Chevron Mining, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
401 U.S. App. D.C. 393
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- CMI amended the NBCWA memorial periods clause to punish Union memorial days; memorial days are unpaid work stoppages permitted by the CBA with ten days total and notice requirements.
- Union exercised memorial days at North River Mine in 2004 to pressure CMI over arbitrable grievances; six memorial days caused substantial financial impact.
- CMI placed a one-time 6% bonus in 2004 but did not pay ongoing bonuses when memorial days occurred.
- CMI amended the bonus plan in February 2005 to withhold financial bonuses from Union-represented employees at any mine where a memorial day was called in a non-district-wide manner.
- Board found the amendment violated Wright Line by retaliating against protected union activity; petition for review filed by CMI and cross-enforcement sought by Board.
- Dissent argues memorial periods cannot override employer rights and that Arch of West Virginia supports a broader interpretation of memorial periods.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether memorial periods are protected activity under the NLRA. | Union contends memorial days are protected under the CBA. | CMI argues memorial periods have a limited, memorial/discipline purpose. | Yes; memorial days are protected to pressure disputes under the CBA. |
| Whether Wright Line applies to determine motive for the bonus-plan amendment. | GC showed protected activity motivated the action. | CMI would have amended for business reasons regardless of memorial days. | Yes; Board's Wright Line finding sustained; CMI failed to show same action would occur without protected activity. |
| Whether Section 10(e) jurisdiction bars consideration of objections not raised before the Board. | Not necessary to raise every objection at Board stage. | Section 10(e) requires Board-first consideration of objections. | Jurisdictional bar; Court cannot consider unraised objections despite Board omission. |
| Whether Union waived 8(a)(3) rights by the Letter of Agreement granting unilateral amendment power. | Union waived rights by agreement. | Waiver must be clear and explicit; no waiver here. | No waiver; unilateral amendment rights do not authorize unlawful motives. |
| Whether backpay remedy was proper or premature. | Remedy should align with actual losses. | Remedies may be addressed in compliance proceedings. | Remedy appropriate but tailored in compliance proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 414 U.S. 368 (1974) (implied no-strike obligation and arbitral process preference)
- NLRB v. City Disposal Sys., Inc., 465 U.S. 822 (1984) (protects rights under Section 7; actions to discourage protected activity violate 8(a)(3))
- Radio Officers’ Union v. NLRB, 347 U.S. 17 (1954) (discusses interference with protected union activities)
- Metro. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693 (1983) (employees’ protected rights; no-strike context in labor relations)
- Wright Line, 251 N.L.R.B. 1089 (1980) (burden-shifting framework to determine motive in 8(a)(3) cases)
- NLRB v. Transp. Mgmt. Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983) (supports Wright Line framework)
- Sw. Merck. Corp. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1334 (1995) (dual motive analysis in union-related adverse actions)