Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Atrium at Princeton owned and operated a nursing home. The National Labor Relations Board (Board) held Atrium committed various unfair labor practices in connection with its negotiations for new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with SEIU 1199 New Jersey Health Care Union. The Board concluded Atrium did not bargain in good faith with the Union because the parties were not at an impasse when Atrium refused to bargain any further. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Atrium's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement, holding that Atrium violated sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to meet and to bargain with the Union, refusing to comply with the Union's information requests, and making various unilateral changes to the terms and conditions of employment.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought enforcement of an order finding Downtown BID (the Company), a non-profit business improvement corporation, committed an unfair labor practice when it refused to bargain with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (the Union) following an employee election. The Company contended that agents or supporters of the Union unlawfully threatened and harassed employees and otherwise engaged in electioneering that interfered with the fairness and outcome of the election. The NLRB overruled these objections and certified the Union. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the NLRB's application, holding (1) the NLRB's findings and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with NLRB precedent; and (2) therefore, the Company's subsequent refusal to bargain was therefore unlawful.

The Union challenged the constitutionality of a random drug testing policy applicable to all employees working at Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers operated by the U.S. Forest Service. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary and denied the Union's request for a preliminary injunction. The court concluded that the Secretary had failed to demonstrate "special needs" rendering the Fourth Amendment requirement of individualized suspicion impractical in the context of Job Corps employment. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.

The NLRB held that Du Pont engaged in an unfair labor practice by unilaterally implementing changes to its employee benefits program while it was between collective bargaining agreements with two local unions. Because the NLRB departed, without giving a reasoned justification, from its precedent allowing an employer unilaterally to change wages, hours, or working conditions when doing so was in keeping with the employer's past practice, the court granted Du Pont's petitions for review of the NLRB's order and denied the NLRB's cross-applications for enforcement.

After the Air Force announced it would conduct a reduction-in-force (RIF) at Luke Air Force Base, the Union made several proposals about how the RIF should be conducted and asked the Air Force to enter into negotiations. The Air Force claimed it had no duty to negotiate over three of the Union's proposals, prompting the Union to appeal the FLRA. The FLRA determined that the Air Force had an obligation to negotiate over two of the three disputed proposals and the Air Force subsequently petitioned for review of the unfavorable rulings. Because the Air Force's objections to the FLRA's rulings were either waived or unavailing, the petition for review was denied.

Plaintiff, a former employee of the Library of Congress, brought this action against, inter alia, his former supervisor (defendant), alleging that his termination for publication of articles critical of high-level public officials violated the First and Fifth Amendments and entitled him to damages relief under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that a Bivens action was not available under the circumstances of the case and that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Because the court concluded that the courts should not imply a new form of Bivens action on the facts of this case, the court reversed the order of the district court denying defendant's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff applied for a position as Director of the Library of Congress and when he was passed over for the job, he claimed that the Library of Congress violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. On appeal, defendant sought a new trial, arguing that the district court erred by instructing the jury that he had to prove that unlawful discrimination was the "sole reasons" for his non-selection. Although the court agreed that "sole reason" was not the correct standard, the jury instructions themselves corrected any error by defining "sole reasons" as "but-for" causation. The court recognized, however, that its recent Title VII employment discrimination cases have caused some confusion and the court took the opportunity to clarify the requirements the statute placed upon plaintiffs and the courts.

Trump Plaza sought review of an order of the Board, in which the Board concluded that Trump Plaza violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), by refusing to bargain with the Union. Trump Plaza conceded that it refused to bargain with the Union but claimed that the Board erred in certifying the Union. The court believed that the Trump Plaza dealers could not reasonably have read the leaflet or website at issue to suggest that the Board endorsed unionization. In regards to Trump Plaza's challenge to the mock card-check rally and its corresponding certification document, the court, deciding on the merits, held that the Board was plainly wrong to conclude that there was an "absence of evidence" of dissemination. Consequently, the court granted Trump Plaza's petition, vacated the Board's order, and remanded to the Board to assess the severity of the challenged conduct and to reassess the extent of the mock card-deck dissemination under its precedent.

The Union filed charges against the Company alleging that the Company had committed multiple unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3), (1), by suspending and discharging employees for engaging in protected "concerted activities." The Board found merit to virtually all of the charges and ordered the Company to undertake certain remedial actions. The court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement because substantial evidence and controlling precedent supported the Board's findings, and the Board's well-reasoned decision amply explained its judgment. The court amplified two points related to certain employees. Therefore, the court denied the Company's petition for review and granted the Board's application for enforcement.

This case arose out of an accident in which an 81-year-old truck driver for Bob Orton Trucking Co., was killed by a large pipe that fell off of his truck during a delivery to the Kennecott Utah Copper Mine. Petitioner was an independent contractor hired by the mine's owner, Kennecott to construct a tailings dam; it was responsible for receiving deliveries of materials such as the pipes in question. The MSHA cited petitioner for a violation of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. On review, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission upheld the citation, finding that petitioner, though not the principal operator of the mine, "supervised a process, the unloading of pipes," and that as a supervisor of that process it could be liable without fault for violations occurring in the process. Petitioner challenged that conclusion both as a matter of statutory interpretation and on the facts. The court held that, though the statutory structure invited considerable confusion, the Commission's conclusion was consistent with the Act and there was substantial evidence of its necessary findings.