Dodge of Naperville, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
418 U.S. App. D.C. 31
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Burke Automotive closed its Naperville dealership, moving six Naperville union mechanics to the Lisle site with reduced pay/benefits.
- Burke refused to recognize or bargain with the Union over the effects of the relocation or the unit’s representation.
- The Union filed NLRA charges; the ALJ found multiple unfair-labor-practice violations, including unlawful withdrawal of recognition.
- Board upheld most findings and ordered bargaining measures; one member dissented on the withdrawal-of-recognition issue.
- Burke challenged the Board’s conclusions, the unit determination, and the Board’s composition; the court reviews for substantial evidence and deference to Board rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to bargain over effects of relocation | Union contends Burke violated the duty to bargain over relocation effects | Burke argues there was no obligation to bargain and unit issues were unresolved | The Board’s finding of unlawful effects bargaining violation affirmed |
| Appropriateness of Naperville unit after relocation | Union argues Naperville unit remained distinct despite relocation | Burke argues the merged unit with Lisle should prevail | Board reasonably refused to disregard the historic Naperville unit; substantial evidence supported distinct unit thereafter |
| Withdrawal of recognition after relocation | Union asserts withdrawal without effects bargaining was unlawful | Burke claims withdrawal was permissible if majority no longer supported the unit | Withdrawal deemed unlawful; unit-control context supported by Board’s reasoning |
| Board composition at decision | Burke contends insufficient Board membership affected validity | Becker’s recess appointment status challenged but not dispositive | Panel’s decision upheld; intra-session recess did not invalidate the Board’s authority |
| Scope of permissible bargaining and potential remedies | Union could discuss any lawful topics and proposals | Employer could resist non-mandatory topics or alternative arrangements | Board’s framing of mandatory topics was reasonable; bargaining order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- First Nat'l Maint. Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (U.S. 1981) (duty to bargain over effects of plant decisions; meaningful bargaining required)
- United Food & Commercial Workers Local 540 v. NLRB, 519 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (broad deference to Board on unit determination and effect of relocations)
- Comar, Inc., 349 N.L.R.B. 342 (NLRB 2007) (compelling circumstances in unit modification; consideration of unilateral changes)
- Comar, Inc. (Comar I), 339 N.L.R.B. 903 (NLRB 2003) (prohibits employer from benefiting from unlawful unilateral changes in unit analysis)
- Holly Farms Corp., 311 N.L.R.B. 273 (NLRB 1993) (factors for community of interest; consideration of wage/benefit changes)
- Trident Seafoods, Inc. v. NLRB, 101 F.3d 111 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (compelling circumstances standard in community-of-interest analysis)
- Southern Power Co. v. NLRB, 664 F.3d 946 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (recognition of compelling circumstances standard; stability of historical units)
- NLRB v. Action Automotive, Inc., 469 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1985) (Board broad discretion in determining appropriate bargaining unit)
- Brown Truck & Trailer Mfg. Co., 106 N.L.R.B. 999 (NLRB 1953) (unit transfer cannot bargain for all employees at new facility; limits on representation)