National Labor Relations Board v. ADT Security Services, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16107
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- ADT recognized Local Union 131 for Kalamazoo service employees for nearly 29 years under a defined unit.
- On May 19, 2008, ADT announced closing Kalamazoo and consolidating into Wyoming, withdrawing union recognition.
- After closure, Kalamazoo employees were reassigned to the Wyoming plant, continuing to service the same territory with largely unchanged terms.
- ADT kept the Kalamazoo facility leased and retained two nonunion sales employees; the collective bargaining agreement remained in effect until 2010.
- The Union filed unfair-labor-practice charges; the Board adopted a remedial order requiring recognition reinstatement and good-faith bargaining.
- The Board concluded the Kalamazoo unit retained its separate identity and remained an appropriate bargaining unit despite consolidation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kalamazoo servicemen remained an appropriate unit after consolidation | Board: unit retained identity and appropriateness. | ADT: unit collapsed into Wyoming; no separate unit. | Yes; Kalamazoo unit remained appropriate. |
| Whether ADT’s withdrawal of recognition and unilateral changes violated the Act | Board: withdrawal violated 8(a)(1)/(5) and remedial relief was warranted. | ADT: withdrawal lawful due to consolidation. | Board properly found violations and ordered remedies. |
| Whether the Board could modify the bargaining unit description in its remedial order | Board description reflects current employment realities and remains within authority. | Modification is beyond Board power and too vague. | Modification within Board’s power and appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 334 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2003) (substantial-evidence standard of review for Board findings)
- Frenchtown Acquisition Co. v. NLRB, 683 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2012) (substantial evidence and deference to Board factual findings)
- Williamson v. NLRB, 643 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2011) (limits on appellate review; deference to Board’s expertise)
- American Hosp. Ass’n v. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606 (1991) (Board’s remedial authority and permissible unit determinations)
- Armco, Inc. v. NLRB, 832 F.2d 357 (6th Cir. 1987) (community of interests test and deference to Board weighing)
- In re Comar, Inc., 339 NLRB 903 (1993) (remedial ordering and continued bargaining with relocated employees)
- NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1943) (Board’s broad remedial power and reliance on expert judgment)
- Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. NLRB, 319 U.S. 533 (1943) (standard for reviewing Board remedial orders)