Spectrum Health—Kent Community Campus v. National Labor Relations Board
647 F.3d 341
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Spectrum withdrew recognition from its union on January 7, 2008 after a petition indicated loss of majority support.
- The 2005 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Spectrum and Local 2600 purportedly expired April 1, 2008, but its cover page and body differed on dates.
- Extrinsic bargaining history and retroactivity provisions suggested the contract term began April 13, 2005, not January 1, 2005.
- Under NLRA precedent, a conclusive, irrebuttable presumption of majority status exists for the term of a CBA for up to three years.
- The ALJ and the Board found Spectrum violated 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) by withdrawing during the presumption period and by unilateral changes.
- Spectrum challenged before the DC Circuit; the Board sought enforcement of the bargaining-order remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the 2005 CBA term begin? | Spectrum argues January 1, 2005. | Board argues April 13, 2005. | Term began April 13, 2005. |
| Did Spectrum's January 2008 withdrawal violate the three-year presumption? | If term began Jan 1, 2005, presumption lapsed by 2008. | Presumption applies during term; unlawful withdrawal within period. | Withdrawal violated 8(a)(1)/(5) because presumption persisted through April 2008. |
| Whether Spectrum preserved objections to the bargaining order? | Spectrum raised objections timely. | Spectrum failed to raise specific objections before the Board in time. | Objections waived; court lacks jurisdiction to review bargaining-order rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 781 (1996) (conclusive presumption of union majority during term of a CBA)
- McDonald Partners, Inc. v. NLRB, 331 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (presumption purpose to foster industrial peace and stability)
- Shaw's Supermarkets, 350 N.L.R.B. 585 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (conclusive presumption applies for up to three years)
- Vincent Indus. Plastics, Inc. v. NLRB, 209 F.3d 727 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (three-year repose and exhaustion principles for objections)
- Parkwood Developmental Ctr., Inc. v. NLRB, 521 F.3d 404 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (preserves objections only if timely under Board rules)
- Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645 (1982) (§ 10(e) jurisdiction bar for objections not raised before the Board)