Skip to main content

NLRB: Employer's Discontinuation of Christmas Bonuses Did Not Violate NLRA


Bob's Tire Co., Inc. - NLRB


Facts:  In 2015, a group of workers at Bob's Tire Co., Inc. ("Bob's") unionized.  Afterward, Bob's contracted with a staffing agency in which many workers that were provided to Bob's fell within the stipulated bargaining unit.  From 2008 through 2014, Bob's gave its employees a cash bonus at Christmas, ranging from $20 to $50 and then eventually $100.  However, a Christmas bonus was not paid in 2015.

An unfair labor practice charge was subsequently filed alleging that Bob's violated the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") because Bob's failed to notify the union of the discontinuance of the bonus or offer to bargain.  The Administrative Law Judge found a violation of the NLRA had occurred and stated the "bonus was paid with sufficient regularity that employees would have been justified in expecting to receive such a bonus as part of their wages."  The National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") proceeded to take up the appeal.

Analysis:  At the outset, the NLRB pointed out that whether a bonus constitutes a term and condition of employment over which an employer must bargain with a union, both the regularity of the bonus and whether payment of the bonus was tied to employment related factors must be considered.  In this case, while there was testimony that Bob's paid its employees a cash bonus for seven years at Christmas, it was unclear what the amount paid per year was as well as whether the bonus was tied to any employment related factors.  Without additional evidence (or even more specific evidence), the NLRB found that there was no basis to find these Christmas payments were anything other than gifts in which Bob's would not be required to bargain.

Decision:  The NLRB ruled that an employer's failure to pay a Christmas bonus after a union was formed in the workplace was not a violation of the NLRA as there was insufficient evidence to establish both the regularity of the bonus and whether payment of the bonus was tied to employment related factors.

The Takeaway:  Bah humbug (for the employees that is.)  While I can certainly see why an unfair labor practice charge would be made against the employer here, I do think the NLRB was correct to find there simply was not enough evidence to establish a violation of the NLRA had occurred.  With a different set of facts, this is a matter that certainly could have gone the other way.

Date:  July 31, 2019

Order:  https://www.laborrelationsupdate.com/files/2019/08/Bobs-Tire-Co.-Inc.-368-NLRB-No.-33-July-31-2019.pdf
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more