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

The court affirmed vacatur of an arbitrator's ruling that Amtrak must reinstate an employee Amtrak fired for misconduct, holding that contractual provisions could not "add to nor subtract from" an Inspector General's investigative authority under the Inspector General Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 3 section 8G. In this case, Rule 50 of the collective bargaining agreement stated that the police department had established procedures to govern the conduct and control of interrogatories. The court explained that a federal court, reviewing an arbitration award, may refuse to enforce contracts that violate law or public policy. Rule 50, as applied to the Amtrak Inspector General, was such a contractual provision and the district court was right in refusing to enforce the arbitrator’s award based on that provision. View "National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Fraternal Order of Police" on Justia Law

The court denied Minteq's petition for review and affirmed the Board's finding that the company violated section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), by failing to afford the employees' union notice or an opportunity to bargain over Minteq's unilateral implementation of the requirement that new employees sign a Non-Compete and Confidentiality Agreement (NCCA). The court upheld the Board's determination that the implementation of the NCCA was a mandatory subject of bargaining, and that it was unlawful for Minteq to unilaterally implement the entire NCCA. The court also concluded that Minteq may not implement the Interference with Relationships or At-Will Employee provisions— regardless of whether they are covered by the collective bargaining agreement—because those provisions independently violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act. View "Minteq International v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Bellagio challenged the Board's decision and order determining that Bellagio violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), when it interfered with employee Gabor Garner's right to have a union representative present during an investigatory meeting; retaliated against him for invoking that right by placing him on "Suspension Pending Investigation" (SPI); unlawfully surveilled Garner after placing him on SPI; and then coercively prevented him from discussing his suspension with other employees. The court concluded that Bellagio did not violate Garner's Weingarten right to Union representation when a supervisor asked Garner to fill out a written statement after the employee had requested a Union representative; Bellagio did not unlawfully retaliate against Garner; Bellagio did not engage in unlawful surveillance; and the finding of unlawful coercion cannot stand. Accordingly, the court granted Bellagio's petition for review and denied the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Bellagio, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Allied, a commercial airline fuel service provider, challenged the Board's decision that Allied violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., by failing to recognize and bargain with the Union. The court held that Allied's petition failed to establish jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.; a constitutionally adequate Board panel's certification of the Union as the employees' representative cured any defect in the Board's earlier order; and substantial evidence supports the Board's statutory-supervisor classifications. The court concluded that the Board's decision was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Allied Aviation Service Comp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Board concluded that Banner unlawfully barred its workers from sharing information about salaries and employee discipline. The Board also determined that Banner unlawfully maintained a categorical policy of asking employees not to discuss certain kinds of human resources investigations. The Board reasoned that such investigative nondisclosure policies may only be applied on a case-by-case basis following a threshold determination that confidentiality was necessary to the particular investigation. Banner petitioned for review. The court concluded that the Board's invalidation of the Confidentiality Agreement was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court granted the Board's application for enforcement on this issue. However, because the record lacked substantial evidence that Banner actually maintained a categorical investigative nondisclosure policy, the court granted the petition for review and denied enforcement as to that portion of the Board's Order. View "Banner Health System v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a group of employees, during the period between the expiration of the operative collective bargaining agreement and the commencement of a new one, resigned from their union and sought to revoke their dues-checkoff authorizations. The Board rejected charges that the company and union had committed an unfair labor practice by continuing to check off union dues from petitioners' wages. The court vacated the Board's decision and remanded, explaining that the Board treated the case as a straightforward application of its precedent pertaining to the revocability of dues-checkoff arrangements. The court concluded that the circumstances of this case differed in significant ways from those in the precedent on which the Board relied. Because the Board's decision lacked an explanation of how the outcome of this case could be squared with the outcome of its precedent and governing law, the court could not sustain it. View "Stewart v. NLRB" on Justia Law

ABM petitioned for review of the Board's determination that the Union's effort to represent the workers who handle airline baggage was governed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., and not the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The court concluded that the Board violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(a), by applying a new test to determine whether the RLA applies, without explaining its reasons for doing so. Because an agency's unexplained departure from precedent was arbitrary and capricious, the court vacated the Board's order. In this case, the court held that the Board was not free to simply adopt the NMB's new approach without offering a reasoned explanation for that shift. The court explained that an agency cannot avoid its duty to explain a departure from its own precedent simply by pointing to another agency's unexplained departure from precedent. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, denied the Board's cross-application for enforcement, and vacated the order, remanding for further proceedings. View "ABM Onsite Services - West, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

29 of the bargaining unit's 54 employees had signed a decertification petition asking Scomas to withdraw recognition from the Union immediately if the petitioners make up 50% or more of the bargaining unit. Unaware that six employees had revoked their signatures, Scomas withdrew recognition from the Union. Consequently, the Union filed an unfair labor practice with the Board, and the Board ruled in favor of the Union. Scomas petitioned for review of the Board's order to recognize and bargain with the Union. The court concluded that Scomas violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. However, the court concluded that the Board abused its discretion in imposing a bargaining order. In this case, far from being deliberate or calculated, the court determined that Scomas's violation was unintentional and the company acted in good faith on a facially valid decertification petition. Because the bargaining order does not further the Act's purposes, the court granted the petition for review, denied the cross-application for enforcement, and vacated the bargaining order, remanding to the Board for the determination of a new remedy. View "Scomas of Sausalito v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant after he was terminated from his position as a cook, alleging that defendant retaliated against him for his previous complaints under Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 29 U.S.C. 660(c); under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C 12101 et seq.; and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 623(d). The court rejected plaintiff's claim that defendant fired him in retaliation for his filing of a complaint with OSHA, and declined to recognize a new implied cause of action under Section 11(c). The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that defendant's stated reason for firing plaintiff was a pretext for retaliation. In this case, the record lacks any direct or indirect evidence of retaliation. Rather, the record contained a plethora of evidence supporting defendant's stated reason for firing plaintiff: 13 violations of company policy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Johnson v. Interstate Management" on Justia Law

FedEx petitioned for review of the Board's conclusion that single-route FedEx drivers based at the Hartford, Connecticut terminal were "employees" under the National Labor Relation Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. In FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB (FedEx I), 563 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. 2009), this court held that single-route FedEx drivers working out of Wilmington, Massachusetts were independent contractors, not employees, as the latter term was defined in the Act. The court concluded that this current case was materially indistinguishable from FedEx I; the Hartford single-route FedEX drivers were independent contractors to whom the Act's protections for collective action did not apply; and the court granted FedEx's petitions, vacated the Board's orders, and denied the Board's cross-appeal for enforcement. View "FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB" on Justia Law