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

Mike-sell's petitioned for review of the Board's determination that it violated Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(5), when it unilaterally instituted terms and conditions of employment for its employees represented by the Teamsters. The court concluded that, although it is clear that the Union wished to avoid an impasse, the court does not think the ALJ’s determination that the Union did not improperly delay bargaining sessions can be effectively challenged; Mike-sell's criticism of the ALJ’s reliance on bargaining that took place after the Company put into effect its offer is irrelevant; and the Board’s determination that an impasse had not been reached is a legitimate finding (a mixed question of fact and law). Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Mike-sell's Potato Chip Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Nova petitioned for review of the Board's finding that it violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1). Nova hired UNICCO to provide maintenance, landscaping, and janitorial services throughout its campus. The court concluded that the Board is entitled to summary enforcement of the uncontested portion of its order regarding the no-solicitation rule as applied to Nova’s own employees; the Board reasonably found that Nova violated section 8(a)(1) by prohibiting an UNICCO employee from engaging in handbilling on a campus parking lot; the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Nova's challenges to the Board’s application of New York New York, LLC d/b/a New York New York Hotel & Casino because Nova failed to urge them before the Board pursuant to NLRA 10(e); and an UNICCO Director’s questions, while at the work site, about a former UNICCO employee’s union activities were, under the circumstances, impermissibly coercive. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "NOVA Southeastern Univ. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks review of the Board's conclusion that petitioner's refusal to reinstate the striking workers was itself an unfair labor practice and order of reinstatement. The court denied the petition and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement, concluding that the Board’s categorization of the strike as an unfair labor practice strike is supported by substantial evidence showing that at least part of the employees’ motive to strike was petitioner’s unlawful refusal to reinstate an employee who had been unlawfully discharged. The court also concluded that the Board was reasonable in concluding that the employees’ respect for a prior contractual agreement did not convert their otherwise lawful strike into an unprotected partial strike, and ample evidence supports the Board's conclusion that the labor relations of two entities, SM and SMI, were centrally controlled. View "Spurlino Materials v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Hyundai challenged the Board's order invalidating five rules in the employee handbook maintained by Hyundai because the rules violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 157, 158(a)(1). The Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Canning made clear that the three Board members on the panel in this case were validly appointed, and the court restored the case to its active docket after placing it in abeyance. The court found that the Board had jurisdiction over the claims against four rules - ones that the complaint linked to the dismissal by asserting that Hyundai discharged an employee because of her violations of those rules. In regard to the fifth rule, however, the court concluded that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the General Counsel never alleged it to have played a causal role in the dismissal. Therefore, as to the four rules properly before the Board, the court enforced the Board’s order as to three but reversed as to the fourth. View "Hyundai Amer. Shipping Agency v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, Amtrak, alleging that it discriminated against him because of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and District of Columbia law. The district court granted summary judgment to Amtrak. After the engine plaintiff was driving passed a stop signal at the rail yard and was forced off the rails by a safety derailer, Amtrak fired him and suspended his engineer certificate. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that no jury could reasonably conclude based on the evidence in the record that Amtrak was motivated by plaintiff's race to take the adverse actions of which he complains. View "Burley v. Nat'l Passenger Rail Corp." on Justia Law

In NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Supreme Court determined that the Board lacked authority to act during the time that three of its five members held office via appointments that violated the Recess Appointments Clause. At issue here is whether a Regional Director of the Board had authority to conduct a union election and certify its result during that same time. The court affirmed the Board's decision that the Regional Director had authority to conduct the election. The court concluded that the Board’s interpretation of its authority was reasonable, and the court was bound to defer to the Board’s reasonable interpretation of the statute it is charged to administer. Accordingly, the court denied UC Health's petition for review and affirmed the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "UC Health v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Anderson Lumber petitioned for review of the Board's determination that Anderson Lumber unlawfully withdrew recognition from a union. The court concluded that the district court did not unreasonably find that four of the eight employee statements upon which Anderson Lumber relied as its sole ground for withdrawal of recognition failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that those particular employees wanted to end union representation altogether rather than merely end their own membership in the union; the court rejected Anderson Lumber's claim that the Board wrongly barred it from bolstering its position with post-withdrawal evidence; and the court rejected Anderson Lumbers' remaining arguments, concluding that the Board was not unreasonable in finding that, in so doing, Anderson ran aground on the shoals of an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, the court denied Anderson Lumber's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Pacific Coast Supply, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Mystic, operator of a nursing home, petitioned for review of the Board's order granting summary judgment against Mystic and rejecting, among other things, Mystic's arguments that the Hearing Officer had made substantive and procedural errors. The court deferred to the Board's reasonable interpretation that the lack of a quorum at the Board does not prevent Regional Directors from continuing to exercise delegated authority that is not final because it is subject to eventual review by the Board; substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Mystic’s efforts to limit a supervisory employee’s effectiveness and its own anti-union campaign cancelled out the employee’s efforts on the Union’s behalf and preserved the environment necessary for a valid representation election; the Board was entitled to conclude that the election result challenged here was valid; and the Board’s ultimate conclusion as to the propriety of the election remains valid regardless of whether the employee was acting as an agent of the Union. Accordingly, the court denied Mystic's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-petition for enforcement. View "SSC Mystic Operating Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Three associations of home care agencies filed suit challenging the Department's extension of the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., minimum-wage and overtime provisions to employees of third-party agencies who provide companionship services and live-in care within a home. The district court invalidated the Department’s new regulations, concluding that they contravene the terms of the FLSA exemptions. The court concluded, however, that the Supreme Court's decision in Long Island Care at Home Ltd. v. Coke, confirms that the FLSA vests the Department with discretion to apply (or not to apply) the companionship-services and live-in exemptions to employees of third-party agencies. Therefore, the Department’s decision to extend the FLSA’s protections to those employees is grounded in a reasonable interpretation of the statute and is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for the grant of summary judgment to the Department. View "Home Care Ass'n v. Weil" on Justia Law

The union petitioned for review of the Board's conclusion that the union committed unfair labor practices by operating a hiring hall that helped only its own members gain employment. The union operated a referral service for drivers seeking jobs in the entertainment production business in South Carolina. The dispute in this case stems from the employment of drivers for the television show called "Army Wives." The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusions that the union’s referral list was open only to its members, that the union refused to refer Thomas Coghill for employment because he was not a member, and that the union would not have added Coghill to its list even it had remained open because he was not a member. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Teamsters Local Union No. 509 v. NLRB" on Justia Law