/>iColonial Parking (05-CA-141241; 363 NLRB No. 90) Washington, DC, January 5, 2016.
The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating employees and threatening them with both unspecified reprisals as well as discharge. The Board also affirmed the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by warning, placing on probation, suspending, and discharging an employee because she engaged in protected, concerted activity. Regardless of whether the Respondent’s attendance policy allowed for late arrivals either with or without prior notice, the Board noted that the Respondent failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the discipline of this employee was similar to the discipline of other employees, who violated the same attendance policy, but did not engage in protected, concerted activity. The Board also noted that the Wright Line standard does not require a showing of particularized animus. Additionally, the Board disregarded the Respondent’s unsupported exception to the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when its manager created the impression that employees’ protected, concerted activities were under surveillance. Further, the Board noted that there were no exceptions to the judge’s dismissal of the remaining allegations. Finally, the Board upheld the judge’s credibility findings.
Charge filed by Unite Here Local 23. Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on September 30, 2015. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran participated.
