Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mori Pam Rubin, Regional Director of Region 31 of the National Labor v. American Reclamation

July 24, 2012

MORI PAM RUBIN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION 31 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
AMERICAN RECLAMATION, INC., RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Date: July 23, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 3

This case came before the Court on the verified petition of Mori Pam Rubin, Regional Director of Region 31 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein the Board, for a temporary injunction pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended [61 Stat. 149; 73 Stat. 544; 29 U.S.C. § 160(j)], herein the Act, pending the final disposition of the matters involved herein which are now pending before an Administrative Law Judge of the Board. The Court, upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence, briefs, arguments of counsel, and the entire record in this case, hereby makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is the Regional Director of Region 31 of the Board, an agency of the United States. This petition is filed for and on behalf of the Board.

2. The Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to Section 10(j) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 160(j); herein Section 10(j) of the Act).

3. On or about the dates set forth below in subparagraphs 3(a) through 3(k), the Package and General Utility Drivers, Teamsters Local Union No. 396, herein the Union, filed with the Board charges and amended charges as follows:

(a) The Union filed the charge in Case 31-CA-067258 on October 19, 2011, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by terminating employees Santos Orellana Gonzalez and Magdaleno Sanchez.

(b) The Union filed the charge in Case 31-CA-067259 on October 19, 2011, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with termination if they joined their fellow employees in a protest of working conditions.

(c) The Union filed the charge in Case 31-CA-067262 on October 19, 2011, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by, at a meeting with employee drivers and helpers, threatening to close or sell the business if the employees brought in the Union.

(d) The Union filed the charge in Case 31-CA-067263 on October 19, 2011, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to call Government immigration agencies because employees were supporting the Union.

(e) The Union filed the charge in Case 31-CA-067265 on October 19, 2011, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by, at a meeting with yard employees, threatening to close or sell the business if the Union won the representation election.

(f) The Union filed the charge in Case 31-CA-068671 on November 9, 2011, and an amended charge on December 5, 2011, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling employees that it had a list of employees who engaged in Union or protected concerted activity on October 17, 2011, and that everyone on the list would be terminated.

(g) The Union filed the charge in Case 31-CA-070330 on December 6, 2011, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting grievances from employees.

(h) The Union filed the charge in Case 31-CA-070331 on December 6, 2011, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by improving employees' working conditions.

(i) The Union filed the charge in Case 31-CA-070334 on December 6, 2011, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by making promises of benefit to employees.

(j) The Union filed the charge in Case 31-CA-072357 on January 11, 2012, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by terminating employee Karla Campos.

(k) The Union filed the charge in Case 31-CA-074588 on February 14, 2012, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with termination for engaging in protected concerted activity on October 7, 2011.

4. (a) The charges referred to in paragraph 3 above were referred to the Acting Regional Director of Region 31 of the Board. Thereafter, following a field investigation during which all parties had an opportunity to submit evidence and legal analysis, the Acting General Counsel of the Board, on behalf of the Board, pursuant to Section 3(d) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 153(d)), by the Acting Regional Director of Region 31, issued an Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint, and Notice of Hearing against Respondent on April 30, 2012, pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 160(b)).

(b) The Consolidated Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, various unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 158(1) and (3)).

(c) On May 8, 2012, the Acting Regional Director of Region 31 of the Board issued an Order Rescheduling Hearing, rescheduling the administrative hearing on the unfair labor practices underlying this Petition to July 9, 2012; the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.