Children's Hospital & Research Center of Oakland, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
793 F.3d 56
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- Children’s Hospital of Oakland employed ~2,800 staff; SEIU was the bargaining representative until NUHW won an NLRB election and was certified on May 24, 2012.
- At the time NUHW replaced SEIU, three employee grievances arising under the expired SEIU collective-bargaining agreement remained unresolved.
- SEIU requested the Hospital to arbitrate those outstanding grievances; the Hospital refused because SEIU no longer represented the employees.
- SEIU filed unfair-labor-practice charges; the NLRB General Counsel prosecuted and an ALJ found the Hospital violated § 8(a)(5) by refusing to arbitrate “unfinished business.”
- The NLRB adopted the ALJ’s decision; the Hospital petitioned for review to the D.C. Circuit, which granted review, vacated enforcement, and remanded because the Board failed to address the tension between §§ 8(a)(5) and 9(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an employer must arbitrate grievances with a decertified (old) union under an expired CBA after a new union is certified | SEIU: Employer must arbitrate unfinished business under § 8(a)(5)/precedent (Nolde, Litton) | Hospital: § 9(a) exclusivity bars dealing with any union other than the newly certified majority representative | Court: Remanded — Board failed to reconcile § 8(a)(5) duty to arbitrate unfinished business with § 9(a) exclusivity; grant review and deny enforcement; remand to Board for reasoned interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolde Bros. v. Bakery Workers Local 358, 430 U.S. 243 (1977) (expired CBA claims are arbitrable under arbitration clause)
- Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) (arbitration under expired contract can satisfy bargaining duties)
- Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678 (1944) (once a majority selects a union, employer has a duty to deal exclusively with that union)
- NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175 (1967) (majority-rule principle central to federal labor policy)
- Emporium Capwell Co. v. W. Addition Cmty. Org., 420 U.S. 50 (1975) (majority voting reduces strife by preventing rival demands)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (agency must disclose grounds for its decisions to permit meaningful review)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes)