Hubbel v. Patrish LLC
903 F. Supp. 2d 813
E.D. Mo.2012Background
- Petitioner is Acting Regional Director of NLRB Region 14; Respondent is an extended-stay hotel in St. Ann, Missouri with a former union contract with Unite Here Local 74.
- The 2010-2011 CBA covered all housekeeping employees, including inspectress Poetting and houseman Wholdmann; as of contract expiration, the unit consisted only of Poetting and Wholdmann (no other union members).
- Southside Temporaries provided labor for the unit work and, after the contract expired, Respondent subcontracted unit work and terminated Poetting and Wholdmann.
- Respondent did not sign a new union contract; the union filed unfair labor practices charges on May 11, 2012 alleging failure to bargain, unilateral subcontracting, termination, and withdrawal of recognition.
- A hearing before an ALJ occurred on August 27, 2012; no ALJ decision had issued at the time of the memorandum and order.
- Petitioner sought a temporary injunction under NLRA § 10(j); the court granted interim relief to preserve the status quo and remedial purposes pending Board proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether irreparable harm warrants § 10(j) relief | Petitioner: union rights and bargaining integrity are threatened by unit elimination and subcontracting. | Respondent: potential financial hardship and waivers negate irreparable harm; timely resolution possible. | Irreparable harm shown; relief warranted. |
| Whether petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits | Subcontracting outside unit and refusing to bargain violated 8(a)(1)-(5). | Respondent: bargaining rights may be waived or changed by conduct or contract language; not clearly prohibited. | Likelihood of success on merits found in petitioner’s favor. |
| Whether the balance of harms favors injunctive relief | Interim reinstatement and bargaining would preserve remedial purposes with minimal cost. | Reinstatement and back pay costs would financially devastate Respondent. | Balance of harms weighs in favor of injunctive relief. |
| Whether the public interest supports relief | Protects employees’ rights and preserves the Board’s remedial power. | Public interest not served if Respondent must cease operations unjustly. | Public interest supports granting relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. CL Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir.1981) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction)
- Sharp v. Parents in Community Action, Inc., 172 F.3d 1034 (8th Cir.1999) (definesDataphase factors and scope for §10(j) review)
- Osthus v. Whitesell Corp., 639 F.3d 841 (8th Cir.2011) (applies Dataphase with emphasis on factual findings for four-factor test)
- Porta-King Bldg. Systems, Division of Jay Henges Enterprises v. NLRB, 14 F.3d 1258 (8th Cir.1994) (waiver of bargaining rights requires clear and unmistakable showing; notice and opportunity to bargain required)
- UAW-DaimlerChrysler National Training Center and Local 512, Office and Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, 341 NLRB 431 (NLRB 2004) (faits accompli and bargaining duty interplay; timely bargaining required)