Paulsen v. PrimeFlight Aviation Servs., Inc.
16-3877 (L)
| 2d Cir. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- NLRB Regional Director James G. Paulsen sought a § 10(j) preliminary injunction requiring PrimeFlight Aviation Services to recognize and bargain with SEIU Local 32BJ as employees’ representative.
- The District Court (Cogan, J.) granted the petition in part and issued a preliminary injunction on Oct. 24, 2016; PrimeFlight appealed and Paulsen cross-appealed certain injunction terms.
- PrimeFlight argued it was not subject to the NLRA because it is an airline contractor and because it had not yet hired a “substantial and representative complement” when SEIU demanded recognition.
- The District Court found factual support that PrimeFlight had hired a substantial complement and that PrimeFlight’s refusal chilled employees’ collective-bargaining rights, justifying injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm.
- The court included a temporary prohibition on minimum-shift requirements in any agreement between PrimeFlight and SEIU but omitted a cease-and-desist order; the NLRB sought inclusion of a cease-and-desist provision on cross-appeal.
- The Second Circuit affirmed issuance of the injunction, upheld some injunction terms, reversed the omission of a cease-and-desist order, and remanded to add an appropriate cease-and-desist provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was reasonable cause to believe PrimeFlight committed unfair labor practices (i.e., subject to NLRA) | Paulsen: NLRB and NMB precedents support that contractors like PrimeFlight are covered; reasonable cause exists | PrimeFlight: contractors providing airline services are not subject to NLRA; recent NLRB/NMB shift is arbitrary | Held: Reasonable cause existed; numerous NLRB/NMB precedents supported Paulsen; not fatally flawed |
| Whether PrimeFlight had hired a "substantial and representative complement" by SEIU’s demand date | Paulsen: factual record shows job classifications filled and operation substantially normal | PrimeFlight: had not yet hired sufficient complement when recognition demanded | Held: District court’s factual findings supported substantial complement; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether § 10(j) injunctive relief was just and proper (irreparable harm) | Paulsen: PrimeFlight’s refusal chilled employees’ rights; delay would undermine bargaining | PrimeFlight: no convincing contradictory evidence that harm was irreparable | Held: Injunctive relief was just and proper to prevent undermining of collective bargaining rights |
| Whether terms of injunction were proper (minimum-shift prohibition; omission of cease-and-desist) | Paulsen: court may craft equitable relief and should include cease-and-desist; prohibition on minimum-shift allowed | PrimeFlight: challenged injunction issuance and terms | Held: Court did not abuse discretion in forbidding minimum-shift requirements; but erred by omitting a standard cease-and-desist order—remanded to add it |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaynard v. Mego Corp., 633 F.2d 1026 (2d Cir.) (standard for § 10(j) proceedings: reasonable cause and just/proper relief)
- Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Comm., 67 F.3d 1054 (2d Cir.) (deference to NLRB legal/factual theories)
- Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (U.S.) (factors for determining whether a substantial and representative complement was hired)
- Hoffman v. Inn Credible Caterers, Ltd., 247 F.3d 360 (2d Cir.) (irreparable harm standard in successorship § 10(j) cases)
- Seeler v. Trading Port, Inc., 517 F.2d 33 (2d Cir.) (cease-and-desist orders as standard part of § 10(j) preliminary injunctions)