Skip to content

Menu

ChannelsPublishersSubscribe
LexBlog, Inc. logo
LexBlog, Inc. logo
ProductsSub-MenuBlogsPortalsTwentySyndicationMicrositesResource Center
Join
Search
Close
Join the Movement. Blog 4 Good

NLRB Restores Precedent, Gives Employers Freedom to Unilaterally Discipline Union Employees Between Certification and First Contract

By Peter D. Conrad, Joshua Fox & Dominique Kilmartin on June 25, 2020
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn

The National Labor Relations Board continues to overrule Obama-Board precedent at a rapid pace.  (See our prior blog posts here, here and here for a few recent examples.)

On June 23, 2020, in 800 River Road Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Care One at New Milford, 369 NLRB No. 109, the Board overturned  Total Security Management Illinois 1, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 106 (2016), which had required employers to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain to a newly-certified union on “serious” disciplinary action against unit employees, even before a collective bargaining agreement is in place.  In doing so, the Board returned to a rule established 80 years ago that had permitted employers to discipline employees without first notifying or bargaining with a newly-certified union, provided that the action taken was consistent with established policy or practice preexisting the certification.

The ALJ’s Application of Total Security      

In 800 River Road, the union was certified by the NLRB as the representative of certain employees at the employer’s facility in 2012.  The employer challenged the certification, which was ultimately upheld by the D.C. Circuit in 2017.  Prior to the execution of an initial CBA with the union, the employer suspended three employees and discharged another pursuant to its then-existing disciplinary policy, without notice to the union.  During contract negotiations months later, the employer informed the union of the discipline.  An unfair labor practice charge was filed alleging that the employer had violated its duty to bargain over the discipline of the four employees.

Applying Total Security, an administrative law judge of the NLRB held that the employer’s actions satisfied the definition of “serious discipline,” and that the failure to provide the union with notice and an opportunity to bargain violated the NLRA.

800 River Road Overturns Total Security

In a unanimous opinion, the Board overturned Total Security, holding that the employer was permitted, without bargaining, to discipline the employees pursuant to its existing disciplinary policy.  The Board’s rationale for overturning Total Security was three-fold:

  • First, Total Security conflicted with 80-years of precedent, which had not required employers to notify or bargain with a newly-certified union concerning the exercise of discretionary discipline imposed pursuant to an existing policy.
  • Second, the Total Security-Board had misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s application of the unilateral-change doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Katz, emphasizing that not every action involving the exercise of employer discretion that results in a change of terms and conditions of employment requires notice to the union and an opportunity to bargain.
  • Third, Total Security imposed confusing and burdensome obligations at odds with general principles of good faith bargaining, as it did not require the parties to negotiate either to agreement or impasse before permitting the employer to impose discipline, leaving it unclear when action could be lawfully taken. Moreover, requiring employers to bargain in advance over serious discipline interfered with their legitimate business needs by causing undue delay.

The ruling in 800 River Road applies retroactively.

Takeaways

This decision is a clear “win” for employers, as the Board relieved management of an onerous and confusing bargaining obligation.  In practice, it had been challenging to say the least for employers to distinguish “serious” discipline from garden–variety action not requiring notice and bargaining.

In addition, Total Security established no bright line as to when the bargaining obligation had been fully discharged, allowing the employer to proceed.  This left employers in a quandary.

800 River Road frees employers engaged in first contract bargaining to act swiftly in addressing serious disciplinary issues, without union involvement, provided that the employer follows its existing practice and procedure in doing so.

Photo of Peter D. Conrad Peter D. Conrad

Peter D. Conrad began his legal career as a trial attorney and hearing officer at the National Labor Relations Board.

Peter joined Proskauer’s Labor & Employment Law Department in 1980 and became a partner in 1986. He has represented employers in numerous industries…

Peter D. Conrad began his legal career as a trial attorney and hearing officer at the National Labor Relations Board.

Peter joined Proskauer’s Labor & Employment Law Department in 1980 and became a partner in 1986. He has represented employers in numerous industries (including health care, higher education, financial services, trucking, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, telecommunications, legal services, publishing, retail, broadcasting, entertainment, hotel and professional sports) in the full range of unfair labor practice and election proceedings before the NLRB. In the nearly 30 years that Peter has handled matters at the NLRB, he has confronted virtually every issue that a labor lawyer practicing in this area could expect to see, from the straightforward discharge for union activity, to the most complex secondary boycott, successorship and refusal-to-bargain situations, representing some of the firm’s most prestigious clients.

The remainder of Peter’s time is devoted to the related areas of union avoidance and corporate campaigns (defending employers against organizational activity in its many forms), as well as arbitration, negotiation, and litigation under collective bargaining agreements. Although primarily engaged in a more traditional labor relations practice, Peter also represents companies in employment discrimination cases (before state and federal administrative agencies and in the courts), workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance proceedings, and general client counseling in all areas of labor relations and employment law.

Read more about Peter D. ConradEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Joshua Fox Joshua Fox

Joshua S. Fox is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Sports, Labor-Management Relations, Class and Collective Actions and Wage and Hour Groups.

As a member of the Sports Law Group, Josh has represented several Major…

Joshua S. Fox is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Sports, Labor-Management Relations, Class and Collective Actions and Wage and Hour Groups.

As a member of the Sports Law Group, Josh has represented several Major League Baseball Clubs in all aspects of the salary arbitration process, including the Kansas City Royals, San Francisco Giants, Tampa Bay Rays and Toronto Blue Jays. In particular, Josh assisted with the successful representation of the Toronto Blue Jays in their case against All-Star Josh Donaldson, which was the largest club victory in salary arbitration in recent years. Josh also represents Major League Baseball and its clubs in ongoing litigation brought by current and former minor league players who allege minimum wage and overtime violations, as well as similar claims brought on behalf of scouts. Josh participated on the team that successfully defended Major League Baseball in a wage-and-hour lawsuit brought by a former volunteer for the 2013 All-Star FanFest, who alleged minimum wage violations under federal and state law. The lawsuit was dismissed by the federal district court, and was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Read more about Joshua FoxEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Dominique Kilmartin Dominique Kilmartin

Dominique Kilmartin is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group.

Dominique graduated cum laude from Seton Hall University School of Law, where she was an editor of the Seton Hall Law…

Dominique Kilmartin is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group.

Dominique graduated cum laude from Seton Hall University School of Law, where she was an editor of the Seton Hall Law Review. Dominique also worked as a student attorney at the Civil Litigation & Practice Clinic and as an intern for the Honorable Judge John Michael Vazquez of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Upon graduation from law school, Dominique received the ABA/BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Labor and Employment Law.

Prior to joining the firm, Dominique served as a law clerk to the Honorable Lee A. Solomon, Associate Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Read more about Dominique KilmartinEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Labor Relations Update
  • Organization:
    Proskauer Rose LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Stay Connected

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers

Company

  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service

Products

  • Products
  • Blogs
  • Portals
  • Twenty
  • Syndication
  • Microsites

Support

  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Red Clover Advisors Blog
  • Plane-ly Spoken
  • FCC Law Blog
  • California Employment Law
  • Privacy Compliance & Data Security
Copyright © 2021, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By LexBlog