NLRB v. Mondelez Global LLC
5 F.4th 759
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Mondelez operates a Fair Lawn, NJ production plant whose production workers are represented by Local 719 (BCTGM); three prominent union officials were Nafis Vlashi (president), Claudio Gutierrez, and Bruce Scherer.
- In 2016 relations soured: union rallies, protests, and disputes over overtime and alleged unilateral changes to workplace rules (including short-term disability and new-hire access).
- Mondelez conducted an overtime/turnstile audit that focused on several employees, then suspended and discharged Vlashi, Gutierrez, and Scherer in June–July 2016 for alleged time-theft/turnstile falsification; the overtime study was thereafter abandoned.
- Mondelez unilaterally changed several terms/practices without bargaining: a stricter short-term disability return deadline, limiting private union access at new-hire orientation, and revised warehouse shift schedules.
- Local 719 requested employee disciplinary records and a full new-hire list; Mondelez provided partial or delayed responses (months later). The NLRB General Counsel charged Mondelez with unfair labor practices; an ALJ found violations, the Board affirmed, and Mondelez sought review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discharges of union officials violated § 8(a)(3)/(a)(1) (antiunion motive)? | Discharges were motivated by antiunion animus; officials were targeted because of visible union activity and temporal proximity to investigations. | Terminations were legitimate responses to time-theft/turnstile falsification discovered in overtime audit; no causal link to union activity; decisionmakers lacked knowledge of union activity. | Court upheld Board: substantial evidence supports that antiunion animus was a motivating factor and employer's explanation was pretextual. |
| Whether Mondelez unlawfully and materially changed short-term disability policy without bargaining? | New policy lengthened return delay (2–7 workdays) affecting wages; a mandatory bargaining subject; change was material. | Change was immaterial or permissible interpretation of contract language. | Court upheld Board: change was material and violated § 8(a)(5); "sound arguable basis" standard inapplicable to expired CBA. |
| Whether Mondelez unlawfully restricted union access to new hires? | Longstanding private one-hour meeting practice was eliminated, chilling union representation and solicitation. | Change was immaterial and analogous to permissive access rules applied uniformly. | Court upheld Board: elimination of private meeting was a material change to a longstanding practice and violated § 8(a)(5). |
| Whether Mondelez unlawfully changed warehouse shift schedules without bargaining? | Schedule alignment altered mandatory bargaining subject (hours); required bargaining. | Change was merely aligning under expired CBA language; permissible. | Court upheld Board: unilateral schedule change violated § 8(a)(5); employer cannot rely on "sound arguable basis" tied to expired CBA. |
| Whether Mondelez unreasonably delayed or failed to furnish requested information (disciplinary records and new-hire list)? | Requests were relevant and timely (predated unfair labor charge); information necessary for grievance/new-hire orientation; delays were lengthy and unexplained. | Production would constitute improper prehearing discovery and some info was confidential. | Court upheld Board: delays (months) and incomplete production were unreasonable; employer violated § 8(a)(5). |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright Line, Inc., 251 N.L.R.B. 1083 (N.L.R.B. 1980) (burden-shifting test for employer motivation in discrimination/discharge cases)
- NLRB v. Transp. Mgmt. Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1983) (Supreme Court endorsement of Wright Line framework)
- Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc. v. NLRB, 992 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2021) (standard of appellate review of Board factual findings)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (U.S. 2019) (review under the existing administrative record)
- NLRB v. Acme Indus. Co., 385 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1967) (employer duty to furnish information needed for collective bargaining)
- Nat'l Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 324 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2003) (low threshold for relevance of information requests)
- Woodland Clinic, 331 N.L.R.B. 735 (N.L.R.B. 2000) (examples where delays in providing information are unreasonable)