Wayneview Care Center v. National Labor Relations Board
398 U.S. App. D.C. 356
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Wayneview Care Center and Victoria Health Care Center operate nursing homes in New Jersey and share ownership.
- SEIU 1199 represents certified nursing assistants and related staff at both facilities.
- In 2005, contracts with the union were due to expire and successor negotiations began in February 2005 with consolidated bargaining.
- The union first proposed on May 10, 2005, seeking wage increases, more paid time off, health-plan changes, and pension changes.
- An August 18–19 marathon bargaining session produced concessions by both sides, yet the parties did not reach impasse and a final offer remained unsettled.
- The employers implemented their August 22 offer after signaling impasse, while the union prepared concerted activity and the August 12 notices preceded strikes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the parties reach bargaining impasse? | Wayneview/Victoria argue impasse existed on health insurance. | NLRB contends impasse not reached; ongoing fruitful negotiations. | Board's impasse finding upheld; no impasse. |
| Did unilateral implementation violate 8(a)(5)? | Wayneview/Victoria claim no final agreement or impasse; unilateral change violated law. | NLRB claims impasse justified unilateral changes. | Unilateral implementation violated 8(a)(5) and (1); upheld. |
| Were the lockouts lawful defenses or coercive under 8(a)(3)/(1)? | Lockouts were defensible to protect patient care. | Lockouts used to coerce union and bypass bargaining. | Lockouts unlawfully coercive; Board's ruling enforced. |
| Did promising decertification signatures violate 8(a)(1)? | Promised benefits to workers who signed decertification petition constituted interference. | Not disputed or argued otherwise; contested issue rendered moot. | Violation of 8(a)(1) upheld; decertification solicitation improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- TruServ Corp. v. NLRB, 254 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (duty to bargain; unilateral changes before impasse unlawful)
- Litton Fin. Printing Div., Inc. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1991) (standards for bargaining impasse and unilateral acts)
- Taft Broad. Co., 163 NLRB 475 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (contemporaneous understanding as factor in impasse)
- American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. NLRB, 395 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (impasse analysis and bargaining context)
- CalMat Co., 331 NLRB 1084 (NLRB 2000) (burden of proof on impasse; single-issue deadlock considerations)
- Sacramento Union, 291 NLRB 552 (NLRB 1988) (complete negotiation breakdown; single-issue deadlock criteria)
- Am. Ship Bldg. Co. v. NLRB, 380 U.S. 300 (U.S. 1965) (defensive lockouts and legitimate bargaining posture)
- Exxel/Atmos, Inc. v. NLRB, 147 F.3d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (employee decertification pressure and 8(a)(1) violations)