District Hospital Partners, L.P. v. NLRB
141 F.4th 1279
| D.C. Cir. | 2025Background
- The dispute centers on collective bargaining negotiations between The George Washington University Hospital (Hospital) and 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (Union) for a successor agreement after the expiration of a 2012–2016 agreement.
- The Hospital advanced three core proposals: an expansive management rights clause, a no-strike clause, and elimination of binding arbitration—collectively reducing employee rights below statutory baselines.
- The Union objected, stating these proposals would strip workers of basic protections and leave them worse off than if no contract existed.
- After protracted and deadlocked negotiations, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge, alleging the Hospital engaged in bad faith surface bargaining under Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the NLRA.
- An ALJ found for the Union; the NLRB initially reversed but then vacated its decision due to a panel member’s financial conflict of interest, and on rehearing, reinstated the ALJ's decision.
- The Hospital petitioned for review, objecting to both substantive and procedural aspects of the Board’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hospital) | Defendant's Argument (NLRB/Union) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hospital bargained in good faith or engaged in bad faith surface bargaining | Hospital simply engaged in hard bargaining and sought legitimate concessions | Hospital’s rigid, cumulative proposals amounted to surface bargaining and intent to frustrate agreement | For Defendant: Hospital’s conduct constituted bad faith surface bargaining |
| Whether Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and law | Evidence does not establish bad faith; Board misapplied law | Sufficient evidence and proper application of totality-of-conduct test | For Defendant: Board’s findings upheld |
| Whether vacatur of initial Board decision due to member's financial conflict was appropriate | Vacatur unnecessary; no actual bias or influence | Conflict required recusal and vacatur to preserve fairness | For Defendant: Vacatur appropriate and within Board's discretion |
| Whether participation of Member Prouty on reconstituted panel presented appearance of bias | Prouty’s past union role created at least a perceived conflict | No actual conflict; past union involvement unrelated to current dispute | For Defendant: No disqualification needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Teamsters Loc. Union No. 515 v. NLRB, 906 F.2d 719 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (rigid adherence to disadvantageous proposals may infer bad faith in bargaining)
- NLRB v. Blevins Popcorn Co., 659 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (objective indicia of bargaining in bad faith)
- NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956) (objective context of negotiations is key to determining bad faith)
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. NLRB, 441 F.2d 1005 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (insistence on particularly disadvantageous proposals may show bad faith)
- Regal Cinemas, Inc. v. NLRB, 317 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (employer may not unilaterally assign or divert bargaining unit work)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (recusal required where financial interest creates appearance of bias)