973 F.2d 230 (3rd Cir. 1992), 92-3000, Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 776 Affiliated With Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B.

Docket NºPetitioner No. 92-3000,
Citation973 F.2d 230
Party NameCHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS LOCAL 776 AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AFL-CIO
Case DateAugust 26, 1992
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

Page 230

973 F.2d 230 (3rd Cir. 1992)

CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS LOCAL 776 AFFILIATED WITH

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AFL-CIO

Petitioner No. 92-3000,

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent, Rite Aid

Corporation, Intervenor.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Petitioner No. 92-3068,

v.

CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS LOCAL 776 AFFILIATED WITH

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AFL-CIO Respondent.

Nos. 92-3000, 92-3068.

Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6)

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

August 26, 1992

Aug. 3, 1992.

Page 231

Ira H. Weinstock, Ronald T. Tomasko, Law Office of Ira H. Weinstock, Harrisburg, Pa., for petitioner-respondent Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 776 affiliated with Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, AFL-CIO.

Jerry M. Hunter, Gen. Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Peter Winkler, Supervisory Atty., Julie Brock Broido, Senior Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent-petitioner N.L.R.B.

Bruce D. Bagley, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, Harrisburg, Pa., for intervenor-respondent Rite Aid Corp.

Before: GREENBERG, ALITO, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.

I.

BACKGROUND

This case is before the court on a petition for review and a cross-application for enforcement of a decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board reported at 305 NLRB No. 114 (1991). We will deny the petition for review and will enforce the order.

The case arises from a representational dispute. The employer, Rite Aid Corporation, operates a large chain of retail drug stores. It has several central distribution centers, including one in Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania, to service its stores. The Shiremanstown center has been responsible in a portion of Rite Aid's business area for the shipping, sorting and storing of unsold goods and for the processing of returned goods. Historically, the petitioner, Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 776, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, has represented the employees at the Shiremanstown distribution center. The collective bargaining agreement between the union and Rite Aid provides for final and binding arbitration of grievances.

In August 1987, as a result of increasing business, Rite Aid opened a Central Returns Warehouse in Shiremanstown to process returned goods, a function previously allocated to the distribution centers. Rite Aid hired 27 nonunion employees for this warehouse and reassigned distribution center employees who previously handled returned goods to other distribution center duties. These changes led the union to file grievances on the ground that it should represent the warehouse employees. The union was successful, for on July 14, 1988, an arbitrator concluded that Rite Aid violated the union recognition clause of the collective bargaining agreement by failing to apply it to the returns warehouse. The arbitrator's award required Rite Aid to apply the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement governing the Shiremanstown distribution center to the warehouse and to make certain payments and grant specified benefits to the warehouse employees. In addition, the arbitrator ordered that Rite Aid make the union whole for lost dues and initiation fees.

Rite Aid sought to circumvent the arbitration award by filing a unit clarification petition on August 18, 1988, with the National Labor Relations Board, with the object of obtaining a decision excluding the warehouse employees from the distribution center representation unit. Like the union, Rite Aid was successful in the procedure it initiated. The Board's regional director, on

Page 232

February 7, 1989, issued a decision and order excluding the warehouse employees from the distribution center unit on the ground that the facilities were basically different and the warehouse was not an "accretion" to the distribution unit. The regional director observed that this conclusion was consistent with the Board's reluctance to accrete unrepresented employees to existing units, which would effectively deny the employees an opportunity to express their preferences in a secret ballot election.

The proceedings separately instituted by Rite Aid and the union moved in tandem, for the union filed a suit on January 5, 1989, in the district court under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, seeking to enforce the arbitration award. This time, however, the union was not successful, for on September 29, 1989, the district court dismissed the case and refused to enforce the award, as the court regarded the case as involving a representational rather than a contractual issue. The court accordingly held that in making his award the arbitrator had gone beyond his limited authority to interpret the collective bargaining agreement. The union appealed, but we affirmed the order of the district court and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Teamsters Local Union No. 776 v. Rite Aid Corp., 902 F.2d 1562 (3d Cir.) (table), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 249, 112 L.Ed.2d 208 (1990).

The union did not accept the regional director's decision and order of February 7, 1989, excluding the warehouse employees from the distribution center unit. Instead, it filed a request for review which the Board denied by order of April 28, 1989, concluding that the request raised "no substantial issues warranting review." The union nevertheless moved before the Board for reconsideration of the order of April 28, 1989, but this motion was denied as untimely. The union then sought leave to appeal from the Board so that it would consider the union's motion for reconsideration out of time, but the Board denied this motion as well.

What may be regarded as the third line of action in this controversy, and the one leading directly to the case before us, was initiated on May 15, 1989, when Rite Aid filed a charge with the Board against the union. Rite Aid asserted that the union was engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of section 8(b)(1)(A), (2), and (3) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A), (2) and (3), by "continuing to seek enforcement of the [arbitration] award, despite the fact that the Board has already determined that the [warehouse] employees are excluded" from the bargaining unit. General Counsel of the Board issued a complaint against the union on June 20, 1989, reflecting the allegations Rite Aid made in its charge.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
207 practice notes
  • Murphy Oil USA, Inc., (2014)
    • United States
    • October 28, 2014
    ...if—like the Re-spondent’s successful motion before the court—those efforts are “otherwise meritorious.” See Teamsters Local 776 v. NLRB, 973 F.2d 230, 236 (3d Cir. 1992).102 Under settled law, a party acts with an illegal objective when it seeks to enforce an agreement that is unlawful unde......
  • Federal Security, Inc., and James R. Skrzypek and Janice M. Skrzypek, Individual, (2012)
    • United States
    • September 28, 2012
    ...331 NLRB 132, 132 fn. 1 (2000). Accord: Emery Worldwide v. NLRB, 966 F.2d 1003, 1006 fn. 4 (5th Cir. 1992); Teamsters Local 776 v. NLRB, 973 F.2d 230, 235–236 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied 507 U.S. 959 (1993). 116 536 U.S. at 534 (emphasis in original). 117 359 NLRB 19, 26 (2012). suits. Rat......
  • RPM Pizza LLC,
    • United States
    • Invalid date
    ...orders for suits maintained in violation of the Act, it is appropriate and necessary to award interest on litigation expenses”), enfd. 973 F.2d 230 (3d Cir. 1992), cert denied 507 U.S 959 (1993). ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, RPM Pizza, LLC, Gulfport, ......
  • Dish Network, LLC, (2021)
    • United States
    • March 18, 2021
    ...under Sec. 301 of the LMRA seeking to enforce arbitral award that was incompatible with the Board’s unit-clar-ification decision), enfd. 973 F.2d 230 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied 507 U.S. 959 (1993); Textile Workers Local 1029 (International Paper Box Machine Co.), 187 NLRB 636, 636‒637 (19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
207 cases
  • Murphy Oil USA, Inc., (2014)
    • United States
    • October 28, 2014
    ...if—like the Re-spondent’s successful motion before the court—those efforts are “otherwise meritorious.” See Teamsters Local 776 v. NLRB, 973 F.2d 230, 236 (3d Cir. 1992).102 Under settled law, a party acts with an illegal objective when it seeks to enforce an agreement that is unlawful unde......
  • Federal Security, Inc., and James R. Skrzypek and Janice M. Skrzypek, Individual, (2012)
    • United States
    • September 28, 2012
    ...331 NLRB 132, 132 fn. 1 (2000). Accord: Emery Worldwide v. NLRB, 966 F.2d 1003, 1006 fn. 4 (5th Cir. 1992); Teamsters Local 776 v. NLRB, 973 F.2d 230, 235–236 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied 507 U.S. 959 (1993). 116 536 U.S. at 534 (emphasis in original). 117 359 NLRB 19, 26 (2012). suits. Rat......
  • RPM Pizza LLC,
    • United States
    • Invalid date
    ...orders for suits maintained in violation of the Act, it is appropriate and necessary to award interest on litigation expenses”), enfd. 973 F.2d 230 (3d Cir. 1992), cert denied 507 U.S 959 (1993). ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, RPM Pizza, LLC, Gulfport, ......
  • Dish Network, LLC, (2021)
    • United States
    • March 18, 2021
    ...under Sec. 301 of the LMRA seeking to enforce arbitral award that was incompatible with the Board’s unit-clar-ification decision), enfd. 973 F.2d 230 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied 507 U.S. 959 (1993); Textile Workers Local 1029 (International Paper Box Machine Co.), 187 NLRB 636, 636‒637 (19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT