24-1975
6th Cir.May 1, 2026Background
- After Trinity withdrew recognition of the union, the NLRB Regional Director sought and obtained a § 10(j) preliminary injunction requiring Trinity to resume bargaining. 1
- Quinn’s disaffection petition led Trinity to withdraw recognition, but the petition had defects and many signatures were recycled from an earlier petition. 2
- The Board later certified the union after the decertification election, yet Trinity still refused to bargain and the ALJ found unfair labor practice violations. 3
- The district court granted interim relief pending Board proceedings and Trinity appealed the injunction. 4
- The Sixth Circuit held the Director showed likely success on the merits but not irreparable harm, and reversed the injunction. 5
- Judge Boggs dissented, concluding the district court properly inferred irreparable harm from record evidence and would have affirmed. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for § 10(j) injunctions 7 | Kerwin met the Winter factors under Starbucks. | Trinity said the injunction failed Winter. | Winter applies; § 10(j) relief requires a clear showing on all factors. 8 |
| Likelihood of success on merits 9 | Trinity likely violated §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) by withdrawing recognition. | The disaffection petition showed loss of majority support. | Kerwin likely will succeed on the merits. 10 |
| Irreparable harm 11 | Refusal to bargain will erode union support and defeat later remedies. | No independent evidence showed certain, immediate irreparable harm. | Kerwin failed to clearly show irreparable harm. 12 |
| Delay in seeking relief 13 | Any delay was reasonable given investigation and complaint timing. | The delay undercut urgency and irreparable harm. | The delay weighed against injunctive relief. 14 |
| Balance of equities and public interest 15 | An injunction served industrial peace and the Act. | Equities and public interest favored Trinity and employee choice. | These factors were neutral and did not change the outcome. 16 |
Key Cases Cited
- Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 144 S. Ct. 1570 (U.S. 2024) (§ 10(j) petitions are governed by the traditional Winter preliminary-injunction test 17)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction requires likely success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest 18)
- EOG Resources, Inc. v. Lucky Land Management, LLC, 134 F.4th 868 (6th Cir. 2025) (abuse-of-discretion standard for preliminary injunction review 19)
- Memphis A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Hargett, 978 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 2020) (irreparable harm must be certain and immediate, not speculative 20)
- NLRB v. Galicks, Inc., 671 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2012) (unilateral withdrawal of recognition from a majority-supported union violates the NLRA 21)
- Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1996) (incumbent union presumptively enjoys majority support 22)
- Brooks v. NLRB, 348 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1954) (formal election results can displace informal repudiation during the certification period 23)
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (U.S. 2024) (courts exercise independent judgment in construing statutes administered by agencies 24)