671 F.3d 1232
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Comau seeks review of an NLRB decision that found it committed a ULP under 8(a)(1) and (5) by unilaterally implementing its Company Plan for healthcare benefits.
- Comau and the Automated Systems Workers Local 1123 (Union) were at impasse over healthcare costs during 2008 negotiations.
- Comau proposed a Company Plan (for all employees) to reduce healthcare costs; Union proposed a Union Plan with no premiums for members.
- December 3, 2008 notices stated the last best offer would be implemented on December 22, 2008, with March 1, 2009 as the Company Plan’s effective change date for individuals.
- Comau implemented the last best offer on December 22, 2008, while continuing negotiations; the Company Plan’s broader terms were to take effect March 1, 2009.
- The ALJ and Board held that implementation on December 22, 2008 violated the NLRA because impasse did not exist then; the court reverses, holding implementation occurred December 22, 2008 and was permissible after impasse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Comau violated 8(a)(5) by unilateral implementation | Comau contends implementation was within proposed terms at impasse | Board held no, because impasse existed on Dec 22, 2008? | No; the court vacates, holding implementation on Dec 22, 2008 was permissible after impasse |
| Date of implementation of the Company Plan | Implementation occurred on Dec 22, 2008 as part of last best offer | Implementation occurred on Mar 1, 2009 when changes actually applied to employees | Implemented on December 22, 2008 |
| Whether there was impasse on December 22, 2008 | Impasse existed on Dec 22, 2008 | Record shows impasse on Dec 22; board acknowledged impasse existed then | Impasse existed on December 22, 2008 |
| Proper standard for implementing post-impasse changes reasonably within pre-impasse proposals | Unilateral changes may be upheld if encompassed by pre-impasse proposals | Unilateral changes during impasse are generally unlawful unless within accepted pre-impasse proposals | Employer may implement changes reasonably comprehended within pre-impasse proposals after impasse |
| Appropriate scope of deference in reviewing Board findings on implementation timing | Board relied on faulty “point of no return” theory | Board correctly applied precedent on impasse and implementation timing | Court grants petition; Board’s finding reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mail Contractors of America v. NLRB, 514 F.3d 27 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (employer may implement after impasse if changes are within pre-impasse proposals)
- Serramonte Oldsmobile, Inc. v. NLRB, 86 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (unilateral changes after impasse may be lawful if within pre-impasse proposals)
- TruServ Corp. v. NLRB, 254 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (definition of bargaining impasse and unilateral changes after impasse)
- Brooks Bros., 261 N.L.R.B. 876 (1982) (unilateral implementation tied to comprehensiveness of offer)
- ABC Auto. Prods., Corp., 307 N.L.R.B. 248 (1992) (unilateral change announced to be implemented can be effective earlier)
- Daily News of L.A., 315 NLRB 1236 (1994) (promises constituting established wage/benefit system limit unilateral changes)
- Jano Graphics Inc., 339 NLRB 251 (2003) (impasse timing and unilateral changes rule)
- Plainville Ready Mix Concrete Co., 44 F.3d 1320 (6th Cir. 1995) (pre-impasse proposals may govern implementation timing)