Lineback v. Irving Ready-Mix, Inc.
653 F.3d 566
7th Cir.2011Background
- Irving Ready-Mix, Inc. engaged in delivering ready-mix concrete and was represented by Local Union 414 under a 2005–2010 CBA.
- When negotiations failed to yield a new agreement, the old CBA expired May 31, 2010 and drivers went on strike on June 1, 2010.
- After expiration, Ready-Mix announced it would no longer recognize the union and offered to hire drivers directly on terms consistent with the last offer.
- A number of drivers resigned from the union and the strike ended July 19, 2010 with lower wages/benefits for many drivers.
- The NLRB charged Ready-Mix with unfair labor practices; an ALJ found violations and the district court granted a 10(j) injunction to restore recognition and terms.
- The district court’s injunction was appealed, with the central issue being whether Ready-Mix could withdraw recognition under 8(f) or was governed by 9(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 10(j) injunction was proper | Director argues irreparable harm and likelihood of success warrant 10(j). | Ready-Mix contends injunction premature; issues hinge on 8(f) status and merits. | Affirmed 10(j) injunction; district court properly weighed irreparable harm and likelihood of success. |
| Whether Ready-Mix’s labor relationship falls under NLRA §8(f) or §9(a) | Board advances §9(a) control; no §8(f) showings satisfied. | Ready-Mix asserts §8(f) coverage as ready-mix construction-related employer. | Ready-Mix not §8(f); §9(a) applies, supporting withdrawal of recognition as an unfair labor practice. |
| Effect of §9(a) presumption after expiration of the CBA | Presumption that majority still supported the union persists post-expiration. | No rebuttal evidence of majority support; but §9(a) presumption governs unless §8(f) applies. | Presumption stands; withdrawal of recognition violated §8(a) absent §8(f) status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lineback v. Spurlino Materials, LLC, 546 F.3d 491 (7th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review for section 10(j) injunctions; four-factor framework)
- Francisco Foods, Inc. v. NLRB, 276 F.3d 270 (7th Cir. 2001) (protects enforceability of Board remedies in 10(j) context)
- Electro-Voice, Inc. v. NLRB, 83 F.3d 1559 (7th Cir. 1996) (preliminary-injunction standard and deference to Board findings)
- Kinney v. Pioneer Press, 881 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1989) (balance of harms and public interest in 10(j) determinations)
- Boire v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 479 F.2d 778 (5th Cir. 1973) (contextual support for injunctive relief under NLRA)