On behalf of two local IAM unions, Patterson Harkavy has prevailed in federal district court in a case challenging a labor arbitration decision.  This case arises from Plaintiff UGL UNICCO’s termination of union member Ronald Corbett.  UGL UNICCO provides facilities maintenance services at a tire plant in Wilson, North Carolina, owned by Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire.  Corbett was employed by UGL UNICCO and worked at the Bridgestone Plant.  Defendants Local 2541 and District 110 are constituent entities of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (“IAM”).  The IAM was represented in this case by Mike Okun and Narendra Ghosh.

The union challenged Corbett’s termination and the case was initially decided by an experienced labor arbitrator.  Corbett, a 34-year employee, did nothing wrong in getting fired, but was terminated without just cause because of Bridgestone’s unilateral decision.  This is commonly known as a persona non grata situation.  The arbitrator found that this firing violated the union’s contract with UNICCO, and award Corbett 68 weeks of pay as damages because she could not order Bridgestone to return him to work.  UNICCO challenged the arbitrator’s decision in federal court.

In his July 16, 2010 opinion, Judge Boyle affirmed the arbitrator’s award and granted the union’s motion to enforce it.  Judge Boyle reasoned:  Read more…

Categories: Judicial Decisions, Results Tags: Bridgestone, Eastern District of North Carolina, Federal Court, International Association of Machinists, Labor and Employment, Labor Arbitration, Michael Okun, Narendra Ghosh, Personan Non Grata, Results, UNICCO, Unions, Wilson

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions concerning whether particular issues had to be decided by an arbitrator or in federal court.  One care arose in the traditional area of labor arbitration between companies and unions; the second arose in the ever-growing area of employer-imposed arbitration agreements on regular employees.

In the first, Granite Rock v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Court ruled for the company, as ScotusBlog describes:

The parties had reached a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), but they disagreed about both when the CBA was formed and who should decide that question.  Today the Court, in an opinion by Justice Thomas, held that a court, rather than an arbitrator, should decide when the CBA was formed.  The Court explained that under the CBA, arbitration is required only when a dispute “arise[s] under” the agreement – which a dispute over when the CBA was formed does not.  The Court also held that the lower court properly declined to recognize a new federal common-law cause of action against the parent international union, which – according to the employer – tortiously interfered with the CBA.

In the second, Rent-a-Center v. Jackson, the Court sided with the employer, and held that the issue of unconscionability (a challenge to whether the arbitration agreement is valid in the first place), was to be decided by the arbitrator, as Workplace Prof Blog describes:

The Court held the issue was governed by the separability doctrine of Prima Paint: an arbitration agreement is assailable only if the arbitration agreement itself — not the overall agreement of which the arbitration is a part — is assailable on state-contract law grounds.  So far, so good for Jackson — until today, this separability doctrine has been applied only when an arbitration agreement was part of a broader (“container”) agreement that was not related to arbitration — e.g., an arbitration provision in a consulting-services contract or in a larger employment contract.  Jackson’s unconscionability argument was directed squarely at his arbitration agreement.

Today, however, the Court extended Prima Paint to hold that the arbitration agreement itself can be the container contract, and that unconscionability arguments must be directed toward specific provisions of the arbitration agreement.  Jackson’s unconscionability arguments, the Court held, were directed at the arbitration agreement generally, and therefore could not be grounds for voiding the arbitration agreement as a whole.

Read the whole post for its insightful analysis of how the Court erred, once again stretching the law to give a victory to employers over employees.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Arbitration Agreement, Case Commentary, CBA, Labor and Employment, Labor Arbitration, Teamsters, Unions, US Supreme Court

Two labor and employment decisions were released by the U.S. Supreme Court this past week.  In the first, City of Ontario v. Quon, the Court unanimously held (with Scalia concurring separately) that the government employer’s search of employee text messages was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.  Unlike private employers, public employers are constrained (somewhat) by the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions on searches and seizures in the workplace.  In this case, the city got a private company to release the full text messages of police officers because of their overuse of the texting plan.  Several messages were inappropriate and resulted in employee discipline.  Based on these particular facts, the Court found the search lawful, though it declined to articulate broader standards for public employer searches, especially of new electronic media.  More analysis found here and here.

In the second case, New Process Steel v. NLRB, the Court resolved the circuit split regarding whether the National Labor Relations Board could lawfully act with a two-member quorum because the three vacancies on the board had gone unfilled for so long.  A 5-4 majority (Stevens surprisingly joining 4 conservatives) rejected the Board’s argument, and held that the NLRA required 3 members to act.  The hundreds of decisions issued by the two-member board will probably have to be re-reviewed, though one hopes this could be expedited now that two of the vacancies have been filled by President Obama.  Board decisions can take a long time even extra without this delay, often to the detriment of workers and unions seeking to organize and bargain.  More analysis is here and here.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Fourth Amendment, Labor and Employment, Labor Board, NLRA, NLRB, Text Messages, Unions, US Supreme Court, Workplace Privacy

Yesterday, President Obama announced that he was bypassing the Senate and installing 15 appointees, including Craig Becker and Mark Pearce to the National Labor Relations Board.  As the NLRB has been working with only two of its five members, the installation of Becker and Pearce is certainly welcome news.  President Obama had nominated these highly qualified and well-respected lawyers last July, but Senate Republicans blocked their appointment process until now.

Categories: Legislative Action Tags: Craig Becker, Labor and Employment, Mark Pearce, NLRB, President Obama, Unions

The Fourth Circuit has recently published two labor law opinions, the first concerning whether an arbitrator exceeding his authority in resolving a grievance, and the second concerning whether to uphold a decision of the two-member National Labor Relations Board.

In PPG Industries v. ICWUC/UCFW, the union had filed a grievance because the company had failed to pay bonuses as set forth in the Bonus Plan to workers who had gone on strike.  At issue was whether the term “actively employed” in the Bonus Plan encompassed striking workers.  The arbitrator found that it did.  Courts must uphold the decisions of labor arbitrators unless they have exceeded their authority.  As the arbitrator here reasonably interpreted the Bonus Plan, his decision was upheld by the court.

In Naricott Industries v. NLRB, the Fourth Circuit considered the propriety of the two-member Board.  Because replacements for three of the NLRB’s board members have not been approved by Congress for quite some time, the Board has been operating with a two-member quorum.  As long as those two members can agree, the Board has been issuing decisions.  Whether the two-member board is actually authorized to act under the NLRA has been litigated in several circuits.  Two circuits have ruled that it is proper, while the DC Circuit has ruled that it is not.  The Fourth Circuit joined the majority, following the interpretation espoused by the Board as well as DOJ.  In any event, the Supreme Court will soon make a final decision on this issue.  In the remainder of the opinion, the court upheld the Board’s conclusion that the company had committed unfair labor practices by actively assisting an effort to decertify the union, and its order requiring the company to bargain with the union.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Arbitration, Case Commentary, Fourth Circuit, ICWUC, Labor and Employment, NLRA, NLRB, UFCW, Unions, US Supreme Court