33 F. Supp. 3d 937
W.D. Tenn.2014Background
- Petitioner seeks a 10(j) temporary injunction against Kellogg for alleged unlawful lockout and insistence on impasse over non-mandatory bargaining terms at the Memphis plant.
- Memphis plant is covered by mutually consented Master Agreement (2012–2015) and a Memphis-only Supplemental Agreement (2010–2013).
- Kellogg proposed a revised Casual employee concept and wage/benefit changes; Union rejected, leading Kellogg to issue a Last/Best Offer and threaten lockout.
- Kellogg ultimately locked out on October 22, 2013; employees lost pay and health benefits.
- The court applies the “reasonable cause/just and proper” standard under § 10(j) and grants the petition to end the lockout and require bargaining in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Kellogg’s Casuals proposal effectively modify the Master Agreement terms? | Kellogg’s proposals would redefine Casuals to resemble Regulars and alter wage rates. | Casuals are non-mandatory; Kellogg may negotiate changes without violating the Master Agreement. | Yes; proposals would modify terms, giving rise to reasonable cause. |
| Is imposition of a lockout over non-mandatory bargaining terms unlawful? | Lockout to force changes violates §8(a)(1),(3),(5). | Non-mandatory subjects may be withheld absent mandatory bargaining. | Yes; lockout over non-mandatory terms violates the Act. |
| Is injunctive relief under §10(j) just and proper to restore status quo? | Injunction necessary to protect Board’s remedial powers and end ongoing harm. | Not specifically addressed beyond statutory framework. | Yes; relief granted to end lockout and require good-faith bargaining. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vanguard Fire & Supply Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 468 F.3d 952 (6th Cir.2006) (non-mandatory bargaining subjects; no duty to discuss alterations to a fixed-term contract)
- Teamsters Local Union No. 639 v. N.L.R.B., 924 F.2d 1078 (D.C. Cir.1991) (lockout coercion standards under §8(a)(1) and (3))
- Ahearn v. Jackson Hosp. Corp., 351 F.3d 226 (6th Cir.2003) (reasonable-cause/just-and-proper standard for §10(j) injunctions)
- Metropolitan Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 460 U.S. 693 (Supreme Court, 1983) (clear and unmistakable waiver standard; applied to casuals dispute here)
- Schaub v. West Michigan Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 250 F.3d 962 (6th Cir.2001) (standard for §10(j) injunctions; remedial focus)
- Kobell for and on Behalf of N.L.R.B. v. United Paperworkers, 965 F.2d 1401 (6th Cir.1992) (status quo and remedial purposes of §10(j) injunctions)
- Fleischut v. Nixon Detroit Diesel, Inc., 859 F.2d 26 (6th Cir.1988) (remedial powers and preservation of Board’s ability to act)