• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the NLRB’s request for rehearing of the Court’s earlier panel decision vacating the NLRB’s proposed rule requiring employers to post notices informing workers of their right to unionize. National Association of Manufacturers et al. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a petition by the NLRB and IAM for a rehearing on its ruling that President Obama’s January 4, 2012, recess appointments of Sharon Block, Terence F. Flynn, and Richard F. Griffin to the NLRB were invalid recess appointments that exceeded the President’s constitutional power. NLRB v. Enter. Leasing Co. Se. LLC.
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned a federal district court and ruled, 2-1, that a Michigan law restricting the use of project labor agreements (“PLAs”) did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The majority reasoned that “the legislation was passed in an effort to improve efficiency in government projects, not to regulate,” and that the law “specifically states that it is intended to provide for more economical, nondiscriminatory, neutral and efficient procurement of construction-related goods and services by this state and political subdivisions.” It also found that the law did not affect private parties or forbid PLAs outright. Mich. Ldg. & Contr. Trades Counsel v. Snyder.
  • A group of 13 child care providers appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit seeking an injunction to stop enforcement of Minnesota’s Family Child Care Providers Representation Act (a statute that allows child care providers in Minnesota who accept Child Care Assistance Program subsidies to vote on the issue of union representation) pending action by the U.S. Supreme Court on a challenge to a similar Illinois statute. The child care providers claim that the Minnesota law interferes with their constitutional rights by forcing them to accept and financially support union representation. A federal district court dismissed the matter as not ripe, reasoning that resolving the constitutional issue at present would force the court to predict the future.Parrish v. Dayton.
  • The Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a $150 million lawsuit brought by a proposed class of retired National Football League (“NFL”) players claiming intentional inference with prospective economic advantage stemming from the active players’ settlement of a lockout dispute. The federal district court dismissed the suit, finding that the active players’ behavior in negotiating allegedly subpar benefits for the retirees did not constitute tortious interference. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the “plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege facts establishing that they had a reasonable expectation that either prospective contractual relations or other economic advantage would result if they had been allowed to bargain independently with the NFL, or that defendants improperly interfered with any such expectation.” Carl Lee Eller et al. v. National Football League Players Association et al.
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Section 609 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) does not apply to elected union officers disciplined in their individual capacity. Stephanie Green, a female and African-American nuclear chemical operator and former elected president of a USW local in Washington State, sued the USW for, among other things, race and sex discrimination and retaliation under LMRDA Sections 101 and 102. The circuit court reasoned that because LMRDA Section 609 prohibits unions from retaliating against members of the union for exercising their LMRDA rights, and “[b]ecause the alleged retaliatory actions directed toward Green impinged only upon her status as a union officer, she may not seek redress for these actions under [Section] 609.” Green v. USW.
  • An NLRB Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that the GameStop C.A.R.E.S. – Concerned Associates Reaching Equitable Solutions – arbitration program, as unlawful for both California and non-California employees. The ALJ found that, among other things, the program’s rules were “overbroad” and that the program “unlawfully requires employees to waive their right to resolution of all employment-related disputes, by collective, representative, or class action in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the [NLRA].” The judge was not swayed by GameStop’s argument thatD.R. Horton was distinguishable because GameStop excluded matters within the NLRB’s jurisdiction from the “covered claims.” GameStop Corp., GameStop Inc., Sunrise Publications, Inc., and GameStop Texas Ltd.
  • An NLRB ALJ held that a regional director of the Board lacked “intellectual integrity” when he deferred processing of a workers’ charge under Dubo Mfg. Corp. because another union grievance was pending. An employee of BCI Coca-Cola Bottling of Los Angeles filed an NLRB charge against Coca-Cola concerning layoffs. The employee’s union, the United Industrial, Service, Transportation, Professional and Government Workers of North America, also filed a related grievance. The ALJ found the regional director should have pursued the worker’s charge underCollyer, which holds a failure to arbitrate results in dismissal, whereas under Dubo, the agency re-launches its investigation in cases where a grievance is not arbitrated or properly settled. Here, the ALJ held that a grievance settlement between Coca-Cola and the union met the standards for deferral, and the agency’s complaint should therefore be dismissed. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles.
  • An ALJ found that Interbake Foods LLC did not violate the NLRA when it fired seven union supporters during an organizing campaign. The ALJ reasoned that although Interbake did commit unfair labor practices, the union supporters were terminated for legitimate misconduct. The ALJ criticized the Board’s General Counsel for viewing the employer as “harboring an inalterable and depraved antipathy toward those of its employees who favored the union.” Interbake Foods LLC.
  • An NLRB ALJ ordered the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and two of its locals to cease threatening and inducing work stoppages at a marine terminal in Portland, Oregon, in an effort to force reassignment of the plugging, unplugging, and monitoring of refrigerated cargo containers. The judge reasoned that the union’s “work preservation claims” lacked valid contractual underpinning. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union (ICTSI, Inc.).
  • An ALJ ruled that an EMT’s posts on his former colleague’s Facebook wall constituted protected concerted activity and could not lawfully be made the subject of discipline. The EMT’s former colleague posted on Facebook that she had been terminated from the company for commenting to a patient about the condition of the medical vehicles. The EMT advised her, via Facebook post, to “think about getting a lawyer and taking them to court” and “contact the labor board too.” The judge reasoned that the EMT was “making common cause,” and the fact that his posts might have adversely affected the company’s business was not a valid defense. Butler Medical Transport LLC.
  • Indiana’s right-to-work law, which banned contractual union security clauses requiring union membership or dues payment as a condition of employment, was held unconstitutional by an Indiana state court. The judge reasoned that the law conflicted with Indiana’s Constitution, which forbids the demanding of services without proper compensation. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, plaintiff in the state law case, is also fighting the right-to-work law in federal court. James M. Sweeney et al. v. Gregory Zoeller et al.
  • AFL-CIO Local 236 and other local Wisconsin labor groups sued Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker et al., alleging that Wisconsin State Law Act 10, which limits government workers’ collective bargaining rights, restricts workers’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to association, assembly, and equal protection. The court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, reasoning that “[u]nder Act 10, general employees remain free to associate, and represented employees and their unions remain free to speak; municipal employers are simply not allowed to listen.” Laborers Local 236 AFL-CIO et al. v. Scott Walker et al.
  • An NLRB ALJ dismissed a majority of the claims against a restaurant operated by Copper River Boiling Springs LLC, reasoning there was no evidence that the restaurant fired two employees based on their union participation because the union was never mentioned in conversations between management and the employees. The ALJ expressed concern that the NLRB General Counsel brought the claims against the restaurant without any such evidence. While most of the labor law claims were dismissed, the ALJ did hold that the restaurant violated the Act when a supervisor asked an employee to keep him informed of union organization efforts. Copper River of Boiling Springs LLC.