Jill Hawken Coffman, Regional Director of Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Queen of the Valley Medical Center, Respondent-Appellant.
Argued
and Submitted June 14, 2018
Appeal
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California No. 4:17-cv-05575-YGR Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
COUNSEL
Ronald
J. Holland (argued), Philip Shecter, and Ellen Bronchetti,
DLA Piper LLP, Menlo Park, California, for
Respondent-Appellant.
Rebecca J. Johnston (argued), Attorney; Richard J. Lussier,
Supervisory Attorney; Elinor L. Merberg, Assistant General
Counsel; Jayme L. Sophir, Associate General Counsel; Peter B.
Robb, General Counsel; National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, D.C.; for Petitioner-Appellee.
Before: Mary M. Schroeder and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit
Judges, and Miranda M. Du, [*] District Judge.
SUMMARY [**]
Labor
Law / Preliminary Injunction
The
panel affirmed the district court's entry of a
preliminary injunction, pursuant to Section 10(j) of the
National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), requiring
the employer to engage in unconditional bargaining with a
union.
The
panel held that an employer cannot begin unconditional
bargaining and later withdraw recognition because such
actions interfere with the union's collective bargaining
rights protected by the NLRA. The panel held that the
Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board had
shown a sufficient likelihood of success in establishing its
underlying position that the employer recognized the union
and engaged in unconditional bargaining before withdrawing
recognition and refusing to bargain in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the NLRA. The panel held that the Director
established a continuing threat of irreparable harm to the
union's collective bargaining rights to support the
extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief. The panel also
held that the harm to the union outweighed the harm to the
employer. The panel further held that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in balancing the equities, and in
finding that injunctive relief in this case was in the public
interest.
The
panel held that the Director submitted sufficient evidence to
establish a likelihood of success and irreparable harm with
regard to the union's claim that the employer
discriminated against an employee for his union activity in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the NLRA.
OPINION
SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge:
It is a
well-settled principle of labor relations law that an
employer cannot start unconditional bargaining with a union
and then quit when negotiations do not go well. In this case,
a Regional Director ("Director") of the National
Labor Relations Board ("Board") believed the
employer did just that. The Director successfully applied for
an injunction pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor
Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 160(j),
requiring the employer to engage in unconditional bargaining.
In this appeal from that injunction, the employer contends
the Director lacked a sufficient likelihood of success in
establishing its underlying position that the employer
recognized the union and engaged in unconditional bargaining
before withdrawing recognition and refusing to bargain.
According to the employer, it did nothing more than bargain
conditionally to preserve its right to challenge the results
of the union election.
The
record shows that the employer had considerable dealings with
the union following the union's certification, including
discussions that resulted in agreements over some hours and
working conditions, and that these negotiations took place
before the employer made any official challenge to the
certification. We therefore hold that the Director has shown
a sufficient likelihood of success in establishing a
withdrawal of recognition and refusal to bargain
unconditionally, as well as a continuing threat of
irreparable harm to the union's collective bargaining
rights, to support the extraordinary remedy of injunctive
relief. We affirm the District Court's entry of the
preliminary injunction. We vacate the stay previously entered
by a motions panel of our Court.
Background
I.
Factual history
A.
Employer's withdrawal of union recognition
The
employer in this case is Queen of the Valley Medical Center
("QVMC"), which operates an acute-care medical
facility in Napa, California. The union is the National Union
of Healthcare Workers ("Union"). The employee
bargaining unit consists of nonprofessional and technical
employees at QVMC's facility. In the mail ballot election
held on November 15, 2016, a majority of eligible
bargaining-unit employees voted by a wide margin for the
Union's representation. QVMC objected to the election
results, but the Director overruled those objections and, on
December 22, 2016, certified the Union as the employees'
bargaining representative.
QVMC
then filed a request for review of the Union's
certification with the Board on January 9, 2017, but the
Board denied that request on February 28, 2017. The first
formal communication from the employer to the Union of a
refusal to recognize the Union came weeks later, on March 16,
2017. On that day, QVMC sent the Union a letter asserting
that the mail ballot election was flawed and demanding that
the Union "stipulate to a new in-person election."
If the Union refused, QVMC stated, it would "engage in a
'technical refusal to bargain, '" by
"formally notify[ing] the Union that [QVMC] believes the
unit certification was faulty and . . . refuse to bargain
with the Union so that [QVMC could] pursue its review of the
certification in the courts." QVMC stated that it would
"discuss the terms of a collective bargaining agreement
[but] with the mutual understanding that it [would] only take
effect if and when all of [QVMC's] appeals in court are
denied."
This
case is before our Court on an injunction because, prior to
the March 16 letter, QVMC had extensive discussions with the
Union about working conditions and schedules for members of
the bargaining unit. Before QVMC's January 9 request for
review of the Union's certification, QVMC's Directors
of Labor and Human Resources arranged a meeting with the
Union to negotiate the schedule and job assignment of a
bargaining-unit employee. During these communications,
QVMC's agents did not indicate to the Union that QVMC was
bargaining conditionally by reserving its right to contest
the Union's certification. The Director therefore
concluded injunctive relief would be appropriate and the
District Court agreed.
The
record before the District Court reflects the extent of the
parties' dealings with each other after QVMC's
request for review was denied on February 28, 2017, but
before QVMC sent its "technical refusal to bargain"
letter on March 16. QVMC provided information to the Union
that was relevant for the full collective bargaining
agreement and promised to respond further "as [data
became] available." QVMC stated that it would respond to
the Union's proposed dates for the full bargaining
session as well. During the same time period before March 16,
QVMC proposed dates and attempted to schedule a meeting with
the Union regarding bargaining-unit phlebotomists'
schedule changes. Also during this time period, QVMC and the
Union arranged for a Union representative to attend a
bargaining-unit employee's investigatory meeting. On
March 2, the Union requested information from QVMC regarding
changes to the schedules of bargaining-unit employees in the
Sterile Processing Department and asked QVMC to cease and
desist from implementing the changes until the parties could
discuss the changes. QVMC met with the Union and employees
...