, FLATBUSH MANOR CARE CENTER et al. and 1115 NURSING HOME AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, DIVISION OF 1115 DISTRICT COUNCIL, AFL-CIO., (Sep. 29, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 29, 1994)

FLATBUSH MANOR CARE CENTER et al. and 1115 NURSING HOME AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, DIVISION OF 1115 DISTRICT COUNCIL, AFL-CIO.

315 NLRB No. 8.Case Nos. 29-CA-14844, -15253 and -15376. September 29, 1994 Robert T. Snyder, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Stephens and Devaney.

Saundra Rattner, for General Counsel. Elliot Mandel (Kaufman, Naness, Schneider, Rosensweig, P.C.), for Respondent Fair Management Consulting Corp. Jeffrey D. Buss (Smith, Buss and Jacobs), for Respondent Flatbush Manor Care Center. Stuart Weinberger (Richard Greenspan, P.C.), for Charging Party.

Affiliated Companies--Control and Ownership--Single Employer Status.--Two nursing home employers that were affiliated business enterprises were a single employer for the purposes of the Act by virtue of the fact that their businesses constituted a single, integrated operation. The employers shared common officers, owners, directors, management and supervision that made them jointly responsible for unfair labor practices. Section 2(2).

Back reference: ¶1630.031.

Unilateral Changes by Employer--Work Conditions--Lack of Union Notice.--An employer violated its bargaining duty to a union by changing several terms and conditions of employment for its employees, all without giving notice to the union or affording it an opportunity to bargain over the proposed changes. These unlawful acts included refusing to make contractually-required lump sum bonus payments to its blue collar workers, refusing to make union welfare fund payments and refusing to make required contributions to a union prepaid legal services fund. Section 8(a)(5).

Back reference: ¶3145.348.

Union Right to Information--Failure to Furnish--Relevant Bargaining Data.--An employer violated its bargaining duty by failing and refusing to furnish requested information to a union that was relevant to a bargaining unit. Those violations included refusing to supply data regarding a labor services contractor, refusing to permit the union to conduct an audit of the employer’s books to determine whether proper dues and initiation fees were being remitted, and refusing to provide the names and addresses of bargaining unit employees. Section 8(a)(5).

Back reference: ¶3135.138.

From Text of Board’s Decision

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, [1] and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.

No exceptions were filed to the judge’s findings that the Respondents violated Sec 8.(a)(5) and (1) by failing to make contractually required contributions to the Union’s legal services fund and welfare trust fund, and by failing to provide information requested by the Union.

The Respondents excepted to the judge’s conclusion that they violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to make lump-sum bonus payments to certain bargaining unit employees, as mandated by the parties’ January 5, 1988 memorandum of agreement. The judge found, and we agree, that certain preliminary language in the parties’ subsequent March 16, 1990 memorandum of agreement did not constitute a clear and unmistakable waiver of the Union’s statutory right with respect to the contractual bonus payments. The Respondents, citing, e.g., NCR Corp., [1984-85 CCH NLRB ¶16,643] 271 NLRB 1212 (1984), contend that they had a “sound arguable basis” for an interpretation of the relevant language of the March 16, 1990 memorandum canceling, or settling, the bonus obligation set forth in the earlier memorandum agreement, and that this is sufficient to mandate dismissal of the unfair labor practice allegation. We find NCR inapplicable here. It concerned a dispute that was “solely one of contract interpretation.” The present case, in contrast, concerns an employer’s refusal to make payments that had indisputably accrued under a collective-bargaining agreement--a failure that would ordinarily constitute a violation of Secs. 8(a)(5) and (1) and 8(d) of the Act. Nick Robilotto, Inc., [1988-89 CCH NLRB ¶15,461] 292 NLRB 1279 (1989). The issue is whether the parties settled that past obligation in the context of a contract reopening, and the judge applied an appropriate standard in deciding that issue.

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,490, FLATBUSH MANOR CARE CENTER et al. and 1115 NURSING HOME AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, DIVISION OF 1115 DISTRICT COUNCIL, AFL-CIO., (Sep. 29, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 29, 1994)

FLATBUSH MANOR CARE CENTER et al. and 1115 NURSING HOME AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, DIVISION OF 1115 DISTRICT COUNCIL, AFL-CIO.

315 NLRB No. 8.Case Nos. 29-CA-14844, -15253 and -15376. September 29, 1994 Robert T. Snyder, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Stephens and Devaney.

Back reference: ¶1630.031.

Back reference: ¶3145.348.

Back reference: ¶3135.138.

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,490, FLATBUSH MANOR CARE CENTER et al. and 1115 NURSING HOME AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, DIVISION OF 1115 DISTRICT COUNCIL, AFL-CIO., (Sep. 29, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 29, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

Footnotes

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,490, FLATBUSH MANOR CARE CENTER et al. and 1115 NURSING HOME AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, DIVISION OF 1115 DISTRICT COUNCIL, AFL-CIO., (Sep. 29, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 29, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

Footnotes