UFCW Local 4 (Safeway, Inc.),

Docket Number19-CB-009660

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 4, affiliated with United Food and Commercial Workers Union (Safeway, Inc.) and Pamela Barrett. Case 19–CB–009660

February 13, 2017

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

BY ACTING CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS

PEARCE AND MCFERRAN

On February 22, 2016, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in this case on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.1 As explained there, the case involves the straightforward application of existing precedent concerning employees who object to paying dues for nonrepresentational activities pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), and the sufficiency of the financial information a union must provide to these objectors to satisfy its duty of fair representation under the Board’s decisions in California Saw & Knife Works, 320 NLRB 224 (1995), enfd. 133 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 1998), cert. denied sub nom. Strang v. NLRB, 525 U.S. 813 (1998), and Television Artists AFTRA (KGW Radio), 327 NLRB 474 (1999), reconsideration denied 327 NLRB 802 (1999), petition for review dismissed 1999 WL 325508 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

In the underlying decision, the Board accepted the court’s remand and decided to review the administrative law judge’s May 20, 2008 decision anew. Applying the well-established precedent set forth in California Saw and KGW Radio, the Board reversed the judge and found that the Respondent violated its duty of fair representation and therefore Section 8(b)(1)(A) by its failure to provide sufficiently verified expenditure information to a Beck objector. In so doing, the Board explained that a union satisfies the Board’s verification requirements so long as an auditor—who may be an in-house auditor and need not be a certified public accountant—independently verifies that the expenditures claimed by the union were in fact made. See 363 NLRB No. 127, slip op. at 3 fn. 8. As the Respondent’s accountant only reviewed expenditure information provided by the Respondent’s officials, and did not verify that the claimed expenditures were in

1 363 NLRB No. 127 (2016), as modified by a March 8, 2016 unpublished order.

fact made, the Board found that the Respondent failed to satisfy the Board’s expenditure verification requirements and thus violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). Id. at 3. The Board also denied the Respondent’s request that the Board depart from...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP