Sutter East Bay Hospitals v. National Labor Relations Board
402 U.S. App. D.C. 91
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Sutter East Bay Hospitals operated multiple California facilities where SEIU and NUHW competed for representation.
- NUHW gained traction with Griffith, an SEIU steward, supporting NUHW and facing management scrutiny.
- Two cafeteria-related incidents (Feb 17 water spill; Mar 20 and Mar 23 meetings) led to disciplinary and security responses.
- The hospital changed its solicitation policy on March 20–23 to restrict NUHW activities and deployed private security.
- Griffith was disciplined for the water spill, removed from the cafeteria, and ultimately terminated after the March 24 tirade.
- The ALJ found multiple unlawful practices (surveillance, policy change, and discipline), and the Board largely adopted these findings but with contested credibility and standard applications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the solicitation-policy change violated the Act | Sutter East Bay unlawfully changed policy to hinder NUHW. | Hospital controlled access and could regulate nonworking-areas; prior practices differ. | Affirmative; Board enforcement upheld. |
| Whether Griffith's discipline was unlawfully motivated by pro-NUHW activity | Wright Line framework shows anti-union motive and causation in discipline. | Employer had good-faith beliefs or reasonable beliefs justifying discipline. | Initial ruling deficient; remand required to apply proper Wright Line analysis. |
| Whether the Wright Line test was properly applied to the March 23 and 24 incidents | ALJ correctly applied Wright Line to protect against anti-union discipline. | ALJ failed to assess good-faith beliefs and proper factual bases. | Vacate and remand for proper Wright Line application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1978) (cafeteria solicitation balance and patient-care considerations)
- NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, Inc., 442 U.S. 773 (U.S. 1979) (balance in patient-care areas versus cafeterias)
- Wright Line, Inc., 251 N.L.R.B. 1083 (NLRB 1980) (burden-shifting test for disciplinary actions related to protected activity)
- Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1964) (Burnup & Sims test for conduct during protected activity)
- Allentown Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1998) (duty to draw all reasonable inferences from evidence)
- Detroit Newspaper Agency v. NLRB, 435 F.3d 302 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (reasonableness of employer investigations under Wright Line)
- Shamrock Foods Co. v. NLRB, 346 F.3d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (application of Wright Line framework in discrimination cases)