SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER
Case Number: 32-CA-242555
Location: Carmel, CA
Date Filed: 06/03/2019
Region Assigned: Region 32, Oakland, California
Status: Open
Docket Activity
Document
|
Issued/Filed
By
|
|
03/20/2020
|
Counsel
for GC / Region
|
|
03/19/2020
|
Employer
|
|
01/30/2020
|
NLRB - ALJ
|
|
12/23/2019
|
NLRB - ALJ
|
|
10/29/2019
|
RD Order
to Reschedule Hearing*
|
NLRB - GC
|
10/24/2019
|
RD Order
to Reschedule Hearing*
|
NLRB - GC
|
09/15/2019
|
Answer to
Complaint*
|
Charged
Party / Respondent
|
09/03/2019
|
Complaint
and Notice of Hearing*
|
NLRB - GC
|
09/03/2019
|
Notice of
Hearing in ULP Case*
|
NLRB - GC
|
06/03/2019
|
Initial
Letter to Charged Party*
|
NLRB - GC
|
06/03/2019
|
Initial
Letter to Charging Party*
|
NLRB - GC
|
The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case.
* This document may
require redactions before it can be viewed. To obtain a copy, please file a
request through our FOIA Branch.
Allegations
· 8(a)(3) Discharge (Including Layoff and Refusal to Hire (not
salting))
Participants
Participant
|
Address
|
Phone
|
Charged Party / Respondent
Legal Representative
RONA
LAYTON
LAYTON LAW FIRM
|
111 N
Market St Ste 300
San Jose,
CA
95113-1116
|
(408)892-9870
|
Charged Party / Respondent
Employer
SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER
|
P.O. Box
1950
Carmel By
The Sea, CA
93921
|
(831)620-2040
|
Charging Party
Individual
|
SOURCE: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REFERENCE:
Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations Act
General Principles of Law Under the Statute and Procedures of the
National Labor Relations Board
Unfair Labor Practices of Employers
Section
8(a)(3)—Discrimination Against Employees. Section
8(a)(3) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate
against employees “in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment” for the purpose of encouraging or discouraging
membership in a labor organization. In general, the Act makes it illegal for an
employer to discriminate in employment because of an employee’s union or other
group, activity within the protection of the Act. A banding together of
employees, even in the absence of a formal organization, may constitute a labor
organization for purposes of Section 8(a)(3). It also prohibits discrimination
because an employee has refrained from taking part in such union or group
activity except where a valid union-security agreement is in effect.
Discrimination within the meaning of the Act would include such action as
refusing to hire, discharging, demoting, assigning to a less desirable shift or
job, or withholding benefits.
The union security
exception to Section 8(a)(3). As previously noted, Section 8(a)(3) provides
that an employee may be discharged for failing to make certain lawfully
required payments to the exclusive bargaining representative under a lawful union-security
agreement. For a fuller discussion of this issue, see pages 2–3, above.
Even when there is a
valid union-security agreement in effect, an employer may not pay the union the
dues and fees owed by its employees. The employer may, however, deduct these
amounts from the wages of its employees and forward them to the union for each
employee who has voluntarily signed a dues “checkoff” authorization. Such
checkoff authorization may be made irrevocable for no more than a year. But
employees may revoke their checkoff authorizations after a Board-conducted
election in which the union’s authority to maintain a union-security agreement
has been withdrawn.
The Act does not limit
employer’s right to discharge for economic reasons. This section does not limit
an employer’s right to discharge, transfer, or layoff an employee for genuine
economic reasons or for such good cause as disobedience or bad work. This right
applies equally to employees who are active in support of a union and to those
who are not.
In situations in which
an employer disciplines an employee both because the employee has violated a
work rule and because the employee has engaged in protected union activity, the
discipline is unlawful unless the employer can show that the employee would have
received the same discipline even if he or she had not engaged in the protected
union activity.
An employer who is
engaged in good-faith bargaining with a union may lock out the represented
employees, sometimes even before impasse is reached in the negotiations, if it
does so to further its position in bargaining. But a bargaining lockout may be
unlawful if the employer is at that time unlawfully refusing to bargain or is
bargaining in bad faith. It is also unlawful if the employer’s purpose in
locking out its employees is to discourage them in their union loyalties and
activities, that is, if the employer is motivated by hostility toward the
union. Thus, a lockout to defeat a union’s efforts to organize the employer’s
employees would violate the Act, as would the lockout of only those of its
employees who are members of the union. On the other hand, lockouts are lawful
that are intended to prevent any unusual losses or safety hazards that would be
caused by an anticipated “quickie” strike. And a whipsaw strike against one
employer engaged in multiemployer bargaining justifies a lockout by any of the
other employers who are party to the bargaining.
Examples of violations of Section 8(a)(3). Examples of
illegal discrimination under Section 8(a)(3) include:
•
Discharging employees because they urged other employees to join a union.
•
Refusing to reinstate employees when jobs they are qualified for are open
because they took part in a union’s lawful strike.
•
Granting of “superseniority” to those hired to replace employees engaged in a
lawful strike.
•
Demoting employees because they circulated a union petition among other
employees asking the employer for an increase in pay.
•
Discontinuing an operation at one plant and discharging the employees involved followed
by opening the same operation at another plant with new employees because the
employees at the first plant joined a union.
•
Refusing to hire qualified applicants for jobs because they belong to a union.
It would also be a violation if the qualified applicants were refused
employment because they did not belong to a union, or because they belonged to
one union rather than another.
GENERAL
COUNSEL’S BRIEF TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REGION
32
SUNSET
CULTURAL CENTER and ANDREW HURCHALLA, an Individual
Case
32-CA-242555
Lelia
M. Gomez, Esq.
Counsel
for the General Counsel
National Labor Relations Board, Region 32
CLOSING BRIEF OF
RESPONDENT SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD
REGION 32
SUNSET CULTURAL
CENTER and ANDREW HURCHALLA, an Individual
CASE NO.
32-CA-242555
Rona P. Layton
Layton
Law Firm
United States
Government
NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Division of
Judges
901 Market
Street — Suite 485
San
Francisco, CA 94103-1779
Phone (415)
356-5255 Fax 415.356.5254
December 20, 2019
United States Government
NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Division of
Judges
901 Market
Street — Suite 485
San
Francisco, CA 94103-1779
Phone (415)
356-5255 Fax 415.356.5254
January 30, 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment