Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

In August 2022, a bin full of phosphate rock collapsed at the Lee Creek Mine in Beaufort, North Carolina, injuring three miners. Industrial TurnAround Corporation (ITAC), the independent contractor responsible for checking the structural integrity of the bin's support columns, was cited by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for failing to take defective equipment out of service. MSHA sent a notice of proposed penalty to ITAC's outdated address of record, and ITAC did not contest the penalty, which became final 30 days later. ITAC subsequently filed a motion to reopen the penalty, claiming it had inadvertently failed to update its address of record.The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission granted ITAC's motion to reopen the penalty, citing excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Commission noted that ITAC had not occupied the address since 2009 and had only discovered the MSHA notice when an employee checked for missing packages. The Secretary of Labor, representing MSHA, opposed the motion, arguing that ITAC's failure to update its address could not be excused under FRCP 60(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Commission’s order to reopen the penalty was not an appealable collateral order and dismissed the Secretary’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the order did not impose an obligation, deny a right, or fix a legal relationship, and that the interest in immediate review did not meet the high threshold required under the collateral order doctrine. The court concluded that the Commission’s decision to reopen the penalty did not involve a substantial public interest or a particular value of a high order that justified immediate appeal. View "Secretary of Labor v. Industrial TurnAround Corporation" on Justia Law

A dispute arose regarding the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) rule on when one entity is considered a joint employer of another entity’s employees. The NLRB determined that Google was a joint employer of Cognizant employees working on Google’s YouTube Music platform and ordered both companies to bargain with the employees’ union, the Alphabet Workers Union-Communication Workers of America, Local 9009 (AWU). Google and Cognizant refused to bargain, leading the NLRB to conclude that this refusal violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The employers petitioned for review, arguing they were not joint employers, but the contract under which the employees provided services to Google expired, rendering the petitions and the Board’s cross-applications for enforcement moot. The Union also petitioned for review, contending that the NLRB’s remedies were insufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the expiry of the Google-Cognizant contract meant there was no longer any relationship to support the joint-employer finding, making the case moot. The court dismissed Google’s and Cognizant’s petitions and the Board’s cross-applications as moot and vacated the order below. The court also dismissed as jurisdictionally barred the part of AWU’s petition seeking review of the NLRB’s decision to sever the issue of a make-whole remedy for employees and dismissed as moot those parts of AWU’s petition seeking prospective remedies.The court denied the remainder of AWU’s petition, concluding that the NLRB did not abuse its discretion by ordering only the customary remedies. The court emphasized that the Board’s choice of remedies is primarily within its province and subject to very limited judicial review. View "Alphabet Workers Union-Communication Workers v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Samuel Shanks and Taylor Lambert, former employees of the International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers, filed pro se lawsuits against the Union alleging discrimination. Shanks, who worked in accounting for over twenty years, claimed discrimination based on disability, race, color, and sexual orientation, as well as a hostile work environment and retaliation. Lambert, his niece, alleged wrongful termination, retaliation, and discrimination based on race, religion, and gender. Both claimed violations of various civil rights laws, including the D.C. Human Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The Union removed the cases to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Shanks and Lambert appealed the dismissals. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissals in part but appointed amicus curiae to present arguments in favor of claims that were not suited for summary dismissal.The D.C. Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and concluded that the allegations of racial discrimination related to the Union’s COVID-19 vaccination policy were plausible. The court found that the Union’s two-stage roll-out of the policy disproportionately affected Black employees, who were given less time and fewer resources to comply with the vaccination mandate. The court held that the disparate impact and discriminatory treatment claims based on race were sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss. The court affirmed the dismissal of other claims, including those based on sexual orientation, gender, and religion, as well as Shanks’ hostile work environment claim. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the racial discrimination claims. View "Shanks v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers" on Justia Law

Hood River Distillers, Inc. operates a liquor distillery in Oregon, employing approximately twenty-five unionized employees represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 670. In January 2019, the Union and Hood River began negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. The negotiations focused on health insurance, wages, and other benefits. Despite several bargaining sessions, the parties did not reach an agreement, and Hood River unilaterally implemented its final offer in May 2020, leading to a strike by the Union.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Hood River violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by unilaterally changing employment terms without reaching an impasse in negotiations. Hood River argued that the Union engaged in unjustified delay tactics, justifying its unilateral actions. The administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled against Hood River, and the NLRB affirmed the ALJ's decision, finding that the Union's actions did not constitute unjustified delay tactics and that no impasse had been reached.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's conclusion that Hood River acted unlawfully by unilaterally implementing its March 30 offer. The court found that the Union's insistence on in-person mediation during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic was not unreasonable and did not constitute unjustified delay tactics. The court also noted that Hood River failed to preserve its challenge to the remedy awarded by the NLRB.The court denied Hood River's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement, affirming the NLRB's decision that Hood River violated the NLRA by unilaterally changing employment terms without reaching an impasse and without justification based on the Union's conduct. View "Hood River Distillers, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. (JLL) provides building management services. In 2023, the International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers, Local 39, AFL-CIO (Union) sought certification as the bargaining representative for JLL's Maintenance II and III technicians at an Amazon facility in Napa, California. The Union and JLL agreed to a stipulated election, which was approved by the NLRB's Regional Director. The election was held on May 17, 2023, and all four eligible employees voted in favor of Union representation. JLL refused to bargain with the Union and filed an objection to the election, claiming misconduct by the Board Agent overseeing the election.The Regional Director dismissed JLL's objections, finding them meritless, and certified the election. JLL appealed to the NLRB, which denied the appeal. JLL continued to refuse to bargain, leading the Board's General Counsel to file a complaint. In March 2024, the NLRB issued a summary judgment against JLL, finding that the company violated sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union. The Board ordered JLL to bargain with the Union.JLL then filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, reiterating its claim that the election should be set aside. The Board cross-petitioned for enforcement of its order. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the Regional Director's decision to certify the election without a hearing was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The court held that JLL's objections did not raise substantial and material factual issues that would justify setting aside the election. Consequently, the court denied JLL's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement of its order requiring JLL to recognize and bargain with the Union. View "Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Hawaiian Dredging petitioned for review of the Board's ruling that the company violated Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3) and (1), by terminating welders because of their union membership. The DC Circuit granted the petition for review, holding that the Board failed to adequately address record evidence regarding the company's understanding of its twenty-year practice and appeared to have strayed from its precedent. The court denied the Board's cross-application for enforcement and remanded. View "Hawaiian Dredging Construction v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the Board's decision and order finding that the Hospital violated section 8(a)(1) and (a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), by unilaterally ceasing the payment of longevity-based wage increases to its nurses after the expiration of the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA). As a preliminary matter, the DC Circuit rejected the Hospital's claim that all the acts of Director Walsh were ultra vires and his appointment was invalid. On the merits, the court held that the Hospital violated section 8(a)(1) and (a)(5) by unilaterally ceasing the payment of longevity-based wage increases to nurses after the expiration of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the court denied the Hospital's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Wilkes-Barre Hospital v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Petitioners filed suit contending that the Board erred in holding that the union did not violate its duty of fair representation when it declined to provide petitioners with the anniversary of the dates when they signed dues-checkoff authorizations over the telephone. The DC Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that the Board reasonably concluded that the union's disputed policy was not arbitrary; the Board reasonably found that the union did not discriminate against petitioners nor acted in bad faith in requiring them to submit written requests in order to receive their authorization dates; and thus the Board did not err in concluding that the union did not breach its duty of fair representation. View "Ruisi v. NLRB" on Justia Law

When Oak Harbor stopped making contributions to four health benefit and pension trusts, the Union filed unfair labor practice charges. The Board properly concluded that the Union waived its statutory rights to receive and bargain over continued contributions to three of the trusts, because the subscription agreements for those trusts "clearly and unmistakably" authorized Oak Harbor to cease trust contributions upon expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) after five days' notice; the Board properly concluded that considering the Union's additional evidence would not have changed its analysis or outcome; there is no merit to the Union's view that a ministerial subscription agreement cannot constitute a valid waiver; the Board reasonably concluded that, at most, there was speculation based on an asserted usual practice to have a subscription agreement that one existed for the fourth trust, but no evidence specific to that trust; the Board properly found there was no evidence that a "mutual mistake" prevented the Union from challenging the cessation of contributions to the fourth trust; and, as to the unilateral act of imposing its medical plan on employees after the strike ended, in some cases economic exigency may justify an employer's unilateral change, but this case was not one of them. Accordingly, the DC Circuit denied the petitions for review and granted the Board's cross-application to enforce its order. View "Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The court affirmed vacatur of an arbitrator's ruling that Amtrak must reinstate an employee Amtrak fired for misconduct, holding that contractual provisions could not "add to nor subtract from" an Inspector General's investigative authority under the Inspector General Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 3 section 8G. In this case, Rule 50 of the collective bargaining agreement stated that the police department had established procedures to govern the conduct and control of interrogatories. The court explained that a federal court, reviewing an arbitration award, may refuse to enforce contracts that violate law or public policy. Rule 50, as applied to the Amtrak Inspector General, was such a contractual provision and the district court was right in refusing to enforce the arbitrator’s award based on that provision. View "National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Fraternal Order of Police" on Justia Law