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

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

The Regional Director issued a complaint alleging that petitioner had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(5), (1), by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union following Board certification. The Board granted summary judgment, holding that petitioner had violated the Act as charged. The Board disposed of petitioner's contention that the Union impermissibly deceived voters by distributing a campaign flyer pursuant to Midland National Life Insurance Co.; dismissed petitioner's claim that the Board Agent handling the election compromised the integrity of the election in various ways when, inter alia, she carried the election booth and the ballot box to petitioner’s parking lot to permit a disabled employee to cast a ballot, because there was nothing to indicate that the manner in which the election was conducted raised a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election; and petitioner was not entitled to a hearing on its objections because it failed to proffer evidence raising any substantial and material factual issues. The court concluded that the Board’s Decisions and Orders are neither arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, nor otherwise not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the cross-application for enforcement. View "Durham School Services, LP v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Noel Canning seeks review of the Board's decision and order determining that Noel Canning violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151-169, and ordering relief against it. Noel Canning argued that the court's disposition vacating a prior order in the same dispute left no authority with the Board to enter this further decision and order. The court concluded that the Board’s decision to reconsider the merits of the case and issue a new decision and order was not only consistent with this Court’s Noel Canning I mandate, but also reasonable and in furtherance of justice. The court noted that it is highly unlikely that the law would establish that a question properly presented to the labor board must pend forever if the board for procedural or quorum-related reasons invalidly entered its first order. Finally, in regard to the Board's cross-application for enforcement, Noel Canning does not contest the Board's finding that it violated the NLRA by refusing to reduce to writing and execute a collective bargaining agreement arrived at through collective bargaining with the union. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the cross-application for enforcement. View "Noel Canning v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Board ordinarily consists of five members, but when the terms of three Board members expired, the seats remained unfilled from August 2010 and January 2012 until August 2013. In the intervening period where the Board itself could take no action because it had only two validly appointed members, the Board had delegated its authority to direct representation elections to its Regional Directors. At issue in this appeal is: if Regional Directors could continue to direct representation elections when their actions were “subject to eventual review by the Board,” did they also retain authority to direct representation elections when, as in this case, the parties agreed that a Regional Director’s actions would be final? The Board, concluding that the challenge to the Regional Director’s authority had been waived, did not reach the merits of the issue. Because the Board gave no interpretation to which the court might defer, the court remanded to enable the Board to render an interpretation as to whether, under the quorum statute, Regional Directors retained power over representation elections notwithstanding the lapse of a Board quorum in the circumstances presented by this case. View "Hospital of Barstow, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Orchestra petitioned for review of the Board's ruling that musicians in the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, regional orchestra are employees and thus entitled to join a union. The court noted that, on the one hand, the Orchestra’s extensive control over the means and manner of musicians’ performance, the fact that musicians’ work forms part of the Orchestra’s regular business, the hourly pay, and the limited opportunities for entrepreneurial gain suggest, as the Board found, that the Orchestra’s musicians qualify as employees. On the other hand, the musicians’ high degree of skill, the limited amount of time they work for the Orchestra, and the parties’ beliefs regarding the nature of the relationship indicate that the Orchestra’s musicians are independent contractors. The court concluded that, in circumstances like this, the court must defer to the Board's conclusion when it is presented a choice between two fairly conflicting views. The court noted that there is no conflict with the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Lerohl v. Friends of Minnesota Sinfonia. Although the court there held that musicians who played for a symphony orchestra on a temporary basis were independent contractors, that case arose in a very different situation than the one here. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Lancaster Symphony Orchestra v. NLRB" on Justia Law