Voices for International Business and Education, Inc. d/b/a International High School of New Orleans, (2017)
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.
Voices for International Business and Education, Inc. d/b/a International High School of New Orleans and United Teachers of New Orleans, Local 527, LFT, AFT. Case 15–CA–182627
May 5, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE AND MCFERRAN
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Respondent is contesting the Union’s certification as bargaining representative in the underlying representation proceeding. Pursuant to a charge filed on August 23, 2016, by United Teachers of New Orleans, Local 527, LFT, AFT (the Union), the General Counsel issued the complaint on September 2, 2016, alleging that Voices for International Business and Education, Inc. d/b/a International High School of New Orleans (the Respondent) has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing the Union’s request to recognize and bargain with it following the Union’s certification in Case 15–RC–175505. (Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(d). Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint, and asserting affirmative defenses.
On February 14, 2017, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 21, 2017, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed a response.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent denies that it has failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Union, and maintains as an affirmative defense that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the Respondent is not an employer within the meaning of the Act.1
1 The Respondent’s answer denies the complaint allegation that it is an employer within the meaning of the Act, and on that basis denies that the unit is appropriate, that the Union is the exclusive collectivebargaining representative of the unit employees; and that it has refused to bargain with the Union. However, the issues regarding the employer’s status as an employer, the appropriateness of the unit, and the Union’s status as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees were litigated and resolved in the representation
All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special circumstances that would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding. We therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any representation issue that is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.2
On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT
At all material times, the Respondent has been a nonprofit corporation with an office and place of business...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP