Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The DC Circuit granted Tramont's petition for review in part, remanding for the Board to provide an explanation of the legal standard it applied when determining which subjects of mandatory bargaining were displaced by a successor's unilaterally imposed employment terms pursuant to National Labor Relations Board v. Burns International Security Services, Inc. The court denied the petition for review in all other respects. In this case, Tramont opted to exercise the right afforded certain successor employers under Burns to unilaterally set the rehired workers' initial terms and conditions of employment pending the negotiation of a new collective bargaining agreement. Tramont set out these initial terms in an employee handbook and argued that the provision in the employee handbook had reserved the company's right to implement layoffs and thus relieved it of its bargaining duty. View "Tramont Manufacturing, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the Board's finding that it violated the unilateral change doctrine and the duty to provide relevant information during negotiations with its employees' bargaining representatives, SEIU, 121RN, and UHW. At issue in this appeal were the unfair labor practice charges filed by 121RN. The DC Circuit agreed with the Board that petitioner breached its duty to bargain when it unilaterally terminated employee anniversary step increases after the expiration of the parties' agreement. The court also held that the Board's conclusion that 121RN had no duty to provide any further explanation to justify the relevance of its employee health care program information requests was supported by substantial evidence. View "Prime Healthcare Services-Encino LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff in an action alleging that his supervisors at the EPA discriminated against him because of his age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621–634. The court held that there was no excuse for plaintiff's noncompliance with an EEOC regulation requiring a federal employee to contact a counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory. In regard to plaintiff's timely claims of age discrimination, the court held that he failed to establish that he suffered an adverse employment action where each of his claims did not cause objectively tangible harm of the sort that would render them adverse employment actions. In regard to the retaliation claims, the court held that plaintiff failed to show a causal connection between the reassignment of his agents and his protected activities. View "Drielak v. Pruitt" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit denied a petition for review of the Board's finding that Local 58's policy on resignation and revocation of dues-deduction authorization was an unlawful restriction on its members' statutory rights. Rather, the court held that the Board's determination that Local 58's policy unlawfully restricted its members' rights was reasonable, in part because the Board reaffirmed that all procedural requirements were not barred. The court held that where the Board reasonably construed its precedents in concluding that Local 58's policy restricted members' rights to resign, it was not required under Scofield v. NLRB, 394 U.S. 423, 429 (1969), to weigh Local 58's interest. View "Local 58 v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Company petitioned for partial review of the Board's finding that it violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. At issue was whether the Board's finding that a dancer was discharged for engaging in protected concerted activity was supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. The DC Circuit held that, based on the current record, how the Board reconciled its conclusion on pretext and the credibility finding was unclear. Accordingly, the court remanded for clarification by the Board of its treatment of the ALJ's credibility finding and the Company's evidence that the contract decisions were non-pretextual. The court otherwise denied the petition for review save for the issues the Board requested to be remanded. View "David Saxe Productions, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit denied StaffCo's petition for review of the Board's order finding that it violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally discontinuing contributions to a Union pension plan upon the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. The court rejected StaffCo's defense that the Union expressly waived its right to bargain as to pension contributions, the Union impliedly waived its right to bargain by failing to diligently request bargaining; and it was impossible for StaffCo to continue making contributions because the pension plan would not have accepted the payments. Rather, the court held that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence where StaffCo did not deny that by failing to make pension contributions, it failed to meet its status quo obligations. View "StaffCo of Brooklyn, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

PruittHealth appealed the Board's finding that the company's refusal to bargain constituted an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), and order requiring the company to bargain with the union. The DC Circuit denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. The court held that the Board's adoption of the Regional Director's decision overruling PruittHealth's blocking and threats-related objections was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with Board precedent. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over PruittHealth's claim that the Board erred in dismissing its unlawful photographing objection. In this case, the company failed to raise the claim with the Board in representation proceedings, as required by Section 10(e) of the Act. View "PruittHealth-Virginia Park, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

In 2008 Oncor began installing smart meters that can report customers’ electricity usage remotely, eliminating the need for personal inspection and the associated labor costs. In 2012 a Texas Senate committee investigated whether smart meters have harmful effects on public health.” Reed, an Oncor “trouble man” who completed ad hoc repair jobs and responded to power outages, who was also the union's business manager and financial secretary, volunteered to testify. Reed signed the witness list as representing the union. During his brief testimony, Reed said he represented the local union and spoke of the meters burning, testified to receiving repair orders or damaged boxes after the meters burned, and spoke of experiences with disgruntled customers. Oncor investigated, concluded that Reed’s testimony was false, and terminated his employment. An ALJ found a violation of the National Labor Relations Act by interfering with Reed’s protected union activities. The NLRB affirmed. The D.C. Circuit remanded, directing the NLRB to clarify its decision under a two-prong test for assessing whether employees’ third-party appeals constitute protected concerted activity or amount to such detrimental disloyalty as to permit termination for cause. Even disparaging statements can enjoy protection where the communication indicates it is related to an ongoing dispute between the employees and the employers and the communication is not so disloyal, reckless or maliciously untrue as to lose protection. View "Oncor Electric Delivery Compan v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the Board's finding that PI was a successor employer and thus violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the union. The court upheld the Board's presumption of majority support for the union where there was "substantial continuity" between the two enterprises, the presence within the bargaining unit of a majority of employees who had previously worked for the predecessor, and the existence of an ongoing demand for collective bargaining on the part of the union. Therefore, the Board's determination that PI met the criteria for successorship was supported by substantial evidence. View "Publi-Inversiones de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

After Torres Advanced terminated Plaintiffs Elliott and Sickle's contracts when Elliott sought workers' compensation benefits under the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. 1651, and Sickle medically documented Elliott's claim, plaintiffs filed suit for breach of contract and common law torts. The DC Circuit held that the Act preempted Elliott's tort claims because they derived from his efforts to obtain Defense Base Act benefits. The court held, however, that the Act did not preempt Sickle's claims or Elliott's contract claim because those injuries arose independently of any claim for workers' compensation benefits. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sickle v. Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law