NLRB NEWS: CONNECTICUT - National Labor Relations Board

July 2011Page fourAfter the Region Makes aULP Determination: If the Region determinesthat a charge has nomerit—that the chargedparty has not violated theAct—it will dismiss thecharge after giving thecharging party theopportunity to withdraw.The charging party has theright to appeal a dismissal. If the Region determinesthat a charge has merit—that the charged party hasviolated the Act—it willattempt to settle the case.Unless there is asettlement, the Region willproceed to trial to obtain afinding of a violation andan order directing thecharged party to undertakeremedial actions. Thecharged party has appealrights, including a right toa hearing, with a finaldecision subject to theFederal Circuit Court ofAppeals.NLRB NEWS:ConnecticutALJ orders Connecticut Humane Society to reinstateworkers fired during union organizing campaignAn NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ordered that twoemployees of the Connecticut Humane Society be reinstated and awardedbackpay because they were unlawfully discharged following anorganizing campaign. The Employer intends to appeal that decision.The two terminated employees had been active in the early stages of aunion organizing campaign by Machinists District Lodge 26, whichresulted in a December 9, 2009 election won by the Union by a vote of18-15. The parties had agreed prior to the election that the two terminatedemployees would not be eligible to vote. The Employer admittedly firedthe two employees shortly after the election because of their early supportfor the Union, claiming that such support conflicted with their purportedsupervisory or managerial obligations. The Employer also asked that theelection results be set aside, under the claim that active support fromsupervisors and/or managers could amount to coercion of voters in favorof the Union.Rejecting the Employer's claims, ALJ Steven Fish found that neitheremployee was a supervisor or a manager under the National LaborRelations Act, thereby making unlawful their discharge for engaging inactivities in support of the union. In ordering the reinstatement of bothemployees, the judge also rejected the Employer's contention that theemployees had lost their right to reinstatement as a result of their postdischargecriticisms of the Employer's operations, managementrepresentatives, and members of the Board of Directors. The judge furtherfound that the Employer violated the Act in the course of the Unioncampaign by coercively interrogating employees about their unionactivities, creating the impression among its employees that their unionactivities were under surveillance, informing employees that they cannotparticipate in union activities, instructing employees to report the unionactivities of other employees, threatening employees with discharge forengaging in union activities, and informing employees that they werebeing terminated because of their union activities.The judge also dismissed the Employer's objections to the election,which were based solely on its claim that the two terminated employeeswere supervisors/managers, and ordered that Machinists District Lodge 26be certified as the employees' exclusive collective bargainingrepresentative.Hartford Field Attorney Tom Quigley both investigated and litigatedthe case for the Hartford Regional Office.