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

Petitioner, a former pilot with Spirit Airlines, challenges the DoT's refusal to consent to the release of the urine sample it says petitioner produced for a mandatory drug test. Because the sample tested positive for controlled substances, petitioner lost his job and airman medical certificate. The court held that neither the DoT’s general rule against releasing urine samples for DNA testing, nor its refusal to release the sample in this case, is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-132, 105 Stat. 952. The court also held that petitioner's constitutional challenges to the rule fail. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Swaters v. DOT" on Justia Law

The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the union and Verizon provided for arbitration of disputes arising out of that agreement. After an arbitration panel interpreted the CBA in Verizon's favor, the union took the matter to the NLRB. After the ALJ ruled in favor of Verizon, the union appealed to the Board. The Board overruled the arbitration decision, determining that the union’s waiver of its members’ right to picket did not waive their right to visibly display pro-union signs in cars on Verizon property. The court concluded that, under the Spielberg-Olin standard, the arbitration panel’s decision in this case was not clearly repugnant to the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. First, the arbitration panel’s decision was susceptible to an interpretation consistent with the Act, because under the Act unions may waive their members’ right to display signs in cars on the employer’s premises. And second, the arbitration panel’s decision was not a “palpably wrong” interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the court concluded that the Board’s contrary decision was unreasonable. The court granted Verizon's petition for review and denied the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Verizon New England Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Petitioners seek review of the Board's finding that G/M and the Carpenters Union committed unfair labor practices. The court held this case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s consideration of the validity of the President’s recess appointments to fill vacancies on the Board in NLRB v. Noel Canning. Member Becker, who was on the Board panel in this case, had been appointed to the Board by the President during a 17-day intra-session recess of the Senate. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, this court held that Becker’s appointment was valid. The court removed the case from abeyance and now hold that the Board’s orders failed to provide a reasoned justification for departing from precedent. In this case, G/M and the Carpenters Union filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Board’s determination had ignored its holding in Coamo Knitting Mills, Inc. The court concluded that the Board’s order denying reconsideration relies solely on the absence of a claim of unlawful surveillance in distinguishing Coamo, not on any factual differences between the cases. Because the Board did not adequately distinguish Coamo and grant the petitions for review on that ground, the court need not reach the remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court granted the petitions for review, vacated the orders, and remanded. View "NLRB v. Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters" on Justia Law

The General Counsel issued a complaint against the union, alleging that the union violated federal labor laws by failing to tell Laura Sands when she began work at Kroger how much less in dues she would have to pay if she did not join the union. The Board dismissed the complaint. Sands petitions for review. The court joined the Second Circuit in holding that an unfair labor practice case is moot when the petitioner lacks an ongoing personal interest in the proceedings. Sands ended her relationship with the union when she quit her job at the grocery store in 2005, and her counsel conceded at oral argument that there is no reason to think she will work there again. Thus, even if posting a notice about the labor violation might affect a current store employee, it cannot redress Sands’ injury. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review as moot and vacated the Board's order under the court's equitable authority. View "Sands v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Aggregate Industries transferred work from one bargaining unit to another over the objections of the union representing both units. The ALJ found that because the company had bargained over the issue to impasse, it was entitled to make the change unilaterally. The Board held, however, that the company had merely transferred work and thus it had changed the scope of the bargaining unit. Therefore, the Board determined that the company no right to insist that the union bargain over the issue. The Board also held that even if the company had merely transferred work, it had not given the union a fair chance to bargain. The court disagreed and granted the petition for review and denied the application for enforcement of all aspects of the Board’s order addressing the company’s decision to transfer material hauling work. In this case, because the company had the right to unilaterally transfer material hauling work, the union acted improperly when it refused to fill the company’s dispatch order. Under Article 3 of the Ready-Mix Agreement, Aggregate therefore had the right to hire anyone it wanted, including its own drivers. Thus, Aggregate did not engage in unlawful direct dealing when it made its proposal to the construction drivers. The court upheld the Board's decision in a collateral matter. View "Aggregate Indus. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Companies, operators of nursing homes, petitioned for review of the Board's determination that the Companies violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., by engaging in bad-faith bargaining with the Union. The Companies challenged two of the remedies the Board imposed: reimbursement of litigation costs incurred by both the Board and the Union during Board proceedings; and reimbursement of “all” of the negotiation expenses the Union incurred during its bargaining sessions with the Companies. The court concluded that the Board lacks authority to require the reimbursement of litigation costs incurred during Board proceedings. The court held, however, that the Board may require an employer to reimburse a union’s bargaining expenses pursuant to its remedial authority under section 10(c) of the Act. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Companies’ alternative challenge to the amount of the bargaining-costs award because they failed to raise it before the Board. Accordingly, the court granted the Companies’ joint petition in part and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement in part. View "Camelot Terrace, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Rhea Lana sought pre-enforcement declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department’s determination that it was out of compliance with the Act. The Department sent Rhea Lana a letter informing it that its failure to pay its salespeople violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 216(e)(2). The court concluded that the Department’s letter to Rhea Lana is final agency action because it is more than mere agency advice. By notifying Rhea Lana that the company was in violation of its wage-and-hour obligations, the court concluded that the letter rendered knowing any infraction in the face of such notice, and made Rhea Lana susceptible to willfulness penalties that would not otherwise apply. Therefore, the letter transmitted legally operative information with a “legal consequence” sufficient to render the letter final. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the suit. View "Rhea Lana, Inc. v. DOL" on Justia Law

IronTiger petitioned for review of the Board's determination that it failed to timely respond to a union request for information the Board deemed presumptively relevant, even though ultimately found irrelevant. The company claimed that the union was seeking to harass the company by asking for obviously burdensome and irrelevant material. The court rejected IronTiger's broad challenge to the Board's policy requiring an employee to timely respond to a union's request for information that is presumptively relevant. The court concluded, however, that the company's complaint may have been justified but the ALJ and the Board did not respond to this contention. Therefore, the Board must consider both the petitioner's defense and the implication of a rule that would permit a union to harass an employer by repeated and burdensome requests for irrelevant information only because it can be said it somehow relates to bargaining unit employees – without even a union’s statement of its need. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "IronTiger Logistics, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

HTH petitioned for review of five extraordinary remedies imposed by the Board after the Board determined that HTH committed a host of severe and pervasive unfair labor practices. Three of the remedies were adopted by the Board sua sponte and the remaining two were recommended by the ALJ but then modified by the Board. The court concluded that, because the company failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the Board, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the company's objections to all but two of the challenged remedies. As to these two, the court upheld the notice-reading remedy given the company's long history of unlawful practices and the severe violations the Board found in this case. However, the court vacated the attorney's fees because the Board lacks authority to shift litigation expenses under section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(c). View "HTH Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Employees of ManorCare selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. ManorCare objected to the election results, claiming several employees eligible to vote in the election threatened to physically harm other employees and harm their property - a circumstance the company alleges destroyed the “laboratory conditions” necessary for a fair and free election. On appeal, ManorCare challenged the Board's order requiring it to bargain with the union. The court concluded that the Board abused its discretion by finding that the threats did not create a "general atmosphere of fear and reprisal" according to the Board's own precedent. Because the Board arbitrarily departed from its own analytical framework for evaluating the allegations of third-party electoral misconduct, the court granted ManorCare's petition as to that issue. The court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement in all other respects. View "ManorCare of Kingston PA, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law