Oberthur Technologies of America Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14341
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Oberthur Technologies’ Exton, PA plant faced a 2012 organizing campaign by Teamsters Local 14M; the parties executed a Stipulated Election Agreement for a secret-ballot election covering full-time employees in 15 departments.
- In the lead-up to the September 7, 2012 election, Oberthur told supervisors to restrict union-related discussions on the plant floor and froze two discretionary wage-benefit programs ("Spot Bonuses" and scheduled "Wage Increases").
- The election produced a narrow union victory on the non-impounded ballots (108–106); three challenged ballots (including two cast by engineers DiTore and Sahijwana) were impounded and could be determinative.
- The union filed unfair labor practice charges; an ALJ found violations of NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) for the speech restriction and benefit freeze, and sustained challenges to the two engineers’ ballots as cast by "professional employees."
- The NLRB adopted the ALJ’s findings, certified the union for the stipulated unit (excluding the engineers’ ballots), and later found Oberthur unlawfully refused to bargain after certification. Oberthur petitioned for review; the D.C. Circuit denied review and enforced the Board’s orders.
Issues
| Issue | Oberthur's Argument | NLRB / Union's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forbidding union-related discussion on the plant floor violated § 8(a)(1) | Restriction was a legitimate work-rule/non-solicitation measure and not enforced; no evidence of chilling or discipline | The rule singled out union speech while permitting other non-work topics, so it had a reasonable tendency to coerce Section 7 activity | Court upheld § 8(a)(1) violation: rule likely to chill union-related discussion absent a substantial business justification |
| Whether freezing discretionary wage benefits during the campaign violated §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) | Freeze was permissible because programs were discretionary; action was status-quo management of benefits | Freeze was motivated by the union campaign, and some increases/bonuses were already approved/scheduled; employer failed the narrow exception (did not state sole purpose was neutrality and guarantee post-election payment) | Court upheld § 8(a)(1)/(3) violations and deferred to Board’s make-whole/backpay remedy (identification/amount to be resolved at compliance) |
| Whether DiTore and Sahijwana were "professional employees" under § 2(12) | Company argued ALJ/Board applied a one-size-fits-all standard and mischaracterized their duties | Board applied § 2(12) factors to each engineer’s duties (intellectual, varied work; exercise of discretion; nonstandardizable output; advanced education) and found them professionals | Court found substantial evidence supports Board: both engineers are professionals and properly excluded from the non-Sonotone unit |
| Whether a Sonotone (special) ballot was required and failing to provide one invalidated the election | Even if engineers were professionals, Oberthur argued denial of Sonotone ballots rendered the election invalid | Board: parties’ stipulated (non-Sonotone) ballot language and Oberthur’s failure to timely object meant the party intent was enforced; Sonotone objection was untimely (raised months after the 7-day deadline) | Court held the Sonotone objection was untimely and waived; certification stands |
| Whether Oberthur’s refusal to bargain after certification violated §§ 8(a)(1) and (5) | Oberthur refused to bargain to preserve election objections | Board found refusal to bargain and denial of information unlawful after valid certification | Court enforced Board: refusal to bargain violated §§ 8(a)(1) and (5) and ordered bargaining/information production |
Key Cases Cited
- Quicken Loans, Inc. v. NLRB, 830 F.3d 542 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (employees’ Section 7 communication rights include discussion of collective action)
- Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1978) (Section 7 protects employee communications about organizing)
- Tasty Baking Co. v. NLRB, 254 F.3d 114 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (totality-of-circumstances test for coercive employer statements)
- ITT Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 251 F.3d 995 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (employer warnings restricting union discussion violate § 8(a)(1))
- Banner Health Sys. v. NLRB, 851 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (employer must show substantial business justification to justify a rule that burdens Section 7 activity)
- Federated Logistics & Operations v. NLRB, 400 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (status-quo rule on benefits during representation proceedings)
- Perdue Farms, Inc. v. NLRB, 144 F.3d 830 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (employers may not withhold wage increases because of organizing)
- NBCUniversal Media v. NLRB, 815 F.3d 821 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (deference to Board’s application of professional-employee criteria)
- A.J. Tower Co. v. NLRB, 329 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1946) (timely challenges and commingling rules for ballots)
- Manhattan Ctr. Studios, Inc. v. NLRB, 452 F.3d 813 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (seven-day deadline for election objections promotes finality)
- Sundor Brands, Inc. v. NLRB, 168 F.3d 515 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (untimely election objections are waived)
- Scepter, Inc. v. NLRB, 448 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (courts decline to decide remedial methodology when Board reserves calculation to compliance)
- E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. NLRB, 489 F.3d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (same)
- San Miguel Hosp. Corp. v. NLRB, 697 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (refusal to bargain after valid certification violates §§ 8(a)(1) and (5))