Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner seeks review of the Board's conclusion that petitioner's refusal to reinstate the striking workers was itself an unfair labor practice and order of reinstatement. The court denied the petition and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement, concluding that the Board’s categorization of the strike as an unfair labor practice strike is supported by substantial evidence showing that at least part of the employees’ motive to strike was petitioner’s unlawful refusal to reinstate an employee who had been unlawfully discharged. The court also concluded that the Board was reasonable in concluding that the employees’ respect for a prior contractual agreement did not convert their otherwise lawful strike into an unprotected partial strike, and ample evidence supports the Board's conclusion that the labor relations of two entities, SM and SMI, were centrally controlled. View "Spurlino Materials v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Hyundai challenged the Board's order invalidating five rules in the employee handbook maintained by Hyundai because the rules violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 157, 158(a)(1). The Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Canning made clear that the three Board members on the panel in this case were validly appointed, and the court restored the case to its active docket after placing it in abeyance. The court found that the Board had jurisdiction over the claims against four rules - ones that the complaint linked to the dismissal by asserting that Hyundai discharged an employee because of her violations of those rules. In regard to the fifth rule, however, the court concluded that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the General Counsel never alleged it to have played a causal role in the dismissal. Therefore, as to the four rules properly before the Board, the court enforced the Board’s order as to three but reversed as to the fourth. View "Hyundai Amer. Shipping Agency v. NLRB" on Justia Law