114 F.4th 519
6th Cir.2024Background
- Rieth-Riley Construction Co. is a Michigan highway contractor whose employees are represented by Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers.
- The collective bargaining agreement (the Road Agreement) expired in May 2018; negotiations since then have failed, mainly due to disputes over subcontracting and wages.
- During a strike in July 2019, there were incidents of alleged picket line misconduct, including a physical altercation between a striking union member and a truck driver.
- The Union requested information on Rieth-Riley's subcontracting percentage and detailed wage/benefit data for bargaining unit employees—requests which Rieth-Riley refused, leading to unfair labor practice charges.
- The NLRB's General Counsel issued complaints against both parties; after hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Rieth-Riley's refusals violated the NLRA and one incident of union picket misconduct was an unfair labor practice.
- The Board upheld the ALJ, and Rieth-Riley appealed, challenging both substantive rulings and the legitimacy of the NLRB General Counsel’s removal and actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presidential removal of NLRB General Counsel | Only removable for cause; removal by Biden was improper, invalidating subsequent complaints | President has plenary removal power over General Counsel | President may remove General Counsel at will; complaints were valid |
| Employer’s duty to provide requested information | Refused, citing irrelevance, confidentiality, ambiguity, and alleged bad faith by the Union | Information was relevant and necessary for bargaining; refusals violated NLRA | Rieth-Riley was required to provide requested information; violations found |
| NLRB prosecutorial discretion over charges | Withdrawal of picket misconduct allegations was improper and not reviewable | General Counsel has unreviewable discretion to issue/withdraw charges | Discretion to issue/withdraw complaints is unreviewable; only remaining allegations considered |
| Union picket line misconduct | Broader misconduct evidence should show more NLRA violations | Only conduct in the formal complaint should be ruled on, as others weren’t fully litigated | Only alleged and fully litigated misconduct ruled on; Board remedy sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Free Enter. Fund v. Public Co. Acct. Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010) (clarifies presidential removal power over executive officers)
- Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) (only two exceptions to presidential plenary removal power for executive officers)
- Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220 (2021) (statutory removal restrictions and agency head removal)
- Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) (permits removal restrictions on certain multi-member administrative bodies)
- Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979) (establishes employer’s duty to provide relevant information to unions in bargaining)
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975) (General Counsel’s non-reviewable prosecutorial discretion to file complaints)
- NLRB v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 497 F.2d 747 (6th Cir. 1974) (good faith bargaining requires full disclosure of relevant information)