 |
||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
|
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB)DISMISSES THE CHARGES AGAINST METRO LIGHTING
United States Government NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Region 32 1301 Clay Street, Room 300N Oakland, CA 94612-5224 Telephone: (510) 637-3300 FAX: (510) 637-3315 Website: www.nlrb.gov November 29, 2007 Re: Metro Lighting & Crafts 32-CA-23448 32-CA-23469 32-CA-23570 Dear Mr. Grown, The Region has carefully investigated and considered the above-captioned charges against Metro Lighting and Crafts, herein called the Employer, alleging that it violated the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. Decision Not to Issue Complaint: Based on that investigation, I have concluded that further proceedings are not warranted, and I am dismissing the charges for the following reasons: Case 32-CA-23448 The charge alleges that the Employer locked out pro-union employees on August 9, 2007, while allowing anti-union workers to continue to work. Contrary to the allegations, the investigation revealed insufficient evidence to establish that the Employer locked out any employees. Instead, the investigation revealed that on or about August 9, 2007, a number of employees concertedly walked off the job over a perceived safety problem and stayed off work until August 21, 2007. In addition, during the period from August 9 to August 18, 2007, the Employer repeatedly requested that the employees return to work and provided these employees with assurances from a number of different entities that the workplace was, in fact, safe. In these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the Employer unlawfully locked out employees. Accordingly, I am dismissing the charge in this case. Case 32-CA-23469 The charge, as elaborated upon during the investigation, alleges that the Employer unlawfully threatened to and did issue written disciplinary warnings to its employees for engaging in protected concerted activity. In addition, the charge alleges that a personal friend of the Employers threatened employees that the Employer would close because of the employees’ protected concerted activity. Regarding the retaliation allegations, the investigation disclosed insufficient evidence that the Employer either threatened to or did issue written warnings to employees of their protected concerted activities. Instead, the Employer appears to have threatened to and did issue written warnings to these employees because of their non-protected conduct in the workplace after they returned to work on August 21, 2007, including several instances of refusing to obey the direct orders of the Employer. In these circumstances, there is an insufficient basis for concluding that the Employer threatened to or issued disciplinary warnings to employees because of their protected concerted activity. Regarding the allegation that a friend of the Employer threatened employees that the Employer would close because of their protected concerted activity, the investigation disclosed insufficient evidence to support this allegation. In this regard, there was no showing that the person in question was an agent of the Employer, and therefore, even assuming that such person made the alleged statement, there is no basis for holding the Employer responsible. Accordingly, I am dismissing the charge in this case. Case 32-CA-23570 The charge alleges that the Employer terminated an employee in retaliation for his union activity. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish that this termination was unlawfully motivated. Rather, it appears from the investigation that the Employer terminated for non-union related reasons involving job performance. Accordingly, I am dismissing the charge in this case. Very Truly Yours, William A. Baudler Acting Regional Director
|
||||||||
| ||||||||
 | ||||||||
