Green JobWorks, LLC./ACECO, LLC (joint employer)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 2016

05-RC-154596 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GREEN JOBWORKS, LLC/ACECO, LLC
(A JOINT EMPLOYER)
Employers
and Case 05-RC-154596
CONSTRUCTION AND MASTER LABORERS’
LOCAL UNION NO. 11
Petitioner
ORDER
The Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is granted as it raises substantial issues warranting review. Green JobWorks, LLC’s
Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election is denied as it
raises no substantial issues warranting review.
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER
MEMBER MISCIMARRA, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues, I would deny the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the
Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election. The Regional Director applied the
standard recently announced in BFI Newby Island Recyclery, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), and
found that the Petitioner failed to establish a joint-employer relationship between Green
JobWorks, LLC (Green JobWorks) and ACECO, LLC. As explained in the BFI dissenting
opinion jointly authored by former Member Johnson and me, I would adhere to precedent
requiring proof that a putative joint employer actually exercises “direct and immediate” control
over the essential terms and conditions of employment of individuals in the petitioned-for
bargaining unit in a manner that is neither “limited” nor “routine.” In my view, the Petitioner
has failed to raise a substantial issue warranting review under the pre-BFI precedent.
Conversely, I believe there is a substantial issue regarding Regional Director’s finding
that it is appropriate to have a bargaining unit limited to the Green JobWorks demolition and
asbestos-removal employees who are assigned to ACECO projects, excluding all other Green
JobWorks demolition and asbestos-removal employees. The record indicates that all of these
employees perform similar work, have similar skills, are subject to common employment
policies, and receive the same benefits. For the reasons I stated in Macy's, Inc., 361 NLRB No.
4, slip op. at 22–33 (2014) (Member Miscimarra, dissenting), I would apply the Board's
traditional standards when resolving the unit-appropriateness issue, not the “overwhelming
community of interest” standard set forth in Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of
Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011). Accordingly, I would grant the Request for Review filed by
Green JobWorks regarding the appropriateness of the bargaining unit.
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 8, 2016.