ABM Onsite Services-West, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3974
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- ABM Onsite Services–West operates airport baggage handling under a PAC contract, while the Portland Airlines Consortium arranges operations at Portland International Airport.
- ABM is not owned by an air carrier, so the jurisdictional question is whether ABM is controlled by carriers, bringing it under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) rather than the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
- The NMB traditionally uses a six-factor test to determine carrier control: management of operations, access to records, involvement in personnel decisions, supervision, public appearance as carrier employees, and training control.
- In 2013–2014 the NMB began emphasizing a heightened focus on control over discipline and discharge, effectively narrowing the scope of what constitutes carrier control.
- The NLRB adopted the NMB’s recent test without a reasoned explanation for departing from longstanding precedent, leading to a jurisdictional ruling that ABM was not under RLA control.
- The court vacates the NLRB’s order and remands for further proceedings, holding that the NLRB’s unexplained shift from precedent renders its decision arbitrary and capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NLRB’s jurisdiction determination violated precedent | ABM argues NLRB departed from prior NMB precedent without explanation. | NLRB contends it followed NMB precedence on RLA jurisdiction. | Vacated; arbitrary and capricious departure from precedent. |
| Whether ABM falls under RLA control given six-factor test | Record shows substantial carrier influence over ABM’s personnel and operations. | NLRB found insufficient control under the NMB’s newer test focusing on discipline/control of firing. | Remanded for factual development; NLRB’s test rejected as unsupported by prior framework. |
| Whether NLRB could adopt NMB’s new approach without explicit justification | NLRB cannot adopt a shifted standard without reasoned justification. | NLRB relied on NMB’s rulings to interpret the RLA. | Vacatur; NLRB required to provide reasoned explanation or refer to NMB with justification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 526 F.3d 763 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (agency departure from precedent must be reasoned)
- Dupuy v. NLRB, 806 F.3d 556 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (need for reasoned justification when changing position)
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. NLRB, 682 F.3d 65 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (agency must explain departure from precedent)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (Supreme Court 2009) (reasoned justification required for agency actions)
- LeMoyne-Owen Coll. v. NLRB, 357 F.3d 55 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency must acknowledge shifts in precedent)
- Ramaprakash v. FAA, 346 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (no circumvention of precedent without explanation)
- Manhattan Ctr. Studios, Inc. v. NLRB, 452 F.3d 813 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (vacate arbitrary and capricious decisions lacking explanation)
- Hatch v. FERC, 654 F.2d 825 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (explicit recognition of changed standard required)