Verizon Wireless

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 2019

02-CA-157403 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 22, 2019)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
VERIZON WIRELESS
and Case 02–CA–157403
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL–CIO
VERIZON NEW YORK INC., EMPIRE CITY SUBWAY COMPANY
(LIMITED), VERIZON AVENUE CORP., VERIZON ADVANCED
DATA INC., VERIZON CORPORATE SERVICES CORP., VERIZON
NEW ENGLAND INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP. AND
VERIZON NEW JERSEY, INC.
and Case 02–CA–156761
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA (CWA)
VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA INC., VERIZON SERVICES
CORP., AND VERIZON CORPORATE SERVICES CORP.
and Case 04–CA–156043
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 2-13,
AFL–CIO, CLC
VERIZON WASHINGTON, D.C. INC., VERIZON MARYLAND INC.,
VERIZON VIRGINIA INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP., VERIZON
ADVANCED DATA INC., VERIZON SOUTH INC. (VIRGINIA),
VERIZON CORPORATE SERVICES CORP. and VERIZON
DELAWARE INC.
and Case 05-CA-156053
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 2-13,
AFL–CIO, CLC
VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. AND VERIZON FEDERAL INC.,
VERIZON FLORIDA INC., VERIZON NORTH LLC, VERIZON
SOUTHWEST INC., VERIZON CONNECTED SOLUTIONS INC.,
VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC. AND MCI INTERNATIONAL, INC.
and Case 31-CA-161472
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL–CIO, DISTRICT 9
ORDER REMANDING
On November 19, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Notice to Show
Cause why this case should not be remanded for further consideration under The Boeing Co., 365
NLRB No. 154 (2017).1 The Board also asked the parties to address whether a remand would
affect the Board’s ability to resolve the judge’s application of Purple Communications, 361
NLRB 1050 (2014), to several of the allegedly unlawful rules. The Respondents filed a response
opposing remand, and the Charging Parties filed a response favoring remand. The General
Counsel did not file a response.2

1 The Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
2 The Respondents contend that remand is unwarranted because they have already presented
arguments that the work rules at issue are lawful under the standards subsequently adopted in
Boeing, and remand would inject additional delay into a long-pending case. The Charging
Parties favor remand to afford them an opportunity to introduce evidence disputing the
Respondents’ business justifications for the challenged work rules and demonstrating how and
why the rules infringe on the exercise of Sec. 7 rights. The Charging Parties have articulated
grounds in favor of remand which, on balance, are not outweighed by the goal of avoiding
unnecessary delay. The Board therefore finds that the most prudent course of action is to remand
this proceeding to the judge to consider the challenged rules in light of Boeing, except we shall
sever and retain Sections 1.6, 1.8.1, and 3.4.1 of the Verizon Wireless Code of Conduct.
Previously, the judge analyzed these three sections of the Code of Conduct under the standard
announced in Purple Communications, 361 NLRB 1050 (2014). The Board has invited briefing
regarding, among other things, whether Purple Communications should be adhered to, modified,
or overruled. See Notice and Invitation to File Briefs, Caesars Entertainment Corp. d/b/a Rio
All-Suites Hotel & Casino, 28–CA–060841, 2018 WL 3703476 (Aug. 1, 2018). Accordingly,
the Board has decided to sever the allegations regarding Sections 1.6, 1.8.1, and 3.4.1 and retain
them for further consideration in order to expedite the issuance of a decision on the allegations
governed by Boeing. The Board will issue a supplemental decision regarding these three
sections at a later date. See J. Picini Flooring, 355 NLRB 606, 612 fn. 23 (2010).
The Charging Parties’ motions to strike are denied. See Manville Forest Products Corp.,
265 NLRB 920, 920 fn. 2 (1982). The Respondents’ request to consolidate is also denied. See
generally Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, 365 NLRB No. 38, slip op. at 1 fn. 2
(2017) (denying motion to stay proceedings and decide matter in conjunction with other pending
cases).
Having duly considered the matter, the Board has concluded that a remand of these
allegations to the administrative law judge is warranted, except that the Board will sever and
retain for future consideration the allegations that Sections 1.6, 1.8.1, and 3.4.1 of the
Respondents’ Code of Conduct are unlawful.
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint allegations involving the Respondent’s Code of
Conduct provision entitled “Speak Up,” footnote 1 of the Code of Conduct, and Code of Conduct
sections 1.8, 1.8.2, 2.1.3, 3.2.1, and 4.6 are remanded to Administrative Law Judge Donna N.
Dawson for the purpose of reopening the record, if necessary, and preparation of a supplemental
decision addressing the complaint allegations affected by Boeing and setting forth credibility
resolutions, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended Order. Copies of the
supplemental decision shall be served on all parties, after which the provisions of Section 102.46
of the Board’s Rules and Regulations shall be applicable. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
complaint allegations involving Sections 1.6, 1.8.1, and 3.4.1 of the Respondents’ Code of
Conduct are severed and retained.
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 22, 2019.
By direction of the Board:
/s/ Roxanne L. Rothschild
Executive Secretary