Fedex Freight, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
816 F.3d 515
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- FedEx Freight terminals in Charlotte, NC and Croydon (East Philadelphia), PA employed city drivers, road drivers, and dockworkers; drivers require commercial licenses and are primarily full‑time, while many dockworkers are part‑time and do not drive.
- Teamsters locals petitioned the NLRB to represent bargaining units consisting of city and road drivers; FedEx argued dockworkers should be included.
- The NLRB regional director applied the two‑step Specialty Healthcare framework: (1) assess whether the petitioned unit is a readily identifiable group sharing a community of interest, and (2) require a heightened showing that excluded employees share an "overwhelming community of interest" to mandate inclusion.
- The regional director found the driver units appropriate and that FedEx failed to show dockworkers shared an overwhelming community of interest with drivers; the Board denied review, drivers won elections, and FedEx refused to bargain.
- The Board’s general counsel sought enforcement; FedEx petitioned for judicial review arguing Specialty Healthcare violates the NLRA, Eighth Circuit precedent, and the APA. The Eighth Circuit denied FedEx’s petitions and enforced the Board’s orders to bargain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (FedEx) | Defendant's Argument (NLRB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Specialty Healthcare two‑step test | Test improperly departs from §9(b) precedent and isolates union‑proposed unit | Test applies traditional community‑of‑interest factors first and then a longstanding heightened showing to include excluded employees | Specialty Healthcare is a permissible interpretation of §9(b); not a material departure from precedent |
| Whether Specialty Healthcare gives controlling weight to union organization (§9(c)(5)) | The framework effectively presumes union‑proposed units and makes organization controlling | Board may consider organization but not give it controlling weight; heightened step only applies after prima facie showing | Does not violate §9(c)(5); extent of organization is not controlling under the framework |
| APA challenge to adoption by adjudication rather than rulemaking | Board should have used notice‑and‑comment rulemaking to announce the overwhelming‑community standard | Board may announce new principles in adjudication; followed reasoned analysis and precedent | No APA violation; adjudication was permissible under Bell Aerospace |
| Application to facts: whether dockworkers must be included with drivers | Dock and driver work sufficiently integrated (esp. in East Philadelphia) such that dockworkers share an overwhelming community of interest | Drivers and dockworkers have distinct jobs, qualifications, terms (e.g., CDL requirement, part‑time vs full‑time), and limited interchange; employer failed to prove overwhelming community of interest | Substantial evidence supports excluding dockworkers; Board’s certifications of driver units upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013) (upheld Specialty Healthcare framework and rejected claim it precluded employer challenges)
- Blue Man Vegas, LLC v. NLRB, 529 F.3d 417 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (describes prima facie appropriateness and heightened showing for excluded employees)
- NLRB v. St. Clair Die Casting, LLC, 423 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for Board unit determinations)
- Cedar Valley Corp. v. NLRB, 977 F.2d 1211 (8th Cir. 1992) (community‑of‑interest factors cited by the court)
- NLRB v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 380 U.S. 438 (1965) (extent of organization may be considered but not controlling)
- NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267 (1974) (agency may announce new principles in adjudication rather than rulemaking)