Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioners seek review of the Board's finding that G/M and the Carpenters Union committed unfair labor practices. The court held this case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s consideration of the validity of the President’s recess appointments to fill vacancies on the Board in NLRB v. Noel Canning. Member Becker, who was on the Board panel in this case, had been appointed to the Board by the President during a 17-day intra-session recess of the Senate. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, this court held that Becker’s appointment was valid. The court removed the case from abeyance and now hold that the Board’s orders failed to provide a reasoned justification for departing from precedent. In this case, G/M and the Carpenters Union filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Board’s determination had ignored its holding in Coamo Knitting Mills, Inc. The court concluded that the Board’s order denying reconsideration relies solely on the absence of a claim of unlawful surveillance in distinguishing Coamo, not on any factual differences between the cases. Because the Board did not adequately distinguish Coamo and grant the petitions for review on that ground, the court need not reach the remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court granted the petitions for review, vacated the orders, and remanded. View "NLRB v. Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters" on Justia Law

The General Counsel issued a complaint against the union, alleging that the union violated federal labor laws by failing to tell Laura Sands when she began work at Kroger how much less in dues she would have to pay if she did not join the union. The Board dismissed the complaint. Sands petitions for review. The court joined the Second Circuit in holding that an unfair labor practice case is moot when the petitioner lacks an ongoing personal interest in the proceedings. Sands ended her relationship with the union when she quit her job at the grocery store in 2005, and her counsel conceded at oral argument that there is no reason to think she will work there again. Thus, even if posting a notice about the labor violation might affect a current store employee, it cannot redress Sands’ injury. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review as moot and vacated the Board's order under the court's equitable authority. View "Sands v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Aggregate Industries transferred work from one bargaining unit to another over the objections of the union representing both units. The ALJ found that because the company had bargained over the issue to impasse, it was entitled to make the change unilaterally. The Board held, however, that the company had merely transferred work and thus it had changed the scope of the bargaining unit. Therefore, the Board determined that the company no right to insist that the union bargain over the issue. The Board also held that even if the company had merely transferred work, it had not given the union a fair chance to bargain. The court disagreed and granted the petition for review and denied the application for enforcement of all aspects of the Board’s order addressing the company’s decision to transfer material hauling work. In this case, because the company had the right to unilaterally transfer material hauling work, the union acted improperly when it refused to fill the company’s dispatch order. Under Article 3 of the Ready-Mix Agreement, Aggregate therefore had the right to hire anyone it wanted, including its own drivers. Thus, Aggregate did not engage in unlawful direct dealing when it made its proposal to the construction drivers. The court upheld the Board's decision in a collateral matter. View "Aggregate Indus. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Companies, operators of nursing homes, petitioned for review of the Board's determination that the Companies violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., by engaging in bad-faith bargaining with the Union. The Companies challenged two of the remedies the Board imposed: reimbursement of litigation costs incurred by both the Board and the Union during Board proceedings; and reimbursement of “all” of the negotiation expenses the Union incurred during its bargaining sessions with the Companies. The court concluded that the Board lacks authority to require the reimbursement of litigation costs incurred during Board proceedings. The court held, however, that the Board may require an employer to reimburse a union’s bargaining expenses pursuant to its remedial authority under section 10(c) of the Act. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Companies’ alternative challenge to the amount of the bargaining-costs award because they failed to raise it before the Board. Accordingly, the court granted the Companies’ joint petition in part and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement in part. View "Camelot Terrace, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Rhea Lana sought pre-enforcement declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department’s determination that it was out of compliance with the Act. The Department sent Rhea Lana a letter informing it that its failure to pay its salespeople violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 216(e)(2). The court concluded that the Department’s letter to Rhea Lana is final agency action because it is more than mere agency advice. By notifying Rhea Lana that the company was in violation of its wage-and-hour obligations, the court concluded that the letter rendered knowing any infraction in the face of such notice, and made Rhea Lana susceptible to willfulness penalties that would not otherwise apply. Therefore, the letter transmitted legally operative information with a “legal consequence” sufficient to render the letter final. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the suit. View "Rhea Lana, Inc. v. DOL" on Justia Law

IronTiger petitioned for review of the Board's determination that it failed to timely respond to a union request for information the Board deemed presumptively relevant, even though ultimately found irrelevant. The company claimed that the union was seeking to harass the company by asking for obviously burdensome and irrelevant material. The court rejected IronTiger's broad challenge to the Board's policy requiring an employee to timely respond to a union's request for information that is presumptively relevant. The court concluded, however, that the company's complaint may have been justified but the ALJ and the Board did not respond to this contention. Therefore, the Board must consider both the petitioner's defense and the implication of a rule that would permit a union to harass an employer by repeated and burdensome requests for irrelevant information only because it can be said it somehow relates to bargaining unit employees – without even a union’s statement of its need. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "IronTiger Logistics, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

HTH petitioned for review of five extraordinary remedies imposed by the Board after the Board determined that HTH committed a host of severe and pervasive unfair labor practices. Three of the remedies were adopted by the Board sua sponte and the remaining two were recommended by the ALJ but then modified by the Board. The court concluded that, because the company failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the Board, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the company's objections to all but two of the challenged remedies. As to these two, the court upheld the notice-reading remedy given the company's long history of unlawful practices and the severe violations the Board found in this case. However, the court vacated the attorney's fees because the Board lacks authority to shift litigation expenses under section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(c). View "HTH Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Employees of ManorCare selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. ManorCare objected to the election results, claiming several employees eligible to vote in the election threatened to physically harm other employees and harm their property - a circumstance the company alleges destroyed the “laboratory conditions” necessary for a fair and free election. On appeal, ManorCare challenged the Board's order requiring it to bargain with the union. The court concluded that the Board abused its discretion by finding that the threats did not create a "general atmosphere of fear and reprisal" according to the Board's own precedent. Because the Board arbitrarily departed from its own analytical framework for evaluating the allegations of third-party electoral misconduct, the court granted ManorCare's petition as to that issue. The court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement in all other respects. View "ManorCare of Kingston PA, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Regional Director issued a complaint alleging that petitioner had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(5), (1), by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union following Board certification. The Board granted summary judgment, holding that petitioner had violated the Act as charged. The Board disposed of petitioner's contention that the Union impermissibly deceived voters by distributing a campaign flyer pursuant to Midland National Life Insurance Co.; dismissed petitioner's claim that the Board Agent handling the election compromised the integrity of the election in various ways when, inter alia, she carried the election booth and the ballot box to petitioner’s parking lot to permit a disabled employee to cast a ballot, because there was nothing to indicate that the manner in which the election was conducted raised a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election; and petitioner was not entitled to a hearing on its objections because it failed to proffer evidence raising any substantial and material factual issues. The court concluded that the Board’s Decisions and Orders are neither arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, nor otherwise not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the cross-application for enforcement. View "Durham School Services, LP v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Noel Canning seeks review of the Board's decision and order determining that Noel Canning violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151-169, and ordering relief against it. Noel Canning argued that the court's disposition vacating a prior order in the same dispute left no authority with the Board to enter this further decision and order. The court concluded that the Board’s decision to reconsider the merits of the case and issue a new decision and order was not only consistent with this Court’s Noel Canning I mandate, but also reasonable and in furtherance of justice. The court noted that it is highly unlikely that the law would establish that a question properly presented to the labor board must pend forever if the board for procedural or quorum-related reasons invalidly entered its first order. Finally, in regard to the Board's cross-application for enforcement, Noel Canning does not contest the Board's finding that it violated the NLRA by refusing to reduce to writing and execute a collective bargaining agreement arrived at through collective bargaining with the union. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the cross-application for enforcement. View "Noel Canning v. NLRB" on Justia Law