Harrell v. American Red Cross, Heart of America Blood Services Region
714 F.3d 553
7th Cir.2013Background
- ARC unilaterally changed terms and conditions of employment during certification delay; changes included merit-pay freeze, 401(k) matches, pension plan closure to new hires, health-insurance changes, promotion of team leaders, reassignments outside unit, PTO carryover limits, and non-unit employees performing unit work; Union elected 2007, certified 2010, objections delayed certification; Union attendance declined after changes; district court granted limited injunction only restoring merit-pay increases; case questioned whether broader rescission was warranted.
- NLRB and Union sought interim relief under § 10(j) pending Board proceedings; ALJ found § 8(a)(5) violation; district court found likelihood of success and irreparable harm, ordered rescission of merit-pay increases, issued temporary injunctions; ARC appealed seeking broader relief, NLRB sought full rescission of unilateral changes.
- Court ordered remand to grant interim relief sought by NLRB and to address remaining unilateral changes; ARC bears appellate costs; decision affirms in part, reverses in part.
- Legal question centers on § 10(j) factors: likelihood of success, irreparable harm to Union, adequacy of legal remedies, and public interest in bargaining process; whether district court properly limited relief.
- Outcome indicates rescission of merit-pay changes affirmed; district court’s denial of broader rescission reversed; remanded for full interim relief addressing all unilateral actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 10(j) relief required rescission of all unilateral ARC changes | ARC seeks full rescission to restore status quo | District court declined broader relief as impractical | Abuse of discretion; remand for full rescission and interim relief |
| Whether irreparable harm to the Union supported broader relief | Unilateral changes harmed union effectiveness and participation | Harm limited to back pay; not irreparable | Irreparable harm supported; remand for full relief |
| Adequacy of remedy at law in absence of injunction | Back pay insufficient to remedy union injury | Back pay suffices; final Board order adequate | Back pay insufficient; irreparable harm recognized; four factors met |
| Public interest in bargaining process and status quo restoration | Restoring status quo necessary to protect union | Cannot micromanage; issues for bargaining | Remand appropriate to restore status quo and protect union |
Key Cases Cited
- Electro-Voice, Inc. v. NLRB, 83 F.3d 1559 (7th Cir. 1996) (four-factor test for interim relief under § 10(j))
- Bloedorn v. Francisco Foods, Inc., 276 F.3d 270 (7th Cir. 2001) (adequacy of remedy at law; need for irreparable harm showing)
- Lineback v. Irving Ready-Mix, Inc., 653 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2011) (four-factor test and likelihood of Board success)
- Lineback v. Spurlino Materials, LLC, 546 F.3d 491 (7th Cir. 2008) (Board success; irreparable harm considerations)
- NLRB v. Parents & Friends of the Specialized Living Ctr., 879 F.2d 1442 (7th Cir. 1989) (employer acts at its peril when making unilateral changes pending certification objections)
- Taft Broad. Co., 163 NLRB 475 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (after bargaining to an impasse, unilateral changes allowed if within pre-impasse proposals)
- Kendall College, 228 NLRB 1083 (1977) (restoration of status quo; unilateral changes remedied by rescission)
- Innovative Comm’ns Corp., 333 NLRB 665 (2001) (rescission to restore pre-change conditions when improper unilateral changes occurred)
- Cal. Pac. Med. Ctr. v. NLRB, 87 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996) (considerations for remedial actions to restore status quo)
- Herman Sausage Co., 122 NLRB 168 (1958) (early authority on unilateral changes and union rights)