Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor is a bi-state corporate and political entity created by interstate compact in 1953, after years of criminal activity and corrupt hiring practices on the waterfront N.J.S. 32:23-1; N.Y. Unconsol. Laws 9801. In 2013 the Commission opened its Longshoremen’s Register to accept applications for 225 new positions, requiring shipping companies and other employers to certify that prospective employees had been referred for employment compliant with federal and state nondiscrimination policies. Rejecting a challenge, the district court held that the Commission had acted within its authority and had not unlawfully interfered with collective bargaining rights. Such rights were not completely protected under the language of the Compact. The Third Circuit affirmed, noting that opponents had ample notice and opportunity to be heard with respect to the nondiscrimination amendment. Compact Section 5p-(5)(b) clearly provides for inclusion of registrants under “such terms and conditions as the [C]ommission may prescribe.” View "NY Shipping Ass'n, Inc. v. Waterfront Comm'n of NY Harbor" on Justia Law

The National Labor Relations Board certified a collective-bargaining unit comprised of FedEx Freight drivers at FedEx’s South Brunswick Terminal in Monmouth Junction, New Jersey. To test the appropriateness of the unit, FedEx refused to bargain with its certified bargaining representative, contending the terminal’s dockworkers must also be included in the unit. The Regional Director issued an unfair labor practices order. The NLRB granted summary judgment in favor of the union. The Third Circuit granted a petition for enforcement of the NLRB order to bargain, rejecting FedEx’s argument that the NLRB applied a unit-determination standard that violated its own precedent, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Board’s interpretation of the legal standard to apply in unit-determination cases was reasonable and the Board properly applied “the overwhelming-community-of-interest test” in this case. View "Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fedex Freight Inc" on Justia Law

The employer is a 64-patient-maximum nursing and rehabilitation center in Bound Brook, New Jersey, and employs about 75 nurses in the relevant bargaining unit, A unionization drive began in 2010, when the facility announced that Somerset would be reducing working hours and changing employees’ schedules. The employer claimed that the Department of Health and Senior Services conducted a survey of the facility in December 2009 that resulted in two citations, which “resulted in increased scrutiny on the Somerset nursing department” and led it to begin revamping its operations to improve care. An ALJ later found that explanation to be pretextual. The employer vigorously opposed unionization. Management held meetings, discussing Union activities and how each individual nurse might vote. It also distributed leaflets to employees to dissuade them from voting for the union. After the union was certified, the employer engaged in disciplinary actions that an ALJ found to be retaliatory. The National Labor Relations Board found that the employer had committed several unfair labor practices in violation of 29 U.S.C. 158. The Third Circuit rejected the employer’s appeal and entered an order of enforcement. View "1621 Route 22 West Operating Co., LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

The drivers worked transporting water to hydraulic fracking sites within Pennsylvania. The lead plaintiff asserts that he and his coworkers often worked more than 40 hours in a week, but were paid overtime only for work performed above 45 hours per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a) and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. 333.104(c). Before trial, the court ordered briefing on whether the employers (trucking companies) were subject to the Motor Carrier Act exemption to the FLSA’s overtime requirements, applicable to certain interstate employment activity that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation. The employers stipulated to a judgment requiring them to pay overtime. The Third Circuit affirmed. While the movement of the fracking wastewater out of state could theoretically be one involving a practical continuity of movement in interstate commerce, depending on the intent of the shipper at the time shipment commenced, the role the drivers played, whether the water is altered during the fracking process, and the steps for water removal and outgoing transportation, the employers produced no evidence concerning these matters and did not meet their burden to “plainly and unmistakably” show that the MCA exemption applies. View "Mazzarella v. Fast Rig Support LLC" on Justia Law

Teamsters Local 384 filed a representation petition with National Labor Relations Board Regional Director Walsh, seeking to represent workers at Advanced’s facilities. The proposed unit consisted of approximately 120 full-time and regular part-time drivers, helpers, and mechanics. The Union and Advanced entered into a Stipulated Election Agreement. Secret ballot elections were held at Advanced’s facilities, with 60 voters supporting unionization and 58 opposing it. Advanced challenged the outcome. A hearing officer and a three-member NLRB panel overruled all of Advanced’s objections. To preserve its right to appeal, Advanced refused to bargain with the certified bargaining unit. Director Walsh filed a Complaint and a three-member NLRB panel issued a Decision and Order, concluding that Advanced had violated 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(5) by refusing “to bargain collectively with the representatives of [its] employees.” The Third Circuit affirmed and ordered enforcement, rejecting a claim that, because Walsh was appointed at a time when the Board lacked a valid quorum, his actions were ultra vires. Advanced did not lose the ability to challenge Walsh’s authority by failing to raise this issue during the representation proceeding, nor did the Stipulated Election Agreement constitute an implied accession to his authority. Walsh and the Board properly ratified their previously unauthorized actions. View "Advanced Disposal Servs. E., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

Hamilton Park, a long-term care facility, belonged to a multi-employer bargaining group, Tuchman. Tuchman and the employees' union agreed to a CBA beginning in 2008 and extending through February 28, 2013, giving the union the option to reopen negotiations in November 2011 to bargain for new terms for the CBA’s last year and to submit any unresolved items to binding interest arbitration, and allowing the arbitrator to “determine his jurisdiction” and grant “all appropriate remedies.” In 2011, the union invoked its right to reopen negotiations. The parties agreed to arbitrate unresolved issues, including the cost to maintain the existing health benefits. The arbitrator, Scheinman, suggested a multi-year award to spread increased contributions over a longer period. Scheinman claims that “[b]oth sides [orally] agreed my jurisdiction permitted a multi-year Award, at my discretion.” In 2012, Scheinman issued an award that extended through June 2016, dealing with wages and health benefits contributions, and allowing the union to reopen negotiations for the contract’s last year. Scheinman did not address why he included a second generation interest arbitration provision, nor did he claim that the parties consented. Hamilton Park petitioned to vacate the award, arguing that Scheinman exceeded his authority. The Third Circuit reversed in part. Hamilton Park agreed to expand Scheinman’s jurisdiction to a multi-year award, but did not agree to inclusion of a second generation interest arbitration provision. View "Hamilton Park Health Care Ctr., Ltd.v. 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers E." on Justia Law

Hamilton Park, a long-term care facility, belonged to a multi-employer bargaining group, Tuchman. Tuchman and the employees' union agreed to a CBA beginning in 2008 and extending through February 28, 2013, giving the union the option to reopen negotiations in November 2011 to bargain for new terms for the CBA’s last year and to submit any unresolved items to binding interest arbitration, and allowing the arbitrator to “determine his jurisdiction” and grant “all appropriate remedies.” In 2011, the union invoked its right to reopen negotiations. The parties agreed to arbitrate unresolved issues, including the cost to maintain the existing health benefits. The arbitrator, Scheinman, suggested a multi-year award to spread increased contributions over a longer period. Scheinman claims that “[b]oth sides [orally] agreed my jurisdiction permitted a multi-year Award, at my discretion.” In 2012, Scheinman issued an award that extended through June 2016, dealing with wages and health benefits contributions, and allowing the union to reopen negotiations for the contract’s last year. Scheinman did not address why he included a second generation interest arbitration provision, nor did he claim that the parties consented. Hamilton Park petitioned to vacate the award, arguing that Scheinman exceeded his authority. The Third Circuit reversed in part. Hamilton Park agreed to expand Scheinman’s jurisdiction to a multi-year award, but did not agree to inclusion of a second generation interest arbitration provision. View "Hamilton Park Health Care Ctr., Ltd.v. 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers E." on Justia Law

Galanter, an MCPc senior solutions architect, was designing and implementing a call center at the company’s Buffalo locations. MCPc’s director of engineering visited regularly and took available employees out to lunch. On February 24, 2011, lunch included Galanter; another solutions architect; and two engineers. They discussed an engineer shortage. Galanter stated that he was working too many hours, urged the director to hire additional engineers, and stated that MCPc could hire several additional engineers with the $400,000 salary MCPc was paying a recently hired executive. CEO Trebilcock was informed of Galanter’s comments and requested an investigation. He was informed that Galanter had obtained global access privileges and could view confidential files normally restricted to human resources personnel. Galanter attributed his knowledge to what he had found on the Internet, to “water cooler” conversation, and to comments by sales representatives. Trebilcock concluded that Galanter was lying and terminated his employment. The NLRB issued a complaint alleging violation of 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), by discharging Galanter for complaining about working conditions, a protected concerted activity. The Third Circuit agreed with the Board that Galanter engaged in protected concerted activity during the February 24th lunch, but vacated and remanded for the Board to consider whether that activity or MCPc’s belief that Galanter engaged in misconduct or dishonesty formed the basis for his discharge. View "MCPc, Inc v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

Wiest, formerly a Tyco employee, claimed that Tyco unlawfully terminated his employment for reporting suspected securities fraud violations pertaining to the accounting treatment of two Tyco events, in violation of the anti-retaliation provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. 1514A. Wiest claims that for six months, he refused, as an accountant, to process payments allegedly due from Tyco that related to two Tyco employee and dealer meetings in resort settings. Tyco contends that Wiest’s involvement with the events at issue was minimal and he did not frustrate, or even inconvenience, Tyco’s management, and that ,more than eight months later, Tyco’s human resources director—who had no knowledge of, Wiest’s alleged protected activity— investigated complaints that Wiest made inappropriate sexual comments to several female Tyco employees, and that he had inappropriate sexual relationships with two subordinates, resulting in Wiest’s termination. The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Tyco. Wiest failed to offer any evidence to establish that his protected activity was a contributing factor to any adverse employment action; Tyco established that it would have taken the same actions with respect to Wiest in the absence of Wiest’s accounting activity given the thoroughly documented, investigation conducted by its human resources director. View "Wiest v. Tyco Elec. Corp" on Justia Law

The Debtors own the Atlantic City Trump Taj Mahal casino. The union represents 1,136 employees. The 2011 collective bargaining agreement was to remain in effect through September 14, 2014 and continue in full force and effect from year to year thereafter, unless either party served 60 days written notice of its intention to terminate, modify, or amend. In March 2014, the Debtors gave notice of their “intention to terminate, modify or amend” and sought to begin negotiations. The Union initially declined. On August 20 the parties met. The Debtors emphasized their critical financial situation. No agreement was reached. The Debtors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On September 11, the Debtors asked the Union to extend the term of the CBA. The Union refused. The CBA expired. On September 17, the Debtors sent the Union a proposal with supporting documentation. After meetings, the Debtors successfully moved, under section 1113, to reject the CBA and implement the terms of the Debtors’ last proposal, asserting that rejection of the CBA was necessary to the reorganization.While 11 U.S.C. 1103 allows a debtor to terminate a CBA under certain circumstances, the National Labor Relations Act prohibits an employer from unilaterally changing CBA terms even after its expiration; key terms of an expired CBA continue to govern until the parties reach a new agreement or bargain to impasse. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding section 1113 does not distinguish between the terms of an unexpired CBA and terms that continue to govern after the CBA expires. View "In re: Trump Entm't Resorts" on Justia Law