Unfair Labor Practice Charge

mcarson wrote:I was given no official notice of change of employment status (eg, pink slip) pursuant to the CCR. However, my supervisor said it was a RIF and they will undoubtedly claim it was merely a RIF, and not a retaliatory action, once they are confronted by the NLRA.

JoeC (McGruff) wrote:Sorry mcarson been away a while. Sounds like a tough case what is the union excuse for not filing the ULP? How many other employees were riffed? Were you on the seniority list?

The following outlines my charge of an unfair labor practice against L.J. Kruse Company:

July 24th 2009 - Approximately 6:00 am union representative arrived at my place of work to discuss a work jurisdictional matter with employees of my company and the general contractor’s employees who were performing the work being disputed as a jurisdictional matter. During the discussion, an employee of the general contractor turned the conversation into a personal attack against myself, to which I responded that he should be turned in to his own union for purchasing work tools with his own money. After discussing with the issues with the employees, union rep was in the process of leaving and I stopped him to discuss other issues at the job site. This occurred in the presence of other L.J. Kruse employees, employees of the general contractor, and other sub contractor employees. An employee of L.J. Kruse was seen later having a discussion with foreman Nick Baldwin. The exact nature of this discussion is unknown, but it is my contention that it was to discuss my conversation with the union representative. Mr. Baldwin called the employee away from his work area stating that he wanted him to “take a look” at something. A few moments later I walked by and there were not “taking a look” at anything but rather having a conversation which immediately ended upon me being present.

At 11:00 am I was informed that I was being discharged, according to foreman Nick Baldwin, as a reduction in force. While preparing to leave, the employee seen talking with Mr. Baldwin earlier said “You are a good worker, but you need to…” He stopped himself. I asked him what he was going to say, and he remained silent, declining to continue his statement.

Furthermore, Mr. Baldwin indicated that the company would have work for me in approximately 3 weeks and I would be eligible for rehire. I have learned through members of my apprentice classes, that the job Mr. Baldwin was referring to, has started. The company has made no attempt to reinstate my employment.

Supervisors upset with the union being called - Another supervisor, Dave Bunio, indicated on July 23rd, that he was upset with the union being called on this matter and he indicated that he thought the jurisdictional matter was petty, and that the unions involvement was unnecessary. He stated that he was upset with the union investigating this matter, and previously not investigating other matters which he considered to be more serious. Furthermore, he indicated that this “unionism” attitude makes the union look bad.

Work remaining upon discharge - While it is the employer, L.J. Kruse’s, and foreman, Mr. Baldwin’s contention that the discharge was a reduction in force due to lack of work, I respectfully disagree. Prior to my discharge, I was informed that I would be assisting Mr. Bunio in placing a pipe in a trench outside of the building. Setting of fixtures (e.g. toilets, lavatories, etc) hadn‘t begun; above ground piping of another portion of the building hadn’t begun at all. Additionally piping to boilers and other equipment had not been completed at the time of my discharge. In addition to work being incomplete on this job, Dave Bunio also indicated that he had another job which he indicated, prior to my discharge, he may need me at, at some point to “demo some pipe” (remove existing piping).

general counsel must first "make a prima facie showing sufficient to support the inference that (the employer's opposition to) protected conduct was a 'motivating factor' in the employer's (discharge) decision. Once this is established, the burden will shift to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct." 251 NLRB No. 150, at 20-21.

mcarson wrote:Eric, I think I may have found the case you were talking about that provides a test to determine pretextual reasoning for termination.
NLRB v. Wright Line (http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/562055).

general counsel must first "make a prima facie showing sufficient to support the inference that (the employer's opposition to) protected conduct was a 'motivating factor' in the employer's (discharge) decision. Once this is established, the burden will shift to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct." 251 NLRB No. 150, at 20-21.

I will continue my research to see if I can find anything specific to a pretextual RIF. Also, what does "251 NLRB No. 150, at 20-21" refer to? Thanks, again.