Teamsters Local Union No. 455 v. National Labor Relations Board
765 F.3d 1198
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Teamsters sued Harborlite alleging unlawful threat to hire permanent replacements during a lockout violated NLRA §158(a)(1).
- Harborlite’s lockout occurred during bargaining; it threatened permanent replacements but later kept them temporary and permitted some return-to-work after three months.
- NLRB issued an order finding the threat unlawful but declined to deem the lockout itself unlawful or award backpay.
- Union challenged the Board’s decision, arguing the lockout was tainted and that the Board should rely on broader precedent.
- Court previously paused for Noel Canning issues about Board quorum; Noel Canning later clarified recess-appointment authority relevant to this case.
- Court ultimately proceeds to merits, holding the Board acted within established precedent and denying the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Harborlite’s threat to hire permanent replacements taint the lockout? | Teamsters: threat renders lockout unlawful. | Harborlite/Board: no automatic taint absent material effect on negotiations. | No; threat alone did not render the lockout unlawful. |
| Is the Board’s “materially affect progress” standard correct? | Teamsters rely on broader unlawfulness. | Board relies on Peterbilt precedent that material effect required. | Held the Board’s standard was not arbitrary and is consistent with precedent. |
| Did concerns about Board composition affect jurisdiction or merits? | Union argues appointment issues may affect review. | No bar to review; Noel Canning cures or does not bar merits here. | We proceed to merits; Board composition did not block review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Ship Bldg. Co. v. NLRB, 380 U.S. 300 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1965) (lockouts permitted to pressure settlement; temporary replacements allowed during lawful lockouts)
- Serv-Air, Inc. v. NLRB, 395 F.2d 557 (10th Cir., 1968) (support for temporary replacements during lockouts)
- NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1965) (contractual replacement during strikes and lockouts; relevant NLRA balance)
- NLRB v. Int’l Van Lines, 409 U.S. 48 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) (permits replacement workers to keep operations running during strikes)
- NLRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1967) (permitting permanent replacements in some contexts)
- NLRB v. MacKay Radio & Tel. Co., 304 U.S. 333 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1938) (classic rule on replacements during strikes)
- Passavant Memorial Area Hospital, 237 N.L.R.B. 138 (NLRB, 1978) (repudiation assurances concept in coercive conduct cases)
- Grondorf, Field, Black & Co., 318 N.L.R.B. 996 (NLRB, 1995) (insufficient repudiation not necessarily separate violation)
- Ancor Concepts, Inc., 323 N.L.R.B. 742 (NLRB, 1997) (restrained to limited context; not addressing unconsummated threats)
- Globe Bus. Furniture, Inc., 290 N.L.R.B. 841 (NLRB, 1988) (withholding information case; different context)
- KLB Industries, Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 8 (NLRB, 2011) (withholding information context; distinguishable from present case)
- Noel Canning v. NLRB, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (S. Ct., 2014) (recess appointments during intra-session recesses; cures some defects but leaves questions)