Ninth Circuit: Anthony Sanders, et al. v. County of Ventura

Where, under a voluntary flexible-benefits reimbursement scheme, an employer retains as healthcare-related administrative fees some portion of the funds disbursed to an employee who has opted out of the employer's health insurance scheme, although the deduction is listed as a deduction from earnings, it is not part of the base salary used to calculate overtime wages under the statute, because the statute specifically exempts funds paid to a third party for an employee-related health scheme.

As a rulemaking that purported to set a hard ceiling for the amount of the employer's reservation contradicted an earlier holding, made no textual changes to the rule, and was based on determinations considered in the earlier case, the earlier holding controls.

Anthony Sanders, et al. v. County of Ventura

Sixth Circuit: Laborers' Int'l Union of N.A. v. Terease Neff

 The court whose employees have joined a union is a state, not county, entity for purposes of sovereign immunity, given its constitutional and statutory designation within the state.  The fact that the state has mandated that the county fund the operations of the court and that the county has discretion in setting the salary levels of the employees supports this, as the mandate is from the state.  As the elected state judge exercises ultimate authority in discharging and retaining employees and sets salaries in the first instance, the employment functions of the court are a state matter.  

The Contracts Clause is an insufficient basis for S1983 claims.  

A Takings Clause injunction would require that there was no remedy sounding in contract; mere breach of contract doesn't state a claim for damages under the Clause.  

CBA term in preamble holding that it remains in force until union is decertified or another agreement is reached insufficient to defeat as a matter of law a specific end date in the terms.

Laborers' Int'l Union of N.A. v. Terease Neff

Eleventh Circuit: Ridgewood Health Care Center, Inc., et al v. National Labor Relations Board, et al

 

Board's decision that the rehiring interviews by the allegedly successor organization were unduly coercive was insufficiently reasoned, as the legal standard wasn't identified and the relevant factors weren't reviewed.  Where both the Board and the ALJ issue unsupported decisions, but the facts are apparent in the record, the issues can be addressed on appellate review.  As the questions were answered truthfully, there was no systematic attempt to inquire as to union membership, and no interviewee suggested coercion, the second employer did not unduly coerce during rehiring.  

Second employer's statement that they might have to close the facility if it were to become unionized wasn't in itself a threat, and it was insufficient to demonstrate animus relevant to the refussal to hire members of the union. (The statement was also too attenuated in time and after the fact.)

Anumus of a lower-level supervisor can't be attributed to the decisionmakers who declined to hire the union members.

Absent the discriminatory hiring claim, the second business wan't a successor organization, as a moajority of its employees were not former employees of the first business.

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201911615.pdf

Second Circuit: Div. 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union-New York Emps. Pension Fund v. New York Dept of Education

 

Municipality that contracts with outside corporations isn't liable under ERISA for fund contributions, as contributions aren't required in the contracts or in the Fund's governing documents.  Munciplaity's requirement that contractors hire according to municipality's seniority lists and follow municipality's wage and labor rules constituted neither an ERISA pension agreement or CBA, nor is the munipality a fiduciary or liable due to having participated in prohibited transactions.

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b3c5ec72-ddd7-427e-a6e6-2cf21cacd5eb/3/doc/20-4012_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b3c5ec72-ddd7-427e-a6e6-2cf21cacd5eb/3/hilite/

Eighth Circuit: Transdev Services, Inc. v. NLRB

 

Substantial evidence for Board finding that neither policies nor the CBA established a progressive system of employee discipline; the supervisors' actions were appropriately characterized as reports without any inherent enforcement power.  The reports also are considered insufficiently authoritative to be considered recommendations.  A one-time distribution of gift cards was insufficient to establish manager status.  Although employees could temporarily remove other employees from driving, their efficacy at this was determined by their own performance, not the employee's performance, as precedent compels for a finding of manager status.

Commonsense argument that there must be a significant proportion of managers among the employee would inappropriately mix the lay standard with the legal standard required by statute and precedent.

Transdev Services, Inc.  v.  NLRB

Seventh Circuit: Susan Bennett v. Council 31

 

As the employee had expressly agreed to pay the union by authorizing the paycheck deduction, and the contract for representation was valid under the state law of the time, the First Amendment right recognized by the courts after the contract had begun did not require an explicit waiver at the time of contractual formation; even under the new standard, any employee who consents to pay can be bound to the contract.

State law defining a public sector bargaining unit and establishing an exclusive representative organization for the bargaining unit does not violate First Amendment associational rights; plaintiff is not compelled to affiliate with the representative organization, and employees are free to form advocacy groups.

Susan Bennett v. Council 31

Seventh Circuit: James Sweeney v. Kwame Raoul

Although the union is compelled by state law to serve as the exclusive bargaining agent for the relevant unit, including its nonmembers, and the courts have recently held that it is unable to assess compulsory representation fees on nonmembers, an injury giving Article III standing for a First Amendment challenge to the state statute would require an actual instance of a nonmember requiring representation under the statute, and standing would also require that a named defendant threatened an imminent enforcement of the state law.

James Sweeney v.  Kwame Raoul

Fourth Circuit: Ruth Akers v. Maryland State Education Assoc

 

Assuming without deciding that the Supreme Court holding that public sector labor unions are not able to compel representation fee payments from nonmembers is retroactive, a claim to recoup these funds under S1983 is an action for damages, not disgorgement, as the funds are no longer traceable.

Private citizens who rely in good faith on a state law later found to be unconstitutional can interpose a defense of good faith to an action for damages under the federal statute.

Assuming without deciding that the common law tort defenses at the time of the adoption of the federal statute determine which defenses are available to the statutory tort claim, the closest analogue to a private citizen's reliance on an unconstitutional state law is abuse of process, not conversion.

Ruth Akers v. Maryland State Education Assoc

DC Circuit: United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 400 v. NLRB

 

As judicial review is limited to objections raised in proceedings before the Board, the Board's refusal to allow non-employee protected activity on the worksite by overruling of its own precedent on the solicitation exception stands, since the evidence of general animus wasn't introduced under that theory before the Board.

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 400 v. NLRB

Ninth Circuit: Delta Sandblasting Company Inc. v. NLRB

 

Substantial evidence that pension contribution scehme was integrated into the CBA, the Board decision affirmed the ALJ, who drew a rate from an earlier form of the agreement, but the ALJ's determination was arguably not dispositive of the holding, and substantial evidence exists to the contrary.

Accepted appendix to CBA and a reference in the CBA incorporating an attachment were sufficient writings to permit the pension contributions under a stsatute requiring written agreements for such payements.

Employer practice consistent with the writings at the end of the CBA meant that those terms remained in force after the period of the CBA, so the diminution of contributions was an unfair labor practice.

Disssent: 

Unsigned, undated standalone writing insufficient.  ALJ implicitly made this determination in accepting the earlier rate.

Delta Sandblasting Company Inc. v. NLRB

Seventh Circuit: Daniel Sarauer v. International Association

Denial of remand appropriate under the embedded federal question doctrine where the case turns upon the renewal or modification date of a CBA.

Because the CBA came into effect subsequent to ratification regardless of formal execution, the relevant date as to formation is the ratification date.

Claim for wages under the generic wage statute is preempted by the CBA, together with its exhaustion requirements.

Daniel Sarauer v. International Association

Seventh Circuit: International Assoc. of Machin v. Ray Allen

Given controlling precedent of summary affirmation in an earlier case by the U.S. Supreme Court, state law requiring employers to process labor union dues check-off cancellation requests within 30 days is preempted as regulation of private conduct within the scope of labor-management relations and the Taft-Hartley Act.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-13/C:17-1178:J:Manion:dis:T:fnOp:N:2217949:S:0

Second Circuit: United States v. Kirsch

The organized labor exception to the state extortion statute encompasses only direct demands for assets in the form of traditional labor actions such as strikes and boycotts.  Ejustem. 

State crimes of extortion that are RICO predicates must involve transferable assets. (Not incorporeal.)

Wages and benefits sought for union members through extortion were transferable assets.

Given statute requiring actual participation or authorization on the part of union members in labor violence for culpability, insufficient evidence here.

Jury instruction focusing on victim's state of mind was appropriate, as the crime is instilling fear.

Sentence adjusted on remand for insufficient evidence.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/6f07b1d8-30cd-46b5-aca2-e0fc11936de5/1/doc/16-3329_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/6f07b1d8-30cd-46b5-aca2-e0fc11936de5/1/hilite/

Ninth Circuit: McCray v. Marriott

Where a labor right arises from a statute but is waived by a CBA, a challenge to the waiver is construed as a challenge to the statute, not to the CBA, making preemption removal inapposite and depriving the federal court of jurisdiction over the question of state law.

Dissent:  It's about the CBA.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/31/17-15767.pdf

Third Circuit: Ronald Cup v. Ampco Pittsburgh Corp

An order compelling arbitration, when issued while dismissing all counts in the present action, is sufficiently final for appeal.

Absent an explicit mention, employees who retired before the CBA are not integrated in the CBA   by references to other documents without an attempt to incorporate them.  As the arbitration provision requires that the matters arise under the CBA, it was error to compel arbitration.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172349p.pdf

Second Circuit: HealthBridge Management, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

Given the evidence that the move was an attempt to avoid obligations under the CBA, employer's shift of a group of employees to a subcontractor was simply a disguised continuance of the business, and the protections of the CBA continued, whatever the technical employment status of the employees.

Holiday time-and-a-half provision of CBA not limited by parallel provision granting holiday pay to certain classes of workers; plain meaning and course of performance establish this.

CBA counts lunch half-hour as time actually worked, as it is compensated. 

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d47790dc-6fa3-4dbe-a24f-0ca686fe2fbe/1/doc/17-934_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d47790dc-6fa3-4dbe-a24f-0ca686fe2fbe/1/hilite/

Sixth Circuit: Jonathan Gaffers v. Kelly Servs., Inc.

Arbitration agreement is not displaced by the FLSA; a challenge to the agreements on the basis that compelling individual arbitration precludes collective action is a challenge to the purpose of arbitration, and therefore not permissible under the savings clause of the Act.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0170p-06.pdf

Seventh Circuit: David Bishop v. Air Line Pilots Association, I

Allegations that a union privileged a more powerful faction within the union, together with a showing of deceptive actions can state a claim  for breach of the duty of fair representation.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-13/C:17-1438:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:2201507:S:0

Ninth Circuit: Coffman v. Queen of the Valley Medical Center

Given the substance of the issues discussed at the meetings following certification, there is substantial evidence for the Board's finding that the employer entered into unconditional bargaining during the informational meetings prior to challenging the certification; additionally, sufficient evidence for harms, remedy.

Employee's schedule changes following appearance of photo on pro-union social media site sufficed for a prima facie case for retaliation.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/16/17-17413.pdf

First Circuit: Acosta v. Local Union 26, Unite Here

Since an earlier draft of the bill provided the right to inspect and copy other agreements negotiated by the union, a statute giving members the right to inspect other agreements does not compel the union to permit note-taking while inspecting the agreements.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1666P-01A.pdf