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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more