Grane Health Care v. National Labor Relations Board
712 F.3d 145
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Laurel Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center was a state-owned facility subject to Pennsylvania labor law; Grane Healthcare bought Laurel Crest and created Cambria Care to operate it, making labor relations subject to the NLRA.
- During the acquisition period (Sept–Dec 2009), Grane controlled operations and staffing decisions; Oddo, a Grane VP, oversaw hiring, and Grane personnel remained influential after transfer.
- After transfer (Jan 2010), Grane and Cambria Care refused to recognize or bargain with Local 1305 and SEIU; several employees associated with those unions were not hired.
- The Board charged Grane and Cambria Care with unfair labor practices under NLRA sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(3), and the ALJ held them as a single employer liable for those practices.
- The Board affirmed, finding (a) Grane and Cambria Care were a single employer; (b) duty to bargain with Local 1305 under the successorship doctrine; (c) 8(a)(3) violations for not hiring five former Laurel Crest employees; the Board issued enforcement despite petitioner's challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there substantial evidence Grane and Cambria Care are a single employer? | Grane did not control labor relations post-transfer. | Board’s single-employer finding supported by centralized control and common management. | Yes; substantial evidence supports single-employer status. |
| Is the successorship doctrine applicable to impose a bargaining duty with Local 1305 when the predecessor was a state entity not subject to NLRA? | Successorship cannot apply to impose NLRA duties on a private successor when predecessor was public. | Certification under Pennsylvania law provides sufficient majority support; successorship can apply to Public-to-private transitions. | Yes; Board acted consistently applying the successorship doctrine. |
| Did the Board correctly find a violation for refusing to hire five employees based on antiunion animus? | Hiring decisions were based on legitimate reasons, not union activity. | Evidence shows pretext and antiunion motivation; Board credibility findings should stand. | Yes; substantial evidence supports the 8(a)(3) violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987) (supports deference to Board rulings and framework for single-employer analysis)
- NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Pa., Inc., 691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982) (four-factor test for single-employer status)
- NLRB v. Emsing’s Supermarket, Inc., 872 F.2d 1279 (7th Cir. 1989) (multi-factor framework for single-employer analysis)
- Chester ex rel. NLRB v. Grane Healthcare Co., 666 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 2011) (discusses successorship to private entity and public-to-private transition)
- Lincoln Park Zoological Soc’y v. NLRB, 116 F.3d 216 (7th Cir. 1997) (majority support establishment methods under NLRA and state law similarities)
- Linden Lumber Div., Summer & Co. v. NLRB, 419 U.S. 301 (1974) (initial representation procedures and majority-support considerations)