Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Motion for Default Judgment, National Labor Relations Board, Veolia and ATU 1433, Phoenix, AZ

Motion for Default Judgment, National Labor Relations Board, Veolia and ATU 1433, Phoenix, AZ

Ratings: (0)|Views: 64 |Likes:
Published by darwinbondgraham
Violia refused to furnish information to the union necessary for bargaining, and engaged in acts of interference and coercion against employees.

"Within the last six months, the above-named Employer has discriminated against its employees by, among other things, bargaining in bad faith including by engaging in surface bargaining, refusing to provide information to the below-named Union pursuant to information requests, direct dealing with the represented employees, engaging in unilateral changes, disparaging the Union, and by failing to remit dues pursuant to dues check off. By the above and other acts. the above-named employer has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in tile exercise of tile rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act."
(Charges against Veolia filed by an employee and union member on Feb 4, 2011)

"During the past six months, the above named employer (1) implemented part of its Sick Leave proposal at a time when the parties were not at an overall impasse in bargaining, (2) engaged in regressive, bad-faith, and surface bargaining by reopening for negotiations articles which were previously agreed to by the parties during earlier negotiations; (3) has refused to process grievances up through, and including, arbitration, and (4) has engaged in an overall pattern of bad faith and surface bargaining. Also, on or about February 7, 2011, the Employer unilaterally terminated monthly dues checkoffs. On February 16, 2011. the Employer unilaterally reinstated an absentee policy which had been suspended since July of 2010. The charging party requests 100) relief. By the above and other acts, the above-named Employer has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act."
(Charges filed against Veolia on March 14, 2011)

When a settlement agreement was reached, Veolia violated it:

"At no time since it entered into the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement Agreement was approved by the Regional Director has Respondent complied with its obligation under the Settlement Agreement to bargain in good faith with the Union."
(March 9, 2012 letter of NLRB General Counsel to the Board)

The General Counsel of the NLRB asked the Board to force Veolia to comply. Only upon this threat did Veolia agree to bargain.
Violia refused to furnish information to the union necessary for bargaining, and engaged in acts of interference and coercion against employees.

"Within the last six months, the above-named Employer has discriminated against its employees by, among other things, bargaining in bad faith including by engaging in surface bargaining, refusing to provide information to the below-named Union pursuant to information requests, direct dealing with the represented employees, engaging in unilateral changes, disparaging the Union, and by failing to remit dues pursuant to dues check off. By the above and other acts. the above-named employer has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in tile exercise of tile rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act."
(Charges against Veolia filed by an employee and union member on Feb 4, 2011)

"During the past six months, the above named employer (1) implemented part of its Sick Leave proposal at a time when the parties were not at an overall impasse in bargaining, (2) engaged in regressive, bad-faith, and surface bargaining by reopening for negotiations articles which were previously agreed to by the parties during earlier negotiations; (3) has refused to process grievances up through, and including, arbitration, and (4) has engaged in an overall pattern of bad faith and surface bargaining. Also, on or about February 7, 2011, the Employer unilaterally terminated monthly dues checkoffs. On February 16, 2011. the Employer unilaterally reinstated an absentee policy which had been suspended since July of 2010. The charging party requests 100) relief. By the above and other acts, the above-named Employer has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act."
(Charges filed against Veolia on March 14, 2011)

When a settlement agreement was reached, Veolia violated it:

"At no time since it entered into the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement Agreement was approved by the Regional Director has Respondent complied with its obligation under the Settlement Agreement to bargain in good faith with the Union."
(March 9, 2012 letter of NLRB General Counsel to the Board)

The General Counsel of the NLRB asked the Board to force Veolia to comply. Only upon this threat did Veolia agree to bargain.

More info:

Published by: darwinbondgraham on Jul 10, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICABEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDVEOLIA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.(PHOENIX DIVISION)and Cases 28-CA-02324928-CA-02335828-CA-02340128-CA-023497AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION,LOCAL 1433, AFL-CIOACTING GENERAL COUNSEL’S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULTJUDGMENT AND ISSUANCE OF DECISION AND ORDER
The Acting General Counsel (the General Counsel), based on the facts set forth belowand in the attached documents and exhibits, moves, pursuant to Section 102.24 of the NationalLabor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations (the Board’s Rules), that the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issue a Decision and Order, prior to and without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing, containing findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance withthe Section 8(a)(1), (3) and (5) allegations of the Second Consolidated Complaint in theabove-captioned matter (the Consolidated Complaint), ordering Veolia TransportationServices, Inc. (Phoenix Division) (Respondent) to appropriately remedy the unfair labor  practices found and granting such other, further relief as may be proper in the circumstances.In support of this Motion, the General Counsel shows and alleges that:1. (a) On November 8, 2010, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1433, AFL-CIO (the Union), filed a charge in Case 28-CA-023249, a copy of which is attached heretoand marked as Exhibit 1, alleging that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices
 
2
affecting commerce set forth and defined in the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.Section 151 et seq. (the Act).(b) On February 4, 2011, the Union filed a charge in Case 28-CA-023358,a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 2, alleging that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce set forth and defined in the Act.(c) On March 14, 2011, the Union filed a charge in Case 28-CA-023401, acopy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 3, alleging that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce set forth and defined in the Act.(d) On May 6, 2011, the Union filed a charge in Case 28-CA-023497, acopy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 4, alleging that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce set forth and defined in the Act.2. (a) Upon the charge described above in paragraph 1(a), onJanuary 31, 2011, the Regional Director for Region 28 (Regional Director), pursuant toSection 10(b) of the Act and Section 102.15 of the Board’s Rules, issued a Complaint and  Notice of Hearing, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 5. On February12, 2011, Respondent filed with the Regional Director its Answer to the Complaint(Respondent’s First Answer), by which it denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor  practices.(b) Upon the charges described above in paragraphs 1(a) through 1(c), onApril 29, 2011, the Regional Director, pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act and Sections102.15 and 102.33 of the Board’s Rules, issued an Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 6.On May 12, 2011, Respondent filed with the Regional Director its Answer to the
 
3
Consolidated Complaint (Respondent’s Second Answer), by which it denied the commissionof the alleged unfair labor practices.(c) Upon the charges described above in paragraphs 1(a) through 1(d), onJune 30, 2011, the Regional Director, pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act and Sections102.15 and 102.33 of the Board’s Rules, issued an Order Further Consolidating Cases,Second Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing, a copy of which is attached heretoand marked as Exhibit 7 (the Consolidated Complaint), alleging, in pertinent part, thatRespondent violated Sections 8(a)(1), (3) and (5) of the Act by threatening to implement and implementing its bargaining proposal without first bargaining to impasse; direct dealing withemployees; ceasing to collect Union dues from employee paychecks; failing to provideinformation requested by the Union; refusing to process grievances; refusing to meet with theUnion for purposes of negotiating a successor collective-bargaining agreement; engaging inregressive bargaining; reopening for negotiations various contract articles that had been previously agreed to by the parties; introducing new contract articles during the middle of  bargaining that were previously not encompassed by the parties’ existing proposals; trying torequire that existing employees would have to reapply for their current jobs; resubmitting bargaining proposals with insubstantial or no change from prior bargaining proposals; and  bargaining with no intent of reaching an agreement.(d) On July 14, 2011, Respondent filed with the Regional Director itsAnswer to the Second Consolidated Complaint (Respondent’s Third Answer), by which itdenied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.(e) On July 14, 2011, the General Counsel filed a Notice of Intent toAmend Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 8.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->