American Baptist Homes of the West v. National Labor Relations Board
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9970
D.C. Cir.2017Background
- Piedmont Gardens (American Baptist Homes of the West) fired a nursing assistant after an internal probe alleging he slept on duty; the union requested names, titles, and witness statements from the investigation.
- The NLRB found Piedmont Gardens unlawfully withheld the names and titles of three witnesses; that finding is not challenged on appeal.
- The Board applied Anheuser-Busch to exempt certain witness statements from disclosure and concluded two statements were exempt; Piedmont Gardens does not challenge that result.
- The Board found charge nurse Lynda Hutton’s statements were not protected by Anheuser-Busch because they were given as part of her job duties and without an assurance of confidentiality; the D.C. Circuit upheld that finding as supported by substantial evidence.
- The Board announced it would prospectively overrule Anheuser-Busch and apply the Detroit Edison balancing test to future claims of confidentiality for witness statements; Piedmont Gardens sought review of that prospective overruling.
- The court enforced the Board’s order as clarified (limiting the cease-and-desist to the Anheuser-Busch rule applied in this case) and dismissed Piedmont Gardens’ challenge to the Board’s prospective overruling for lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Piedmont unlawfully withheld witness names/titles | NLRB: withholding names/titles violated NLRA (need outweighs confidentiality) | Piedmont did not contest this issue on appeal | Finding of violation as to names/titles is not appealed and stands |
| Whether certain witness statements are exempt under Anheuser-Busch | Board/union: Anheuser-Busch does not protect statements given without confidentiality assurances | Piedmont: Hutton’s statement should be protected as a witness statement | Court: Substantial evidence supports Board’s finding Hutton wasn’t assured confidentiality; exemption inapplicable |
| Whether the Board reasonably limited Anheuser-Busch protection to statements motivated by confidentiality assurances | Board: later precedent requires assurance as motivation; this reading is reasonable | Piedmont: Board departed from Anheuser-Busch without basis | Court: Deferential to Board’s reasonable interpretation of its own precedent; upheld application here |
| Whether Piedmont has standing to challenge Board’s prospective overruling of Anheuser-Busch | Piedmont: Board’s cease-and-desist could subject it to contempt for future Detroit Edison-based violations — creates concrete injury | Board/Union: cease-and-desist should be read as limited to the rule actually applied (Anheuser-Busch); no present injury | Court: After clarifying order to apply only Anheuser-Busch here, Piedmont lacks standing to challenge the prospective overruling; challenge dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Acme Indus. Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967) (employer must provide information needed for bargaining representative to perform duties)
- Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979) (balancing test for disclosure against employer confidentiality interests)
- Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 237 N.L.R.B. 982 (1978) (NLRB decision generally exempting witness statements from disclosure)
- Mohave Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. NLRB, 206 F.3d 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (standard of review: substantial evidence and arbitrary/erroneous application of law)
- Ceridian Corp. v. NLRB, 435 F.3d 352 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (court defers to Board’s reasonable interpretation of its precedent)
- Tourus Records, Inc. v. DEA, 259 F.3d 731 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (agency must provide reasons for decision; failure is arbitrary and capricious)