Request a Demo Log In
NLRB, Board Decision, American Baptist Homes of the West d/b/a Piedmont Gardens, 364 N.L.R.B. No. 95, 207 LRRM 1598, 2016 BL 275066
XA42JGPC
ADMIN_ORDER
American Baptist Homes of the West d/b/a Piedmont Gardens
2016 BL 275066
364 NLRB No. 95
bna 207 lrrm 1598
bna a0k0g5v4w6
bna a0k1b5u2z2
bna decref204221

Search

Search over:

No Matches Found

Search term(s) not found.

Docket Entries Since Last Update
NOTE: This court's RSS feed does not list MOTION entries, so Bloomberg Law cannot detect them and thus they will not be listed here. However, motions will be included if you update the docket.

Copy with Citation

Copy the text below to paste into your document.

Link citations to Bloomberg Law
Administrative Orders & Decisions
BNA,Bloomberg,
364 NLRB No. 95
2016 BL 275066
207 LRRM 1598
NLRB, Board Decision, American Baptist Homes of the West d/b/a Piedmont Gardens, 364 N.L.R.B. No. 95, 207 LRRM 1598, 2016 BL 275066
Pagination
*LRRM
**BL



NLRB

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.

Decisions of the National Labor Relations Board

American Baptist Homes of The West d/b/a Piedmont Gardens and Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers-West.

Cases 32-CA-025247 , 32-CA-025248 , 32-CA-025266 , 32-CA-025271 , 32-CA-025308 , and 32-CA-025498

August 24, 2016

BNA Headnotes
Labor Relations - NLRB and Court Decisions
DISCRIMINATION Sec. 8(a)(3)
[1] Motion for reconsideration — Delay in reinstating strikers — Refusal to reinstate strikers — Manifest injustice ►52.3614 [Show Topic Path]
NLRB denies employer's motion for reconsideration of its decision and order finding that employer unlawfully delayed reinstatement of certain strikers and refused to reinstate others, despite contention that board erred by applying “new standard” retroactively, where board reaffirmed and applied its longstanding precedent that employers are prohibited from permanently replacing striking employees if decision is motivated by “independent unlawful purpose,” board's application of alleged “new standard” clarifies how that standard is to be applied in future decisions and provides relief to employees who were denied employment due to employer's unlawful discrimination against them, and no particular injustice arises from application of that standard in this case.

Order Denying Motion



BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS MISCIMARRA AND HIROZAWA

On May 31, 2016, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding, finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by delaying the reinstatement of certain strikers and refusing to reinstate others. In making those findings, the Board determined that the Respondent's stated reasons for hiring permanent replacements for the strikers—to punish the strikers and the Union and to avoid future strikes—constituted proof of an "independent unlawful purpose." 364 NLRB No. 13 , slip op. at 3 (2016) (quoting Hot Shoppes, Inc., 146 NLRB 802 , 805 (1964)). The Respondent has moved for reconsideration.

We deny the motion. The Respondent argues why it disagrees with the Board's decision, but it has not identified any material error or demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration under Section 102.48(d)(1) of the Board's Rules and Regulations.1 Nonetheless, the Respondent argues that the Board erred by applying "a new standard" retroactively, and we address that argument here.

The Respondent's argument proceeds from an incorrect premise. The Board did not make law in this case, but, as stated in the decision and explained below, applied existing law. Even if the decision had announced a new standard, the Respondent's argument would fail.

The Board's customary practice is to apply new policies and standards "to all pending cases in whatever stage."2 Accordingly, the Board applies a new rule to the parties in the case in which the rule is announced so long as doing so would not work a "manifest injustice."3 In determining whether the retroactive application of a Board decision would result in manifest injustice, the Board balances three factors: (1) the reliance of the parties on preexisting law; (2) the effect of retroactivity on accomplishing the purposes of the Act; and (3) any particular injustice arising from retroactive application.4

Regarding the first factor, the Board's approach in its decision in this case was not a departure from well-settled precedent. Rather, the Board reaffirmed its longstanding rule that an employer is prohibited from permanently replacing striking employees if that decision is [*1600] motivated by an "independent unlawful purpose." Hot Shoppes, Inc., 146 NLRB 802 , 805 (1964) (footnote omitted). The Board interpreted that language as it has previously been interpreted by the Board and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See, e.g., Avery Heights, 343 NLRB 1301 (2004), vacated and remanded, New England Health Care Employees Union v. NLRB, 448 F.3d 189 , 195 (2d Cir. 2006), after remand 350 NLRB 214 (2007), enfd. Church Homes, Inc. v. NLRB, 303 Fed.Appx. 998 (2d Cir. 2008), cert. denied 558 U.S. 945 (2009).

Regarding the second factor, we find that application of the [**2] alleged "new standard" accomplishes the purposes of the Act by clarifying how that standard is to be applied in future decisions and by providing relief to employees denied employment on account of the Respondent's unlawful discrimination against them.

Finally, regarding the third factor, we do not find that any particular injustice arises from the application of the Hot Shoppes standard here or, as the Respondent contends, based on the passage of time since the violations occurred. First, all of the factors that the Board analyzed in the decision were litigated at the hearing. Second, the cases cited by the Respondent in support of its passage-of-time argument are inapposite, as the remedy here does not include a bargaining order; there is nothing punitive about the Board's standard make-whole remedy.

Accordingly, we find that the Board's decision to this case does not cause manifest injustice to the Respondent.

IT IS ORDERED, therefore, that the Respondent's motion for reconsideration is denied.

Dated, Washington, D.C. August 24, 2016

                    ______________________________________
                     Mark Gaston Pearce,         Chairman

                    ______________________________________
                    Philip A. Miscimarra,        Member

                    ______________________________________
                    Kent Y. Hirozawa,            Member

(SEAL)                      NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD


fn

1 In support of its motion, the Respondent cites, as it did previously in the underlying proceeding, Choctaw Maid Farms, Inc., 308 NLRB 521 , 528 (1992), a case in which the judge stated that the employer's state of mind in hiring permanent replacements is "irrelevant." That case is inapposite. First, it was not a Hot Shoppes case. The issue was whether the employer continued to hire permanent replacements after the employees made an unconditional offer to return to work, not whether the employer's reason for hiring permanent replacements was independently unlawful. Nowhere is the Hot Shoppes "independent unlawful purpose" issue mentioned. Second, as the judge in the instant case noted in fn. 53 of his decision, the "Board did not discuss" the judge's "state of mind" statement in Choctaw , and it is unclear whether the issue of the employer's motive was even alleged or litigated in that case. Finally, the judge in Choctaw cited no authority for the proposition that an employer's state of mind in hiring permanent replacements is irrelevant, and our holding rejected it as inconsistent with Hot Shoppes and Avery Heights, infra .

Member Miscimarra adheres to the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in the underlying decision. See 364 NLRB No. 13 , slip op. at 9-19 (Member Miscimarra, dissenting). Consequently, because Member Miscimarra dissents from the majority's "independent unlawful motive" test in this case, he respectfully disagrees with the majority's statement that its prior decision "applied existing law," and Member Miscimarra believes the new standard adopted by the majority cannot appropriately be applied retroactively. Moreover, Member Miscimarra does not join in his colleagues' discussion of Choctaw Maid Farms, supra . However, he agrees with his colleagues that the Respondent's motion does not identify extraordinary circumstances that warrant reconsideration of the Board's decision.

fn

2 Aramark School Services, Inc., 337 NLRB 1063, 1063 fn. 1 (2002) (quoting Deluxe Metal Furniture Co., 121 NLRB 995 , 1006-1007 (1958)).

fn

3 Pattern Makers (Michigan Model Mfrs.), 310 NLRB 929 , 931 (1993).

fn

4 Machinists Local 2777 (L-3 Communications), 355 NLRB 1062 , 1069 fn. 37 (2010).

Jump To
Please enter a valid page number
Pagination
Show Pagination
 

back to top

Enter a Client Matter

Your firm optionally allows a client matter to be selected while you are using Bloomberg Law. Please contact your administrator if you have any questions. Please select from a recently used Client Matter or enter a Client Matter manually.
RECENTLY USED
CLIENT MATTER
Please contact your administrator if you have questions about client matter.
Cancel Submit
Unrecognized Client Matter

Client Matter   does not currently exist in Bloomberg Law. Would you like to add this client matter to the system?
Bloomberg Industry Group
About Us Contact Us
Other Products
Big Law Business Professional Learning BNA
Help Topics
Getting Started BCite Citator Smart Code Points of Law Browse All Help Topics
24/7 BLAW® Help Desk
888.560.2529
help@bloomberglaw.com
0.1411.0
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Copyright Accessibility
© 2022 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.