Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

CalPortland seeks review of the Commission's decision ordering CalPortland to temporarily reinstate Jeffrey Pappas, pursuant to section 105(c)(2) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(2), pending final order on Pappas’s underlying discrimination complaint currently pending before the Commission. The court concluded that the Commission’s order directing CalPortland to hire Pappas is immediately appealable pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. Because the Commission’s temporary reinstatement order satisfies the requirements of the collateral order doctrine, the court has jurisdiction to hear this petition for review. The court also concluded that the text and structure of section 105(c)(2) of the Mine Act preclude the Commission from directing an owner or operator to temporarily “reinstate” a complainant who has never been employed by that owner or operator. Because Pappas was an “applicant for employment” who was not eligible for temporary reinstatement pending final order on his complaint, the court granted CalPortland’s petition for review and vacated the Commission’s decision and order. View "CalPortland Co., Inc. v. MSHR" on Justia Law

Heartland successfully petitioned this court to review the Board's order finding Heartland violated its collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) by failing to bargain over the effects of reducing employee hours. Heartland moves here for an award of attorney fees. Because the Board’s actions go beyond whatever limited justification nonacquiescence may have, the court agreed with Heartland that the Board is guilty of bad faith, granted Heartland’s motion for attorney fees, and awarded it $17,649.00. View "Heartland Plymouth Court v. NLRB" on Justia Law

In 1992, OSHA issued the Process Safety Management Standard to protect the safety of those who work with or near highly hazardous chemicals. After a catastrophic chemical explosion at a Texas fertilizer company that qualified as an exempt retail facility, OSHA narrowed the scope of the retail-facility exemption so that the safety standard’s requirements would now apply to formerly exempt facilities like the Texas plant. Petitioners seek review of OSHA's narrowed definition of retail facilities. The court held that, when an action by OSHA corrects a particular hazard, as opposed to adjusting procedures for detection or enforcement, it amounts to a “standard.” Applying that understanding, the court concluded that the agency’s narrowing of the substantive scope of the exemption for retail facilities qualified as issuance of a “standard.” Therefore, the court has jurisdiction to review it and OSHA was required to adhere to notice-and-comment procedures. Consequently, the court granted the petitions for review and vacated OSHA's action. View "Agricultural Retailers Assoc. v. Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

After a group of DirecTV employees aired their grievances publicly in an interview with a reporter for a local television news station, DirecTV responded by terminating the employees. The Board found that DirecTV committed an unfair labor practice and ordered the employees reinstated. DirecTV and another company involved in the employees' termination (MasTec), seek review of the Board's decision. DirectTV relies on contractors such as MasTec to install satellite television receivers in subscribers’ homes. The court concluded that the Board acted within its discretion when the Board held that the employees' participation in the news segment was protected concerted activity relating to their ongoing dispute about the new pay policy. In the Board’s view, the technicians’ statements in the interview were neither so disloyal and incommensurate with their labor grievances, nor so maliciously untrue, as to fall outside the protection of the National Labor Relations Act, 20 U.S.C. 157. Accordingly, the court enforced the Board's order. View "DirecTV, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

After Consolidated disciplined several employees for alleged misconduct during a Union strike and eliminated a workplace position held by a union worker, the Board found that both Consolidated's disciplinary actions and its unilateral elimination of a bargaining-unit position violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (3) and (5). The court enforced the portions of the Board’s order determining that Consolidated’s suspensions of Michael Maxwell and Eric Williamson, as well as the company’s elimination of the bargaining-unit position, violated the Act. The court granted, however, Consolidated’s petition for review and denied cross-enforcement for that portion of the order addressing Consolidated’s discharge of Patricia Hudson, and remanded because the Board applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating Hudson’s strike misconduct. In this case, Hudson did not engage in misconduct punishable under the Act because the Board’s determination rests on a misapplication of the Clear Pine Mouldings standard and the Burnup & Sims burden of proof. View "Consolidated Commc'ns v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from an ongoing labor dispute between OHL and the Union. After OHL refused to bargain with the Union, the Board determined that OHL violated the National Labor Relations Act, 158(a)(3), (a)(1). OHL petitioned for review. The court concluded that the Board did not err in affirming and adopting the ALJ’s articulation of the controlling legal standard; substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that OHL employee Jennifer Smith never used the alleged racial slur at issue and that it was unreasonable for OHL to believe that she did; and substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that OHL’s proffered reasons for firing OHL employee Carolyn Jones were pretextual. The court concluded that OHL's remaining arguments lack merit. Accordingly, the court denied OHL's petitions for review and granted the Board's cross-applications for enforcement. View "Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Board promulgated the Health Care Rule in 1989, which established eight standardized bargaining units for acute-care hospitals. This case concerns the application of the Health Care Rule on a retrospective basis - in particular, to preexisting bargaining units that did not conform to the eight standardized units set forth in the Rule. The Rule prescribes that, if there is a petition to represent an additional unit in a hospital with preexisting nonconforming units, the Board may find the additional unit appropriate only if it comports, to the extent practicable, with one of the eight standardized units. The Board understands that aspect of the Rule to apply as follows: in any representation election that would create a new bargaining unit, the new unit must include all unrepresented employees who would be grouped together in one of the Rule’s standardized units. At issue in this case is whether the same understanding of the Rule governs an election to add unrepresented employees to a preexisting bargaining unit, as opposed to an election to create a new bargaining unit. In other words, when a union seeks to add unrepresented employees to a preexisting nonconforming unit, must the unit embrace all (and not just some) of the unrepresented employees who would fit within the same standardized unit in the Rule? The Board answered in the negative and reasoned that the addition of employees to an already existing unit - the creation of a new unit - necessarily keeps the number of bargaining units constant. Petitioner, an acute-care facility, argues that the Board’s distinction between preexisting units and new units under the Rule is arbitrary and incompatible with the Board’s own precedent. The court rejected petitioner's challenge to the Board’s interpretation and application of its own regulation. Therefore, the court upheld the Board’s understanding that the Rule is inapplicable in the context of elections to add employees to a preexisting unit. The court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Rush Univ. Med. Ctr. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Care One petitioned for review of the Board's determination that Care One committed a series of unfair labor practices in an effort to prevent the certification of a union at its nursing home and rehabilitation facility in Morristown, New Jersey. The Board held that Care One had interfered with employees’ protected activity and discriminated against union-eligible employees by instituting a system-wide, discretionary benefits increase shortly before a scheduled representation election and denying the increase to the union-eligible employees. The Board also held that the company unlawfully interfered with its employees’ right to organize by distributing to employees eligible to vote in the upcoming election a threatening leaflet associating unionization with job loss; presenting a slideshow depicting employees, without their consent, as if they supported the Company’s antiunion campaign; and issuing a post-election memorandum reiterating the company’s workplace violence policy, which the Board concluded could reasonably be read in context to threaten reprisal for protected union activity. The court concluded that the Board's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and denied Care One's petition for review, affirming the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Care One at Madison Avenue v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after the District of Columbia Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board terminated his employment, alleging in part that his termination violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process. At issue is the district court’s most recent dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, as well as its denial of his motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that plaintiff has shown that his due process rights were violated and that this violation caused his alleged damages. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the District and, in part, its denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court remanded to the district court to address whether the District can be held liable under section 1983 for this violation and, if it can, for a determination of the amount of damages to which defendant is entitled. View "Thompson v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

The Board determined that Enterprise violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., by telling employees it was terminating short-term disability benefits on account of their union membership, encouraging an employee to circulate a petition to decertify the Union as its employees’ bargaining representative, unilaterally terminating employees’ short-term disability benefits, interfering with a union representative’s contractual right of access to Enterprise’s facility, unlawfully decertifying the Union as its employees’ bargaining representative based on a petition tainted by unfair labor practices, and thereafter refusing to bargain with the Union or collect or remit union dues. Enterprise petitioned for review. The court denied the petition and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement, holding that substantial record evidence supports each of the Board’s findings and conclusions. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Enterprise’s additional claim that the Board’s remedy was unlawfully punitive because Enterprise failed to raise the argument before the Board. View "Enterprise Leasing Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law