The Union of Union Staff (SEIU Healthcare Michigan)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 2013

359 NLRB No. 58 (N.L.R.B. 2013)

359 NLRB No. 58
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Board volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
The Union of Union Staff (SEIU Healthcare Michi-
gan)1 and Sara Vitale. Case 07–CB–079543
February 7, 2013
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS GRIFFIN
AND BLOCK
The Acting General Counsel seeks a default judgment
in this case pursuant to the terms of an informal unilat-
eral settlement agreement. A charge and a first amended
charge were filed by Sara Vitale (the Charging Party) on
April 24 and June 27, 2011, respectively, against The
Union of Union Staff (the Respondent), alleging that the
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Subsequently, the Respondent executed an informal
unilateral settlement agreement, which was approved by
the Regional Director for Region 7 on August 2, 2012.2
The settlement agreement required the Respondent to
provide the Charging Party with a copy of her discharge
grievance file, which she requested on December 21,
2011, and March 17, 2012. It also required the Respon-
dent to post appropriate notices and provide signed cop-
ies of the notice for posting by SEIU Healthcare Michi-
gan (the Employer), if so willing.
The settlement agreement also contained the following
provision:
The Charged Party agrees that in case of non-
compliance with any of the terms of this Settlement
Agreement by the Charged Party, and after 14 days no-
tice from the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board of such non-compliance without rem-
edy by the Charged Party, the Regional Director will
issue a complaint that will include the allegations
spelled out above in the Scope of Agreement section.
Thereafter, the General Counsel may file a motion for
default judgment with the Board on the allegations of
the complaint. The Charged Party understands and
agrees that all of the allegations of the complaint will

1 We have changed the caption to accord with our usual practice of
including the employer’s name in parentheses following the union’s
name in cases where the union is the charged party.
2 By letter dated July 24, 2012, the Charging Party was given the op-
portunity to enter into the settlement agreement as executed by the
Respondent or provide written objections to the approval of the settle-
ment agreement. The Charging Party did not execute the agreement or
submit any objections. By letter dated August 2, 2012, the Charging
Party was advised of the Regional Director’s intention to approve the
settlement agreement and was provided with the opportunity to file an
appeal of that decision. No appeal was filed.
be deemed admitted and it will have waived its right to
file an Answer to such complaint. The only issue that
may be raised before the Board is whether the Charged
Party defaulted on the terms of this Settlement Agree-
ment. The Board may then, without necessity of trial
or any other proceeding, find all allegations of the
complaint to be true and make findings of fact and con-
clusions of law consistent with those allegations ad-
verse to the Charged Party on all issues raised by the
pleadings. The Board may then issue an order provid-
ing a full remedy for the allegations found as is appro-
priate to remedy such violations. The parties further
agree that a U.S. Court of Appeals Judgment may be
entered enforcing the Board order ex parte, after service
or attempted service upon the Charged
Party/Respondent at the last address provided to the
General Counsel.
By letter dated August 22, 2012, the Region sent the
Respondent a copy of the approved settlement agreement
and advised it to take the steps necessary to comply with
the agreement. By letter dated October 29, 2012, the
Acting Regional Director notified the Respondent that it
had not complied with the terms of the settlement as it
had not provided the Charging Party with a copy of her
discharge grievance file, had not posted appropriate no-
tices, and had not provided signed and dated notices for
posting by the Employer. The letter advised the Respon-
dent that its failure to comply with the settlement agree-
ment within 14 days would result in the issuance of a
complaint and the filing of a motion for default judg-
ment. The Respondent failed to comply.
Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the noncompli-
ance provisions of the settlement agreement, the Acting
Regional Director issued a complaint on November 30,
2012. On December 19, 2012, the Acting General Coun-
sel filed a Motion for Default Judgment with the Board.
On December 21, 2012, the Board issued an order trans-
ferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show
Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Re-
spondent filed no response. The allegations in the mo-
tion are therefore undisputed.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
According to the uncontroverted allegations in the mo-
tion for default judgment, the Respondent has failed to
comply with the terms of the settlement agreement by
failing to furnish the Charging Party with a copy of her
discharge grievance file as requested, by failing to post
appropriate notices, and by failing to provide signed cop-
ies of the notice for posting by the Employer, if so will-
ing. Consequently, pursuant to the noncompliance pro-
visions of the settlement agreement set forth above, we
2
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
find that all of the allegations in the complaint are true.3
Accordingly, we grant the Acting General Counsel’s
Motion for Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Employer, SEIU Healthcare
Michigan, a labor organization, has been an unincorpo-
rated association with a facility in Detroit, Michigan,
where it represents employees in bargaining with em-
ployers.
During the calendar year 2011, a representative period,
the Employer, in conducting its business operations de-
scribed above, collected and received dues and initiation
fees in excess of $50,000, and remitted from its Detroit
facility directly to the Service Employees International
Union in Washington, D.C., dues and initiation fees in
excess of $50,000.
We find that the Employer is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act, and that The Union of Union Staff, the
Respondent, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals held
the positions set forth opposite their names and have
been agents of the Respondent within the meaning of
Section 2(13) of the Act:
Norman Bomer President/Interim President
Latoyia Combs Steward
At all material times, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the
Act, the Respondent has been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the following employees of
the Employer (the unit):
All full-time and regular part-time organizers, lead or-
ganizers, coordinators, member representatives, mem-
ber satisfaction representatives, canvassers, home care
organizers, paralegals, grievance administrators, re-
search analysts, communications specialists, negotia-
tors, and assistants employed by the Employer out of its
offices located at 2604 Fourth Street, Detroit, Michi-
gan, 120 N. Washington Square, Lansing, Michigan,
and 2680 Vulcan Street, Muskegon, Michigan, but ex-
cluding all directors, assistant directors, presidential
administrative assistants, information technology staff,
liaisons, contingent lost time members, confidential

3 See U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLRB 667 (1994).
employees, attorneys, member organizers, employees
in the existing Office and Professional Employees In-
ternational Union, AFL-CIO, Local 42 clerical bargain-
ing unit, and guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
At all material times, the Respondent and the Em-
ployer have maintained and enforced a collective-
bargaining agreement covering the terms and conditions
of employment of the unit, including a grievance and
arbitration procedure.
Since about December 21, 2011, and March 17, 2012,
the Charging Party, an employee in the unit, has re-
quested, by email, that the Respondent provide her with a
copy of her discharge grievance file.
Since about December 21, 2011, and continuing to
date, the Respondent has failed and refused to provide
the Charging Party with a copy of the requested file.
By failing and refusing to provide the Charging Party
with a copy of her discharge grievance file, the Respon-
dent, in connection with its representative status as de-
scribed above, has breached its duty of fair representation
owed to the Charging Party and the employees in the
unit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described above, the Respondent
has breached its duty of fair representation owed to the
Charging Party and the employees in the unit in violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
2. The Respondent’s unfair labor practice affects
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in an
unfair labor practice, we shall order it to cease and desist
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having found
that the Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by
refusing to provide the Charging Party with a copy of her
discharge grievance file, we shall order the Respondent
to provide the Charging Party with a copy of the re-
quested file.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, The Union of Union Staff, Detroit, Michi-
gan, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to provide any employee with
a copy of his or her discharge grievance file upon re-
quest.
3
THE UNION OF UNION STAFF (SEIU HEALTHCARE MICHIGAN)
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Provide the Charging Party with a copy of her dis-
charge grievance file.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Detroit, Michigan facility copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after
being signed by the Respondents’ authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to members and employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with employees and members
by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, deliver
to the Regional Director for Region 7 signed copies of
the notice in sufficient number for posting by the Em-
ployer, SEIU Healthcare Michigan, at its Detroit, Michi-
gan, facility, if it wishes, in all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 7 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 7, 2013

4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Member
______________________________________
Sharon Block, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with your em-
ployer on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse or fail to provide an employee’s
grievance file to him or her upon request for such infor-
mation.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL provide the Charging Party with a copy of
her discharge grievance file.
THE UNION OF UNION STAFF