OHIO RIVER VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, INC., (2022)

• Date: 11 March 2022

JD–15–22

Huntington, WV

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

DIVISION OF JUDGES

OHIO RIVER VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL

COALITION, INC.

and Cases 09-CA-274743

09-CA-277976

BRENDAN MUCKIAN-BATES, AN INDIVIDUAL

and Case 09-CA-277909

DUSTIN WHITE, AN INDIVIDUAL

and Cases 09-CA-279024

09-CA-284186

INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD

Linda B. Finch, Esq.,

for the General Counsel.

Sarah A. Walling, Esq.,

(Jenkins Fenstermaker, PLLC)

Huntington, West Virginia,

for the Respondent.

Will Bloom, Esq.,

Chicago, Illinois,

For the Charging Parties

DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

PAUL BOGAS, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this case remotely using

videoconferencing technology on December 13, 2021. Brendan Muckian-Bates, an

individual, filed the charge in case 09-CA-274743 on March 17, 2021, and the charge in

case 09-CA-277976 on May 29, 2021. Dustin White, an individual, filed the charge in

case 09-CA-277909 on May 28, 2021. The Industrial Workers of the World (Union) filed

the charge in case 09-CA-279024 on June 24, 2021, and the charge in case 09-CA-

284186 on October 7, 2021. The Director of Region Nine of the National Labor

JD–15–22

2

Relations Board (Board or NLRB) issued the initial complaint and notice of hearing on

June 28, 2021, the first consolidated complaint on August 10, 2021, the second

consolidated complaint on October 7, 2021, and the third consolidated complaint on

November 17, 2021. The third consolidated complaint alleges that Ohio River Valley

Environmental Coalition, Inc. (the Respondent or OVEC), violated Section 8(a)(1) of the 5

National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act): on March 4, 2021, by coercively

interrogating employees about their union activities and impliedly threatening

employees with unspecified reprisals for their union activities; on March 11, 2021, by

interrogating an employee about his protected union and concerted activities, and

threatening the employee with discharge for his union activities; and on May 25, 2021, 10

by implementing a grievance procedure and promising to remedy employees’

grievances. The third consolidated complaint also alleges that the Respondent violated

Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the NLRA by taking the following actions because employees

engaged in union activities and/or concerted activities: on March 11, 2021, when it

suspended Muckian-Bates; on May 20, 2021, when it discharged White; on May 27, 15

2021, when it discharged Muckian-Bates; and on June 2 and July 2, 2021,when it

issued written warningsto Alexander Cole.

The Respondent filed timely answers to the initial complaint, the consolidated

complaint and the second consolidated complaint, in which it denied committing any 20

violation of the Act. The third, and final, consolidated complaint was issued on

November 17, 2021. Two days later, the Respondent laid offthe remaining employees

after the Respondent’s board of directors voted to dissolve the Respondent. The

Respondent’s counsel informed the other parties and the Administrative Law Judge that

it would not file an answer, or other pre-hearing response, to the third consolidated 25

complaint (the complaint) and it did not, in fact, do so despite being duly served.The

Respondent was notified about the December 13, 2021, hearing, but during a pre-

hearing conference informed the other parties and the Administrative Law Judge that

the Respondent would not participate at the hearing. No representative for the

Respondent appeared at the hearing. Counsel for the Respondent did, however, 30

submit a post-hearing brief, as did counsel for the General Counsel.

On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,

and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I

make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 35

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. JURISDICTION

40

The Respondent is a Section 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation with an office

and place of business in Huntington, West Virginia, where it engages in advocacy and

organizing for environmental causes. In conducting these operations the Respondent

annually derives gross revenues in excess of $250,000 and purchases and receives

goods valued in excess of $7500 directly from points outside West Virginia.I find that 45

the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section