DURA-LINE CORPORATION, A SUBSIDARY OF MEXICHEM

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Oct 22, 2018

09-CA-163289 (N.L.R.B. Oct. 22, 2018)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DURA-LINE CORPORATION,
A SUBSIDIARY OF MEXICHEM
and Cases 09–CA–163289
09–CA–164263
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, 09–CA–165972
RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED 09–CA–166481
INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS 09–CA–167265
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL–CIO–CLC
and
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY,
RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED
INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL–CIO–CLC,
LOCAL 14300-12
NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE
On June 20, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Melissa M. Olivero issued a decision in this
case. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel and the
Union filed answering briefs, and the Respondent filed a reply brief. In addition, the General
Counsel filed limited exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering
brief.
On July 12, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision, 366 NLRB No.
126, ruling on the exceptions to several of the complaint allegations, but it severed and retained
for future resolution the complaint allegation involving the Respondent’s maintenance of its
Confidentiality/Non-Disclosure Agreement. The severed allegation alleges that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, based on the prong of the analytical
2
framework set forth in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), that held an
employer’s maintenance of a facially neutral work rule would be unlawful “if employees would
reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity.” Id. at 647. Recently, the Board
overruled the Lutheran Heritage “reasonably construe” test and announced a new standard that
applies retroactively to all pending cases. The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154, slip op. 14-17
(2017).
Accordingly, the Board hereby issues the following notice to show cause why this
complaint allegation should not be remanded to the judge for further proceedings in light of
Boeing, including, if necessary, the filing of statements, reopening the record, and issuance of a
supplemental decision.
NOTICE IS GIVEN that any party seeking to show cause why the complaint allegation
involving the Respondent’s maintenance of its Confidentiality/Non-Disclosure Agreement
should not be remanded to the administrative law judge must do so in writing, filed with the
Board in Washington, D.C., on or before November 5, 2018 (with affidavit of service on the
parties to this proceeding). Any briefs or statements in support of the motion shall be filed on the
same date.
Dated, Washington, D.C., October 22, 2018.
By direction of the Board:
Farah Z. Qureshi
Associate Executive Secretary