Case : UL MANAGEMENT a/k/a UNION LABOR MAINTENANCE INC. and SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 32BJ
Case 22-CA-28415
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) plays a major role in making case-based decisions, especially in the cases that are related with unfair labor practices or workers’ representation. The assignment is seeking to make NLRB case summary. The summary is made based on the above case.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
NLRB Case Summary
Complaints:
The complaints or plaintiffs in this case are; “Legal Representative; Katherine Dunn SEIU Local 32BJ and Union; Service Employees International Union.
Issue Involved. The complaints’ allegations were; “8(a)(5) Repudiation/Modification of Contract[Sec 8(d)/Unilateral Changes]” The case was in trial in Newark, New Jersey, on February 3, 2009 although the charges were filed on June 23, 2008 and sent to the respondent on June 24, 2008. The complaints or plaintiffs in this case are; “Legal Representative; Katherine Dunn SEIU Local 32BJ and Union; Service Employees International Union.
The NLRB’s role in settling the dispute:
In this case, the NLRB played the role of investigating and coming up with the following findings in relation to the particular case.
Findings. The findings were; the respondent, a New Jersey Corporation was involved in offering commercial janitorial as well as cleaning services at different places in New Jersey. However, the respondent, for twelve months of performing its business activities bought and acquired materials and goods amounting to $50,000 at its New Jersey facilities from locations outside the State of New Jersey. The NLRB in this case plays the role of ensuring that the respondent is engaged in the business as per the meaning from section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. On the other hand, the Union was operating as a labor organization in the implication of Section 2(5) of the Ac. On the other hand, the workers of the respondent required the unit to engage in collective bargaining as per the denotation o section 9 (b) of the Act. The unit comprised of all the locations where the respondent used to purchase materials. The union had operated as an exclusive collective bargaining representative of that unit based on their held agreement.
The respondent had failed on certain conditions such as; the provision of wage rises as needed based on article 25 of the collective-bargaining agreement and the useful riders to the particular agreement. It also failed in changing article 21 section 5 of the collective-bargaining agreement through the payment of workers in two weeks’ time rather than every week as mandated through the agreement. Also, I failed and declined to remit contributions to the Building Services 32BJ Legal Services Fund and to remit contributions towards the Building Services 32BJ Health Fund, as well as contributions to the Building Services 32BJ Thomas Shortman Training, Scholarship and Safety Fund. The conduct was done based on the consent from the union.
Resolution/ the NLRB’s decisions and/or rulings. The NLRB ordered the respondent, UL Management a/k/a Union Labor Maintenance, Inc., Cranford, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns to desist and cease from failing and declining to bargain cooperatively and in good faith about the terms of a successor collective-bargaining agreement with the Union, Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ as the fashionable collective-bargaining demonstrative of the workers in the unit comprised of all the workers, as employed by the respondent. The respondent was also required to cease from not offering the wage rises as needed under Article 25 in the collective-bargaining agreement and the useful riders to the cooperative bargaining agreement. The respondent was also needed to avoid changing the Article 21 Section 5 of the collective bargaining agreement through the payment of workers every two weeks rather than the agreed one week. The NLRB required the respondent to cease from failing and declining to send contributions to the Building Services 32BJ; Legal Services Fund, Health Fund, and Thomas Shortman Training, Scholarship and Safety Fund. The respondent was also required to avoid interfering with coercing and restraining workers in exercise of the guaranteed rights as per the Section 7 of the Act.
The NLRB required the respondent to restore the terms of employment for the unit workers, compensate them for the experienced losses, and provide the payroll records and other necessary records to the board.
Case websites
https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/graphs-data/recent-filings?sort_by=date_filed&sort_order=ASC&items_per_page=60&page=1762
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-028415 / file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/JD_NY_29_09.doc.pdf
