Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Liberty appealed the district court's order compelling it to arbitrate its ongoing labor dispute with the Union. The district court determined that under the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the question of when the CBA expired had to be submitted to arbitration. The court concluded that the district court properly exercised its jurisdiction under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. 185(a). On the merits, the court concluded that, because expiration turns on impasse - and Liberty cannot make a clear showing that impasse occurred - the issue is plainly arbitrable under the terms of the CBA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "District No. 1, Pacific Coast v. Liberty Maritime Corp." on Justia Law

NBC petitioned for review of the Board's 2014 Decision and Order finding that NBC had violated sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (5), by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the Content Producers’ exclusive collective bargaining representative, and by failing to provide the Union with information necessary to the fulfillment of its duties. The court could not determine – either from the ARD’s decision or the Board’s decision adopting the Clarification Decision – how the Board determined that all NBC employees represented by NABET are part of a single, nationwide bargaining unit. The conclusion may or may not be right, but the reasoning supporting the Board’s judgment – in particular, the ARD’s application of Board precedent – is incomprehensible. The court denied both the petition for review and the Board's cross-application for enforcement and remanded the case for clarification. View "NBCUniversal Media, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that she was terminated by her former employer, the Hospital, based on racial discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The district court granted summary judgment to the Hospital. The court concluded that, by providing evidence that similarly situated non-black nurses were treated more favorably, plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding her termination, which ought to be resolved by a jury. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wheeler v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp." on Justia Law

The Carpenters Union and the Painters Union seek review of the Board's orders issued on September 30, 2010, contending that the Board’s findings with respect to the October 2, 2006 unfair labor practices are not supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded, however, that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding where, from the facts on the record, the Board reasonably concluded that, by filling out and signing the forms, the employees became obligated to pay dues prior to the time that they received a Beck notice. The court agreed with Raymond and the Carpenters that the Board erred in failing to address their contention that, on October 1, by virtue of their Confidential Settlement Agreement, the company and union had a lawful agreement under Section 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(f), that could not, without more, be vitiated by unfair labor practices that allegedly occurred on October 2. The court declined to consider the Painters’ principal claim that the Board abused its discretion in declining to require Raymond to provide alternate benefits coverage because the court's decision to remand on the remedy issue may render the claim moot. Finally, the court found no merit in the Painters Union's other claims. View "Raymond Interior Sys. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Alden Leeds seeks review of the Board's finding that it had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 58(a)(1), (3), by locking out its employees on November 3, 2009, without providing the employees with a timely, clear, and complete offer setting forth the conditions necessary to avoid the lockout. The court held that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that Alden Leeds violated the Act by locking out its employees on November 3, 2009, and thus denied Alden Leed's petition for review on this issue and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement. In this case, a reasonable factfinder, in considering the email the company sent to the Union, could conclude that the company's proposal to the Union regarding health care was unclear. The court also concluded that there are no extraordinary circumstances in this case which gives the court jurisdiction to address Alden Leed's claim that the Board erred in precluding it from litigating its backpay liability in a compliance proceeding. View "Alden Leeds, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Company, DHL, petitioned for review of the Board's finding that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158, by prohibiting nonworking employees from distributing union literature in the hallway of its facility. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that it was precluded from considering any direct challenge to the Board’s mixed-use presumption. In regard to the balancing of rights, the court concluded that while the Company may be able to dictate the terms of access to strangers, contractors, and other business invitees, “no restriction may be placed on the employees’ right to discuss self-organization among themselves, unless the employer can demonstrate that a restriction is necessary to maintain production or discipline.” The court rejected DHL's challenge to the "heightened" presumption purportedly employed by the ALJ and concluded that the Board’s mixed-use determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The court concluded that, given the absence of evidence that discipline, production, or security had been adversely affected, the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Finally, the court concluded that, under the circumstances, it was satisfied that the General Counsel proved the unfair labor practice, regardless of whether some employees who received the distribution were on the clock. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's application for enforcement. View "DHL Express, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 791 et seq., alleging that the District: (1) unlawfully refused to accommodate her disability, and (2) retaliated against her for requesting an accommodation by terminating her employment. The district court granted summary judgment to the District. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment against plaintiff's refusal-to-accommodate claim because she was not a qualified individual. The court also concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment against plaintiff's retaliation claim because she did not proffer any evidence proving that the actual reason for her termination was retaliatory. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Minter v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Salem petitioned for review of the Board's certification of a bargaining unit and its subsequent determination that Salem unlawfully refused to bargain. The court concluded that the hearing officer's (HO's) premature closing of the record was not an abuse of discretion. In this case, despite the Board’s unexplained failure to allow a party to submit evidence at a representation hearing, Salem has not, as it must, established prejudice. The court also concluded that neither the HO nor the General Counsel abused his discretion where Salem has not shown prejudice by the decision not to transfer for alleged ex parte communications; Salem failed to establish that the Board's error of granting the Union's Special Appeal was prejudicial; Salem does not explain how the Board’s issuance of the erratum order was ultra vires or how the order prejudiced it; and, assuming arguendo that the Board erred by not allowing Salem to use the Sub-Zero Freezer Co. exception, no prejudice resulted. The court concluded that, although the Board's proceedings contain a myriad of missteps, Salem has failed to establish prejudice. The court denied Salem's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Salem Hosp. Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Mike-sell's petitioned for review of the Board's determination that it violated Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(5), when it unilaterally instituted terms and conditions of employment for its employees represented by the Teamsters. The court concluded that, although it is clear that the Union wished to avoid an impasse, the court does not think the ALJ’s determination that the Union did not improperly delay bargaining sessions can be effectively challenged; Mike-sell's criticism of the ALJ’s reliance on bargaining that took place after the Company put into effect its offer is irrelevant; and the Board’s determination that an impasse had not been reached is a legitimate finding (a mixed question of fact and law). Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Mike-sell's Potato Chip Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Nova petitioned for review of the Board's finding that it violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1). Nova hired UNICCO to provide maintenance, landscaping, and janitorial services throughout its campus. The court concluded that the Board is entitled to summary enforcement of the uncontested portion of its order regarding the no-solicitation rule as applied to Nova’s own employees; the Board reasonably found that Nova violated section 8(a)(1) by prohibiting an UNICCO employee from engaging in handbilling on a campus parking lot; the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Nova's challenges to the Board’s application of New York New York, LLC d/b/a New York New York Hotel & Casino because Nova failed to urge them before the Board pursuant to NLRA 10(e); and an UNICCO Director’s questions, while at the work site, about a former UNICCO employee’s union activities were, under the circumstances, impermissibly coercive. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "NOVA Southeastern Univ. v. NLRB" on Justia Law