Sabreliner Aviation

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Sep 21, 2015

14-RD-135815 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 21, 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SABRELINER AVIATION, LLC
Employer
and Case 14-RD-135815
JASON R. BUERCK
Petitioner
and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 600
Union
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s administrative
dismissal of the petition is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is affirmed. 2
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 21, 2015

1 In denying review, we agree that the Regional Director properly dismissed the
decertification petition because it was filed prior to the expiration of the minimum six-
month insulated period (measured from the parties’ first bargaining session after
recognition) required by the successor bar doctrine. UGL-UNICCO Service Co., 357
NLRB No. 76, slip op. at 9 (2011). We find it unnecessary to rely on the Regional
Director’s discussion of the number of negotiation sessions and the amount of time the
parties spent in bargaining prior to the filing of the petition.
2 In reaching the conclusions herein, we take administrative notice of the record in a
related unfair labor practice case, 14-CA-136141. See Metro Demolition Co., 348 NLRB
272, 272 fn. 3 (2006).
Member Miscimarra, dissenting.
Consistent with the views expressed in my concurring opinion in FJC Security
Services, 360 NLRB No. 115, slip op. at 1-4 (2014), I would adhere to the standard
established in MV Transportation, 337 NLRB 770, 770 (2002), where the Board held that
“an incumbent union in a successorship situation is entitled to--and only to--a rebuttable
presumption of continuing majority status, which will not serve as a bar” to an otherwise
valid rival union petition; and alternatively, I believe that a successor bar under UGL-
UNICCO Service Co., 357 NLRB No. 76 (2011), if applied, should commence running
when the successor is first required to recognize and bargain with the union rather than
when the parties have their first bargaining session. Accordingly, I would grant review
and find that the petition warrants an election.
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER