Local 675 Of The United Association Of Journeymen And Apprentices Of The Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Ind

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Sep 4, 2020

20-CB-251372 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 4, 2020)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
LOCAL 675 OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE
PLUMBING & PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES & CANADA
and Case 20-CB-251372
RPS MECHANICAL, INC.
ORDER1
The Respondent’s request for special permission to appeal from Administrative Law
Judge Eleanor Laws’ July 30, 2020 Order directing the hearing to be conducted by
videoconference is granted. On the merits, the appeal is denied.
The Respondent argues that a videoconference hearing is not permitted under Section
102.35(c) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations and that such a hearing would be without all of
the safeguards required by that Section. The Board has found that the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic establishes good cause based on compelling circumstances for taking video testimony
under Section 102.35(c). William Beaumont Hospital, 370 NLRB No. 9, slip op. at 1 (2020);
Morrison Healthcare, 369 NLRB No. 76, slip op. at 1 (2020). Moreover, we have found that
because Section 102.35(c) pertains to hearings in which a single witness testifies via video
conference in an otherwise in-person hearing, the strictures of that Section are informative but
not controlling when a hearing is conducted entirely by videoconference. William Beaumont
Hospital, 370 NLRB No. 9, slip op. at 1; Morrison Healthcare, 369 NLRB No. 76, slip op. at 1 fn. 2.
1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
2
A video hearing can also provide for the observation of witnesses for the purpose of credibility
determinations, as well as adequately address other due process concerns. EF International
Language Schools, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 20, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2015), enfd. 673 Fed. Appx. 1 (D.C.
Cir. 2017). Therefore, we find that the Respondent’s speculative concerns are premature and
may be raised with the judge in the first instance if warranted, or on exceptions to the Board
pursuant to Section 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, in the event it receives an
adverse ruling. Under these circumstances, we find that the Respondent has failed to
demonstrate that the judge abused her discretion.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 4, 2020
JOHN F. RING, CHAIRMAN
MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER