Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The Board ordinarily consists of five members, but when the terms of three Board members expired, the seats remained unfilled from August 2010 and January 2012 until August 2013. In the intervening period where the Board itself could take no action because it had only two validly appointed members, the Board had delegated its authority to direct representation elections to its Regional Directors. At issue in this appeal is: if Regional Directors could continue to direct representation elections when their actions were “subject to eventual review by the Board,” did they also retain authority to direct representation elections when, as in this case, the parties agreed that a Regional Director’s actions would be final? The Board, concluding that the challenge to the Regional Director’s authority had been waived, did not reach the merits of the issue. Because the Board gave no interpretation to which the court might defer, the court remanded to enable the Board to render an interpretation as to whether, under the quorum statute, Regional Directors retained power over representation elections notwithstanding the lapse of a Board quorum in the circumstances presented by this case. View "Hospital of Barstow, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Orchestra petitioned for review of the Board's ruling that musicians in the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, regional orchestra are employees and thus entitled to join a union. The court noted that, on the one hand, the Orchestra’s extensive control over the means and manner of musicians’ performance, the fact that musicians’ work forms part of the Orchestra’s regular business, the hourly pay, and the limited opportunities for entrepreneurial gain suggest, as the Board found, that the Orchestra’s musicians qualify as employees. On the other hand, the musicians’ high degree of skill, the limited amount of time they work for the Orchestra, and the parties’ beliefs regarding the nature of the relationship indicate that the Orchestra’s musicians are independent contractors. The court concluded that, in circumstances like this, the court must defer to the Board's conclusion when it is presented a choice between two fairly conflicting views. The court noted that there is no conflict with the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Lerohl v. Friends of Minnesota Sinfonia. Although the court there held that musicians who played for a symphony orchestra on a temporary basis were independent contractors, that case arose in a very different situation than the one here. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Lancaster Symphony Orchestra v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Company challenged the Board's finding that the Company violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), for threatening an employee, as well as sections 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(1) for suspending and firing the employee. The Company principally contends that the Board misapplied the test in Wright Line, as articulated in Sutter East Bay Hospitals v. NLRB. The court concluded that Sutter East Bay is unhelpful to the Company, however, because evidence of an employer’s good faith belief suffices to meet the employer’s burden under Wright Line only if the employer acts on that belief as it normally would. Here, substantial evidence in the record supports the Board’s finding that the reasons given for suspending and firing the employee were pretextual because the Company’s conduct was not consistent with its policy and past practice. The court found the Company's remaining arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court denied the petition and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Fort Dearborn Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Board held that Dover Blackmer committed an unfair labor practice when it warned an employee, Tom Kaanta, to stop submitting "frivolous" information requests that his union had not authorized. The court concluded that the Board’s conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Here, the warning made plain it sought one thing - to stop Kaanta’s “continued,” “frivolous” information requests that the Board does not dispute were outside the scope of his steward duties and that his Union had expressly disapproved. No reasonable employee in Kaanta’s position could read it otherwise. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and denied the cross-application for enforcement. View "Dover Energy, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

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