McKinney ex rel. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. S. Bakeries, LLC
| Decision Date | 27 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–3017.,14–3017. |
| Citation | 786 F.3d 1119 |
| Parties | M. Kathleen McKINNEY, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board and on behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner–Appellee v. SOUTHERN BAKERIES, LLC, Respondent–Appellant. John Hankins, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
786 F.3d 1119
M. Kathleen McKINNEY, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board and on behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner–Appellee
v.
SOUTHERN BAKERIES, LLC, Respondent–Appellant.
John Hankins, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant.
No. 14–3017.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2015.
Filed: May 27, 2015.
David Lee Swider, argued, Indianapolis, IN, (Matthew J. Shepherd, El Dorado, AR., Philip R. Zimmerly, and Sandra Perry, Indianapolis, IN, on the brief), for Respondent–Appellant.
John Andrew Mantz, NLRB, argued (Elinor L. Merberg, NLRB, and Laura T. Vazquez, NLRB, the brief), Washington, DC, for Petitioner–Appellee.
Glenn Matthew Taubman, Springfield, VA, on the brief, for Amicus on Behalf of Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER,1 District Judge.
Opinion
GRITZNER, District Judge.
M. Kathleen McKinney, the Regional Director of the Fifteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board (respectively, the Director and the Board) sought a preliminary injunction from the district court under § 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (the Act) as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). The district court granted the injunction pending the Board's final disposition of the unfair labor practices allegations. McKinney ex rel. NLRB v. S. Bakeries, LLC, 38 F.Supp.3d 1019, 1036 (W.D.Ark.2014). Southern Bakeries, LLC (Southern Bakeries or the Company) appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we vacate the injunction.
I. Background
Southern Bakeries is a commercial bakery in Hope, Arkansas. In 2005, Southern Bakeries purchased the Hope facility from the now defunct Meyer's Bakeries and hired most of Meyer's Bakeries' former employees. Southern Bakeries recognized the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, Local 111 (the Union), as the collective bargaining agent for Southern Bakeries' production and sanitation employees. Southern Bakeries' Hope facility employs approximately 200 production and sanitation workers. Southern Bakeries and the Union entered several collective bargaining agreements, the most recent of which expired on February 8, 2012.
In 2009, a Southern Bakeries' employee filed a decertification petition seeking to oust the Union. The Board held an election, and a majority of the employees voted to keep the Union. On December 7,
2011, an employee filed another decertification petition with the Board. The Union filed allegations of unfair labor practices. Following the Board's investigation, the Director concluded that Southern Bakeries improperly assisted the petition drive, and the Director did not conduct another election. Southern Bakeries and the Director settled the allegation, and Southern Bakeries denied any fault.
On May 23, 2012, employees, led by hourly production employee John Hankins (Hankins),2 filed still another decertification petition. A majority of the production and sanitation employees signed the petition. The Board scheduled a decertification election for February 7, 2013.
During the period between the filing of the May 23, 2012, petition and the scheduled election, Southern Bakeries and the Union continued a long-running dispute over the Union's access to the facility. As the February 2013 election drew near, Southern Bakeries made its opposition to the Union well known. For example, Southern Bakeries posted a memorandum suggesting the Union was planning to lead a strike similar to one at Hostess Bakeries, where the same international Union had represented the employees.
In addition, Southern Bakeries' executive vice president and general manager, Rickey Ledbetter (Ledbetter), gave the Southern Bakeries' employees a series of captive audience speeches encouraging them to vote against the Union. A fairly lengthy PowerPoint presentation accompanied each speech, and the speeches were delivered in English and Spanish. The speeches contained a variety of statements critical of the Union. Ledbetter emphasized the then-recent closing of Hostess Bakeries and asserted unions “strangled” Hostess Bakeries and other companies to death. Ledbetter also suggested that the Company would not retaliate against employees if the Union won the election. After these speeches, the Union filed blocking charges, and the Board postponed the election pending further investigation.
A few months later, Hankins circulated a withdrawal petition and gathered the signatures of a majority of the employees. Hankins presented the petition to Ledbetter on June 13, 2013. After verifying the authenticity of the signatures, on July 3, 2013, Southern Bakeries denied the Union access to the plant, ceased dues check offs, and withdrew recognition of the Union.
The Regional Director filed a consolidated complaint against Southern Bakeries with the Board on January 10, 2014. An administrative law judge (ALJ) held a four-day hearing on the matter beginning on February 4, 2014.
On February 28, 2014, while the ALJ's decision was pending, the Director filed a § 10(j) petition for injunctive relief with the district court alleging Southern Bakeries engaged in acts that violate §§ 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1), (3), & (5). App. 6.3 The district
court permitted the Director to present the administrative record as an exhibit. S. Bakeries, 38 F.Supp.3d at 1027 n. 3. The district court entered an injunction on August 14, 2014, that, in pertinent part, enjoins and restrains Southern Bakeries and all persons acting in concert with it from failing to recognize the Union and directs Southern Bakeries to allow the Union access to the facility in a manner consistent with past practice and to post copies of the district court's order in English and Spanish.
On July 17, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Southern Bakeries committed a series of unfair labor practices. Southern Bakeries objected to the ALJ's findings and conclusions, and its appeal to the Board is pending.
On appeal of the district court's preliminary injunction, Southern Bakeries argues the district court erred in reinstating the Union. Southern Bakeries challenges the adequacy of evidence to support the injunction. The Company contends the only evidence the Director presented to demonstrate that the employees were coerced into withdrawing support for the Union was that several months prior to the presentation of the withdrawal petition, the Company installed two video-only cameras, conducted a lawful decertification campaign, and disallowed the Union from abusing its limited right of access under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.
II. Discussion
We review “the District Court's material factual findings for clear error, its legal conclusions de novo, and the court's equitable judgment—the ultimate decision to grant the injunction—for an abuse of discretion.” Osthus v. Whitesell Corp., 639 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir.2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “An abuse of discretion occurs if a relevant factor that should have been given significant weight is not considered, if an irrelevant or improper factor is considered and given significant weight, or if a court commits a clear error of judgment in the course of weighing proper factors.” Aaron v. Target Corp., 357 F.3d 768, 774 (8th Cir.2004).
The rationale behind § 10(j) is that “[t]ime is usually of the essence” in labor disputes and “the relatively slow procedure of Board hearing and order, followed many months later by an enforcing decree of the circuit court of appeals, falls short of achieving the desired objectives—the prompt elimination of the obstructions to the free flow of commerce and encouragement of ... free and private collective bargaining.” S.Rep. No. 80–105, at 8 (1947). Accordingly, Congress enabled “the Board, acting in the public interest and not in vindication of purely private rights, [to] seek injunctive relief in the case of all types of unfair labor practices.” Id.; see Frankl v. HTH Corp., 650 F.3d 1334, 1340 (9th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. v. Burr
...Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains v. Hawley , 903 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting McKinney ex rel. NLRB v. S. Bakeries, LLC , 786 F.3d 1119, 1122 (8th Cir. 2015) ). The factors for evaluating whether a preliminary injunction should be issued are: "(1) the threat of irreparabl......
-
McKinney v. Starbucks Corp.
...to demonstrate that the Board's ability to redress the alleged unfair labor practices will be impaired or frustrated"); S. Bakeries, 786 F.3d at 1125-26 (vacating a § 10(j) injunction where the Board did make out irreparable injury to its remedial powers). Consider whether that movement was......
-
S. Bakeries, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
...shown a threat of irreparable harm, in part because the union lacked the support of most employees. See McKinney ex rel. NLRB v. S. Bakeries, LLC, 786 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2015). Thereafter, the ALJ determined in the administrative proceeding that Southern had engaged in a number of unfair l......
-
Henderson v. Bluefield Hosp. Co.
...on the question of irreparable injury." Sharp , 172 F.3d at 1039 (emphasis added); see also McKinney ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Southern Bakeries, LLC , 786 F.3d 1119, 1123 (8th Cir. 2015). The Acting Regional Director must demonstrate to "th[is] court that the case presents one of those rare situ......