Kitsap Tenant Support Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board DecisionsOct 15, 2018

19-CA-074715 (N.L.R.B. Oct. 15, 2018)

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD KITSAP TENANT SUPPORT SERVICES, INC. Cases 19-CA-074715 19-CA-079006 and 19-CA-082869 19-CA-086006 WASHINGTON FEDERATION OF STATE 19-CA-088935 EMPLOYEES, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 19-CA-088938 STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL 19-CA-090108 EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 28, AFL-CIO 19-CA-096118 19-CA-099659 NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE On June 4, 2014, Administrative Law Judge Jay R. Pollack issued a decision in this case. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party adopted the General Counsel’s exceptions and supporting brief as its exceptions and brief. The Respondent filed an answering brief, and the General Counsel filed a reply brief. The Respondent also filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respondent filed a reply brief. On May 31, 2018, the Board issued a Decision and Order severing and retaining for further consideration certain complaint paragraphs.1 The severed complaint paragraphs allege that several rules in the Respondent’s employee handbook violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act based on the prong of the analytical 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 1 366 NLRB No. 98. The Board ruled on the other complaint allegations that were before it on exceptions. 2 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. at 14-17 (2017). Accordingly, the Board hereby issues the following notice to show cause why the severed complaint allegations 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 this case 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 October 29, 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 15, 2018. By direction of the Board: /s/ Roxanne L. Rothschild Executive Secretary