Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 3, 2018

26-CA-092192 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 3, 2018)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
OZBURN-HESSEY LOGISTICS, LLC,
and Cases 26-CA-092192
15-CA-097046
15-CA-105527
15-CA-106180
15-CA-106387
15-CA-106511
15-CA-109235
15-CA-111520
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, 15-CA-111523
RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, 15-CA-117208
ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE 15-CA-119925
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, 15-CA-119826
AFL-CIO, CLC a/k/a UNITED 15-CA-123315
STEELWORKERS UNION 15-CA-111581
and Case 15-CA-117208
LAUREN KEELE
and Case 15-CA-108749
STACEY WILLIAMS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION1
The Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and
Order reported at 366 NLRB No. 177 (2018) is denied. The Respondent has not

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this
proceeding to a three-member panel.
demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration under
Section 102.48(c)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.2
Dated, Washington, D.C., December 3, 2018.
John F. Ring, Chairman
Lauren McFerran, Member
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

2 The Respondent moves for reconsideration of the Board's conclusions that the
Respondent’s discharges of employees Shawn Wade, Nannette French, Jerry Smith
Sr., and Stacey Williams violated Sec. 8(a)(3), the Board’s Order requiring it to
reinstate employee Lauren Keele with backpay, and the expanded notice-reading,
notice-posting, and notice-publication remedies. With respect to French’s discharge,
the Respondent contends that the judge’s credibility findings preclude the Board
from inferring from circumstantial evidence that the Respondent had knowledge of
French’s union activity. We disagree. While the judge credited Operations
Manager Margaret Bonner’s testimony that Bonner did not observe French
distributing union cards, Bonner did not testify that she had no other source of
knowledge that French had distributed union cards.
Chairman Ring adheres to his partial dissent in the underlying decision, but
he agrees that the Respondent has not shown extraordinary circumstances
warranting reconsideration.
Member Kaplan did not participate in the underlying decision, and he
expresses no view as to whether it was correctly decided. He agrees, however, that
the Respondent’s motion for reconsideration should be denied because the
Respondent has not shown extraordinary circumstances warranting
reconsideration.