[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-199980-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-199980-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","albertsons-llc-decision-and-order-remanding","Albertson’s, LLC - Decision and Order Remanding","","Labor Relations Board decision remands key allegations involving union-related rules, credibility determinations, and potential violations of the National Labor Relations Act. The Acting General Counsel challenges the administrative law judge’s failure to address a May 7, 2011 “notalking” rule allegation and seeks resolution of whether a prohibited overbroad discriminatory restriction on union activity was maintained. The Board also reviews findings under established standards, including Wright Line analysis, and addresses solicitation of grievances during the union campaign and related discharge and suspension issues.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/albertsons-llc-decision-and-order-remanding/199980/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/albertsons-llc-decision-and-order-remanding/199980.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Dipper","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-12","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What issue led to remand in the Board’s decision and order?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The Board remands an allegation that the employer orally promulgated and maintained an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting employees from engaging in union activities, because the judge failed to address it and credibility determinations were required first.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does the Board handle administrative law judge credibility findings?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The Board does not overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless a clear preponderance of the relevant evidence convinces it that the findings are incorrect.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What standard did the Board cite for analyzing certain alleged violations?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The Board references the Wright Line framework for determining whether unlawful motivation contributed to adverse employment actions.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},199980,1788507545,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,93,98,103,108,113,117,122],{"id":55,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},18,30,"letters",{"id":118,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":127},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":114,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":55},1374404997633,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","Albertson’s, LLC and Yvonne Martinez and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local  \n1564. Cases 28–CA–023387 and 28–CA–023538 July 2, 2013  \nDECISION AND ORDER REMANDING  \nBY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS GRIFFIN AND BLOCK  \nOn May 24, 2012, Administrative Law Judge William L. Schmidt issued the attached decision. The Acting General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions, supporting briefs, answering briefs, and reply briefs.  \nThe National Labor Relations Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions 1 and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions only to the extent consistent with  \n1 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s recommended dismissal of complaint allegations that the Respondent: (1) maintained and orally promulgated rules during meetings with employees on August 20, 2010, that prohibited them from soliciting on behalf of the Union, talking about the Union, and possessing unon cards at work; (2) orally promulgated rules during meetings with employees on April 7 and 8, 2011, that prohibited them from engaging in union activity while “on the clock” and engaging in union activity at work; (3) solicited grievances in May 2011; (4) granted wage increases to employees for the purpose of dissuading them from supporting the Union; (5) requested that employees report the union activities of their coworkers; (6) threatened to discharge Talia Perea during her phone conversation with Alice Andrick in May 2011; and (7) discriminated against Perea.  \nThe Acting General Counsel excepts to the judge’s finding that his posthearing brief did not address par. 5(k) of the complaint and to the judge’s consequent failure to rule on the allegation that “on or about May 7, 2011, the Respondent . . . orally promulgated and has since maintained an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting employees from engaging in Union activities.” We find merit in this exception.  \nThe Acting General Counsel’s brief to the judge addressed this allegation in Sec. III, A(f) and Sec. IV, H(a) . Relying on the testimony of employee Perea, the Acting General Counsel argued that Store Director Don Merritt violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by orally imposing a “notalking” rule during a conversation with Perea that had the effect of prohibiting her and other employees who worked at the front-end section of the store from discussing the Union. Merritt denied imposing such a rule.  \nBecause the judge failed to address this allegation, the resolution of which turns on credibility determinations that he must make in the first instance, we shall sever this allegation and remand it to the judge to make the necessary credibility resolutions and determine whether an 8(a)(1) violation has been established.  \n2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 361 (3d Cir. 1951) . We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.  \nIn adopting the judge’s finding under the analysis set forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) by suspending and discharging Yvonne Martinez on the assert-  \nthis Decision and Order Remanding, and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.3  \n1. We adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s labor relations director, Danny Ma, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting grievances during his one-on-one meeting with employee Talia Perea during the union campaign.  \nPerea was working at her cash register when Ma arrived at the store to give presentations to employees. Perea had never se","cbCaiqxxFKQ6gF5D","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqxxFKQ6gF5D","pdf",655971,32,"English","# Background and Procedural History\n## Exceptions and briefs\n# Board Review and Standards\n## Credibility and evidentiary review\n## Wright Line analysis\n# Key Allegations and Remand\n## May 7, 2011 “notalking” rule allegation\n## Solicitation of grievances during union campaign\n# Findings on Alleged Violations","[{\"question\":\"What issue led to remand in the Board’s decision and order?\",\"answer\":\"The Board remands an allegation that the employer orally promulgated and maintained an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting employees from engaging in union activities, because the judge failed to address it and credibility determinations were required first.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the Board handle administrative law judge credibility findings?\",\"answer\":\"The Board does not overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless a clear preponderance of the relevant evidence convinces it that the findings are incorrect.\"},{\"question\":\"What standard did the Board cite for analyzing certain alleged violations?\",\"answer\":\"The Board references the Wright Line framework for determining whether unlawful motivation contributed to adverse employment actions.\"}]","Albertson’s, LLC - Decision and Order Remanding | PDF"]