Skip to main content

May 19, 2022

Volume XII, Number 139

National Law Review
  • Login
  • FB
  • twt
  • link
  • home
  • rss
Advertisement
  • logo
  • Publish / Advertise with Us
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Join Our Team
    • Search
  • Trending Legal News
    • Most Recent
    • Legal News Podcast
    • What's Trending
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • NLR Blog
    • Search
  • About Us
    • About the NLR
    • NLR Team
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • NLR Thought Leadership Awards
      • 2018
      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Search
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Search
  • Quick Links
    • Legal News Podcast
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Search
  • ENEWSBULLETINS

 

New Articles
Bottom Row Image
Advertisement

May 19, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Court Enjoins Law Requiring California Businesses Have Women on Their... by: Ian A. Michalak
  • FDA Updates Agricultural Water Protocol by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
  • What is Technology-Assisted Review? (TAR) by: Kamron Sanders
  • Chicago City Council Expands Sexual Harassment Laws by: Steven J Pearlman and Edward C. Young
  • New York Defines “Disadvantaged Communities” for Use in Justice40... by: Stacey Sublett Halliday and Julius M. Redd
  • Colorado Continues Its Crackdown on Restrictive Covenants by: Erik W. Weibust
  • Expert Witness Case Complexity & Vetting – Episode 36 [Podcast] by: Erica Evans and Adam Bloomberg
  • FDA White Paper Signals Shift to Performance-Based Reviews of Mature... by: Allison Fulton and Eve Costopoulos
  • Reinstated Superfund Excise Tax Imposed on Certain Chemical Substances by: B&C® Biobased and Sustainable Chemicals Practice Group Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
  • Missed the May 17 Deadline to File Your EEO-1 Report? There’s Still... by: H. Mark Adams
  • How to Effectively Keep in Touch with Your LinkedIn Connections to... by: Stefanie M. Marrone
  • EPA Releases Meeting Minutes and Final Report for March SACC Meeting... by: Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
  • 11th Circuit Approves of Third-Party Releases Despite Debtor’s... by: Shane G. Ramsey
  • DC Circuit Narrowly Interprets False Claims Act’s “Government-Action... by: D. Jacques Smith and Michael F. Dearington
  • Family Law: Marketing Tips & Tricks to Grow Your Practice by: Cate Giordano
  • FTC Has Full Slate of Commissioners by: E. John Steren and Patricia M. Wagner
  • CFPB Metrics Report Shows Increased Scrutiny of Borrower Access to... by: Tonya M. Esposito and Benjamin M. Saul
  • Déjà Vu Decision on Likelihood of Confusion by: Amol Parikh
  • Vale’s ESG Disclosures Lead to Regulatory and Shareholder Litigation by: Melissa J. Tea and Molly K. McGinley
  • U.S. Supreme Court Limits Federal Court Review in Deportation Case by: Amy L. Peck
  • Connecticut Expands Advanced Practice Providers’ Scope of Practice to... by: Yelena Greenberg
  • The Halo Effect Won’t Cure Lack of Final Judgment by: Katherine Pappas
  • Tuning Up Stock Option Grant Practices by: Joshua A. Agen
  • Agency to Reveal Timing on First Draft of CPRA Regs at May 26 Meeting by: Kyle R. Fath and Gicel Tomimbang
  • Virginia Finalizes CDPA Text With the Addition of Three Amendment... by: Eva J. Pulliam and Christine Chong
  • Use of Negative Claim Construction is Unsound by: Art Dykhuis
  • EPA Considers Classifying Discarded PVC Plastic as Hazardous Waste by: Jillian M. Askren and Christopher L. Bell
  • Plaintiffs’ Bar Shows Renewed Interest in COBRA Notice Litigation by: Charles F. Seemann III and Kyle R. Bevan
  • Hacking Healthcare: Cyberattack Contingency Planning and Response by: Christopher (Chris) D. Taylor and Alaap B. Shah
  • Why Environmental Compliance Auditing is Important in the Purchase/... by: David P. Ruetz
  • NYC Amends Salary Transparency Law; Delays Effective Date by: Ryan A. Glasgow and P. Scott Burton
  • THE REST OF THE STORY: Here is All the Stuff the Czar Left Out About... by: Brittany A. Andres
  • Preventing Lender Liability: A Cautionary Case Study by: Kimberly A. Baber and Brendan G. Best
  • UAE Law on The Signing of Arbitral Awards by: Jennifer Paterson and Mohammad Rwashdeh
  • The Metaverse: A Legal Primer for the Hospitality Industry by: Charles B. Ferguson, Jr. and Kimberly A. Wachen
  • TCPA QUICK HITTER: Attorney Proceeding In Forma Pauperis Cannot... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Ontario Appellate Court Ruling Leaves Employers Waiting for... by: Kathryn J. Bird and Gloria Ilunga
  • What’s in a Name?: “Defense Stocks” Highlight the Challenges for... by: Jason M. Halper and Ellen Holloman
  • Law of the Land - Real Estate Litigation Newsletter (May 19, 2022) by: Joel E. Antwi and Abigail Fletes
  • European Commission Presents REPowerEU Plan by: Tariq A. Fedda and Miguel A. Caramello Alvarez
  • US Imposes Additional Sanctions, Consulting Services Ban, Export... by: Kara M. Bombach and Cyril T. Brennan
  • Proposed Rule Concerning CBI Claims under TSCA Addresses EPA Review... by: Government Regulation
  • Workplace Strategies Watercooler: New OFCCP Regulatory and Compliance... by: Leigh M. Nason and Lauren B. Hicks

May 18, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Trailblazing Labor Contracts End U.S. Women’s Soccer Players’ Equal... by: Patrick L. Egan and Ryan C. Chapoteau
  • US Executive Branch Update – May 18, 2022 by: Stacy A. Swanson
  • EEOC Issues Guidance on the Interplay between the Use of Artificial... by: Melissa Legault
  • Oregon Releases Final Rules on Heat Illness Prevention and Wildfire... by: Arthur G. Sapper and James M. Barrett
  • Justice Department Announces Environmental Justice Enforcement... by: Lisa A. Gilbreath and Matthew D. Manahan
  • 401(k) Compliance Check #5: Keeping 401(k) Participants Out of the... by: Arthur T. Phillips
  • Cross-Border Asset Deals [PODCAST] by: David B. Teigman and Nicholas P. LaSpina
  • Contractor Representations Regarding Cybersecurity Compliance/... by: Scott A. Schipma and Aaron M. Levin
  • DOE Announces Transmission Facilitation Program by: Rikaela R.J. Greane and R. Lynn Parins
  • France Asks Providers to Give Updated R-Nano Declaration Numbers to... by: Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
  • Delaware Becomes Latest State to Institute Paid Family and Medical... by: Evandro C Gigante and Laura M. Fant
  • Illinois Equal Pay Act’s Certification Requirement Extended to More... by: Paul Patten and Thanin O. Stewart
  • What to Do When You Have to Give a Deposition for Your Employer by: Thomas Kane and Lauren Brophy Cooper
  • How a Strong Partner Lawyer Can Make Due Diligence Easier [PODCAST] by: Spencer R. Mobley
  • The City of West Hollywood Amends Minimum Wage & Leave Ordinance... by: Benjamin A. Tulis
  • An Insider’s Guide to Tutorial Production by: Sully Ridout
  • Transatlantic Trade | US and Europe: May 1 – 15, 2022 by: Stacy A. Swanson and Christina Economides
  • TCPA TRAP: “Incontrovertible Evidence” of Consent Does Nothing to... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Key Takeaways | Update on the Solar Circumvention Proceeding and... by: Carl J. Fleming and Lynn G. Kamarck
  • BridgeBio Transaction Reflects Healthy Market for FDA Priority Review... by: Robert A. Cantone
  • THE ENERGIZER – VOLUME 100 by: Buck B. Endemann and Molly K. Barker
  • ESCALATION: Court Holds Company’s Alleged Tactic of Switching Contact... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Texas Duty to Defend: To Deviate or Not to Deviate by: Michael S. Levine and S. Alice Weeks
  • OFCCP Contractor Portal Update: Agency Launches Bulk Upload Option by: Laura A. Mitchell and F. Christopher Chrisbens
  • Federal Contractors Beware: Firm-Fixed-Price Contract Negotiations... by: D. Jacques Smith and Michael F. Dearington
  • MA SMART Program: New Guidelines for Agricultural Solar Tariff... by: Christopher Y. Eddy and Rickie M. Sonpal
  • Class Action Fairness Act Does Not Override the Federal Arbitration... by: Wystan M. Ackerman
  • Navigating the Data Privacy Landscape for Autonomous and Connected... by: Adam J. Brody and John J. Rolecki
  • The Shadow Path [PODCAST] by: Matthew G. Nielsen and Seth D. DuCharme
  • Must An Officer's Certificate Always State That The Board... by: Keith Paul Bishop
  • New Is Old Again: DOL Seeks Return to Past Rule for Federal... by: John W. Hargrove and Anne R. Yuengert
  • Judge Rules in Criminal Sanctions Case Involving Cryptocurrency by: Scott H. Kimpel
  • From Cryptic to (Some) Clarity: English Law and Policy Rising to the... by: Steven Baker and Julia Bihary
  • Hydrogen Rising: Long-Term, Evolutionary, and Sustainable: A... by: David L. Wochner
  • FDA Issued Enforcement Discretion Measures for Infant Formula by: Jennifer Tharp
  • Cape Cod's Coastal Waters Are in Desperate Need of Our Help. Are... by: Jeffrey R. Porter
  • EEOC and the DOJ Issue Guidance for Employers Using AI Tools to... by: Joseph C O'Keefe and Edward C. Young
  • MORE BAD TCPA NEWS: Major Brokerage Loses Summary Judgment in... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • 7 Content Ideas for Your LinkedIn Newsletter by: Stefanie M. Marrone
  • Finding the Delta: Understanding the Differences in How State Privacy... by: David A. Zetoony
  • Five Alarm Fie for Lead Sellers/Direct-to-Consumer Marketers:... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Back to Work: NC Lawmakers Gear Up for the 2022 Short Session by: Whitney Campbell Christensen and Trafton P. Dinwiddie
  • Through the Fire? Not Anymore – European Court of Justice Strengthens... by: Dr. Sandra Müller
  • Worldsmart: Un Puente Entre Dos Mundos— Inversiones Entre EEUU y... by: Hunter T. Carter and Gabriela E. Palmieri
  • OKLAHOMA MINI-TCPA PASSES HOUSE: Bill Headed to Governor with... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Nothing Escapes Inflation, Including California’s Minimum Wage by: Kate Gold and Philippe A. Lebel
  • House Bill To Give FDA More Funding to Address Formula Shortage by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
  • EPA Publishes Notice Concerning Court-Ordered Stay of Effectiveness... by: Carla N. Hutton

May 17, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • 2023 Payment Rule’s Nondiscrimination Provisions and Anticipation of... by: Xavier Baker
  • Proposed Rule Concerning CBI Claims under TSCA Addresses Purpose of... by: B&C® Biobased and Sustainable Chemicals Practice Group Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
  • Fresh From the Oven: The CNIL’s Criteria for Allowing Cookie Walls in... by: Stéphanie Faber
  • Connecticut Prohibits No-Hire Provisions in Homemaker and Home Health... by: Yelena Greenberg
  • Pennsylvania State Police Settle Federal Lawsuit Alleging Immigration... by: Raymond G. Lahoud
  • The Metaverse: A Legal Primer for the Senior Living Industry [Podcast] by: Jo-Ann Marchica and Stephen Blake
  • Four Key Takeaways from the American Society for Health Care Human... by: Michael R. Bertoncini
  • Two Strikes Against Board Diversity: What’s Next for Statutory... by: Jennifer B. Rubin
  • New Connecticut Laws Include Certificate of Need Changes by: Michael G. Lisitano and Nathaniel T. Arden
  • Chicago Car-Related Cyclist Fatalities and Bike Accidents On the Rise by: Clifford Law
  • Webinar Series: Braving the New Worlds of Work - Drilling Down on the... by: Darrell S. Gay
  • Virginia Overtime Requirements are Back in Alignment with the FLSA by: Ryan M. Bates and Ryan A. Glasgow
  • Foley Automotive Report: May 17, 2022 by: John R. Trentacosta and Ann Marie Uetz
  • ESG Taking Center Stage At The SEC – What Can Publicly Traded... by: Jillian M. Mueller
  • Recent Federal Developments, May 17, 2022 - EPA, FDA, TSCA, FIFRA, TRI by: Lynn L. Bergeson
  • Revocable Trusts – Separating Fact from Fiction by: Rebecca H. Simoni
  • FTC Announces Virtual Open Meeting to Discuss COPPA and Education... by: Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Episode 21: Putting People First in Behavioral Health Reform [PODCAST] by: Emily Weber and Lauren P. Carboni
  • FDA Releases Guidance on Infant Formula Enforcement Discretion Policy by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
  • Building Safety Act 2022 – What’s Changed? by: Kevin Greene and Ruth Y. Chang
  • SEC Issues New Guidance Regarding Russia Sanctions and Public Company... by: Frank Zarb and Louis Rambo
  • Down to the Wire! by: Keshinda Gage
  • TCPA QUICK HITTER: Callier Earns Big TCPA Win – Court Finds 64.1200(d... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Goodbye to McDonnell Douglas Under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act? by: Jennifer Zwilling
  • USDA Takes Steps To Implement President Biden’s Plan To Boost... by: Lynn L. Bergeson and Ligia Duarte Botelho
  • Crypto, SDBAs, and Your 401(k) Plan: What Now? by: Kellie M. Thomas
  • Finding the Delta: Understanding the Differences in the State... by: David A. Zetoony
  • Regulators Focus on Terra and Its UST Stablecoin by: Matthew E. Brown and Matthew B. Lerner
  • Refresher on California Commute Time by: Andrew J. Kozlow
  • Colorado Poised to Further Limit Use of Non-Compete Agreements, Raise... by: Timothy M. Kratz and Francis A. Wilson
  • The Verdict Is In On California's Female Director Quota Law by: Keith Paul Bishop
  • EPA's OLEM May Not Be Looking to Apply CERCLA to Everyone's... by: Jeffrey R. Porter
  • South Carolina Anti-Vaccine Mandate Law: Implications for Private... by: T. Chase Samples and Cashida N. Okeke
  • California Cannabis Farmers May Finally Get Some Relief by: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton LLP

Article By

Keahn N. Morris
John S. Bolesta
James R. Hays

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Labor & Employment Law Blog
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP full service Global 100 law firm handling corporate law

Related Practices & Jurisdictions


  • Labor & Employment
  • Litigation / Trial Practice
  • Administrative & Regulatory
  • ADR / Arbitration / Mediation
  • All Federal
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • Download PDF
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Tweet
Advertisement

NLRB Reinstates Broad Deferral of Discrimination Cases to Arbitration, Overruling the Obama Board’s 2014 Decision in Babcock & Wilcox

Thursday, January 2, 2020

The Trump National Labor Relations Board (Board or NLRB) gifted employers a significant win on the eve of the Christmas holiday with its December 23 decision in United Parcel Service, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 1 (UPS), which announced a return to the decades-old standard for deferring to arbitral decisions in unfair labor practice cases alleging discharge or discipline in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act). The Board continues to reshape the Act with new decisions that reverse precedents and undo legal restrictions placed on employers during the Obama administration, and its decision in UPS is just the latest in a string of employer-friendly decisions issued this month alone, including Caesars Entertainment, 368 NLRB No. 143 (December 17, 2019)(overruling Purple Communications and freeing up employers to ban employees from using Company-owned computers during their non-work time to engage in protected concerted or union activities); Apogee Retail, LLC, 368 NLRB No. 144 (December 17, 2019)(overruling Banner Health, allowing employers to require employees to keep workplace investigations confidential and banning them from discussing them with other employees); and Valley Hospital Medical Center, 368 NLRB No. 139 (December 16, 2019)(holding that an employer is free to unilaterally cease union dues checkoff after a CBA expires). Our recent blog article addressing these critical decisions can be found here.

Brief History of NLRB’s Deferral Standard

Briefly, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act) is designed to minimize the disruption of commerce caused by labor disputes and to promote industrial peace through the collective bargaining process. Subsumed within and integral to that bargaining process is the private and peaceful resolution of labor contract disputes by way of the agreement’s grievance and arbitration procedure. Indeed, Section 203(d) of the Taft-Hartley amendments to the Act declares final adjustment of such disputes by the method agreed upon by the bargaining parties to be “the desirable method for settlement” of such contract disputes. Consistent with that legislative declaration and where a qualifying contract grievance and arbitration procedure is in place, the Board has a long history of abstaining from taking action on many arguably meritorious unfair labor practices when the acts or omissions giving rise to those ULP claims may also be adjusted and remedied by means of the parties’ contractual grievance procedure (prearbitral deferral). United Technologies Corporation, 268 NLRB 557 (1984); Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837 (1971). Further, once a dispute has been submitted to and decided by an arbitrator, the Board has long deferred to that final and binding arbitral decision as long as the proceedings giving rise to the decision were “fair and regular” and unless the resulting decision was proven by the party opposing deferral to be palpably wrong or clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act (postarbitral deferral). Olin Corp., 268 NLRB 573 (1984); Spielberg Mfg. Co., 112 NLRB 1080 (1955). The net benefit of this time honored Board practice was that disputes arising both under the Act and under a contract would typically be litigated only once in arbitration and not in multiple, separate piecemeal adjudications before both an arbitrator and the Board.

However, in 2014, the Obama Board took a major step back from this traditional deference to arbitration in Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co., 361 NLRB 1127. There, the Board held that it would no longer grant prearbitral deferral in discriminatory discipline cases unless it could be shown that the bargaining parties incorporated the statutory right at issue into their CBA or they explicitly authorized an arbitrator to decide the ULP’s in question. Additionally, the Babcock Board significantly narrowed the circumstances under which the Board would grant postarbitral deferral to a ULP, holding that even if an arbitration was final and binding on the parties and appeared to be fair and regular, the Board would no longer defer to an arbitrator’s decision unless the party seeking deferral could show 1) the arbitrator was explicitly authorized to decide the ULP issue; 2) the arbitrator was actually presented with and considered the statutory issue or was prevented from doing so by the party opposing deferral; and 3) Board law reasonably permitted the arbitrator’s award.

Babcock presented a serious problem for employers in situations where a CBA or the parties’ submission to the arbitrator failed to authorize an arbitrator to address and decide the ULP issue, i.e. whether an employee was disciplined because of their protected concerted or union activities. Because discipline giving rise to a dispute could – and often was – the subject of both a NLRB ULP proceeding and an arbitration, a grievant and their union were afforded multiple opportunities to challenge the discipline. This, in turn, compelled an employer to go to the trouble and expense of defending its discipline decision not once, but twice. Likewise, even where an employer won a discipline case before an arbitrator, the grievant and their union could take a second bite of the same discipline apple due to the Board’s newly-announced preference to not defer to the arbitrator’s decision unless the employer could show that the ULP issue was, in fact, presented to and considered by the arbitrator and the arbitrator’s subsequent decision on that statutory issue was not so inconsistent with the Act as to foreclose postarbitral deferral. Unsurprisingly, employers attempting to satisfy this heavy burden under the Babcock framework rarely prevailed.

Board’s Rejection of Babcock in UPS

On December 23, the current Board addressed these concerns by overruling Babcock in UPS. There, Robert Atkinson, an individual Teamster-represented package car driver and former shop steward and union activist who vociferously opposed the Union’s acceptance of UPS’ contract without first being submitted to rank and file for ratification, concurrently filed both a contract grievance and a ULP charge alleging that his October 2014 termination was due to his union and protected concerted activities. In addition to requiring UPS to have just cause for discharge, sections of the CBA covering Atkinson’s employment specifically prohibited discrimination based on union activity and retaliation for enforcement of contract rights. Thereafter, Atkinson’s grievance proceeded to a grievance hearing before an adjustment board consisting of two management representatives and two union officials where Atkinson testified as to his union activity. After the hearing, the adjustment board unanimously upheld the discharge and rejected the grievance, finding “no violations of any contract articles.” Subsequently, Atkinson’s ULP charges were investigated and proceeded to trial before an administrative law judge (ALJ) who, applying Babcock’s standard, refused to defer to the adjustment board’s unanimous decision and, based on the record evidence, found Atkinson’s termination to be unlawful.

Acting on UPS’ exceptions to the ALJ’s refusal to defer to the adjustment board’s decision, the Board reversed the ALJ, finding that Babcock’s standards had not been shown to be necessary to protect either employee rights or the Board’s jurisdiction. The UPS Board further found that by disfavoring the private resolution of discipline disputes through collectively bargained arbitration, the Babcock Board disrupted the very labor relations stability that it was charged by Congress to encourage. Based on these policy considerations and contrary to Babcock, it was obvious to the current Board that the bargaining parties’ grievance arbitration machinery, and not the Board’s processes, should be the primary mechanism for resolving everyday employment disputes, even when those disputes arguably presented issues of statutory protection.

Further, apart from these overarching policy concerns, the Trump Board also identified several other defects in Babcock — all of which also counseled in favor of Babcock’s reversal and a return to the precedent and deferral practices predating Babcock. Included in this list of defects were the following: 1) by requiring explicit authorization for an arbitrator to decide a statutory issue as a condition of deferral, Babcock impermissibly interfered with the bargaining parties’ freedom of contract and needlessly encouraged multiple litigations of a single contested discharge or discipline; 2) Babcock erred by imposing an undue burden of proof on the party seeking deferral beyond merely proving the existence of an arbitration award and failing to place a burden of proof on the party opposing deferral and seeking de novo review; and 3) Babcock’s evisceration of the “repugnancy” standard used for postarbitral deferral had stood the test of sixty years and its reliance on a new “reasonable application of the law” standard subjected an arbitrator’s fact finding and decision-making to undue and unprincipled second guessing by the Board. Based on the foregoing, the Trump Board concluded that Babcock should be overruled and that the requirements for deferral of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) cases predating Babcock should be reinstated.

Based on its rejection of Babcock and its reinstatement of the postarbitral deferral standards in effect immediately prior to Babcock, the Board reversed the ALJ, deferred to the adjustment board’s unanimous decision sustaining the discharge, and dismissed the ULP case against UPS, noting that the earlier adjustment board proceeding met the Board’s pre-Babcock standards. Further, applying the Spielberg standard to the adjustment board’s decision, the NLRB concluded that the resulting award was not clearly repugnant to the Act because it was susceptible to a reading consistent with the Act, i.e. that the adjustment board considered but rejected Atkinson’s ULP claims and that the actual cause of this termination was his failure to follow company procedures.

Important Takeaways – What UPS Means for Employers

In all pending and future cases, the NLRB will likely grant prearbitral deferral in discipline cases — even though they raise possible violations of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) and despite the fact that the parties’ CBA does not specifically prohibit the employer from disciplining or otherwise discriminating against employees because of their union or protected concerted activities.

Likewise, in all pending and future cases, the Board will apply the Spielberg/Olin postarbitral test and defer to arbitration awards in discipline cases alleging violations of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) if the following conditions are met:

  1. The arbitration proceedings were “fair and regular”;

  2. The parties agreed to be bound by the outcome of the arbitration;

  3. The contractual issue submitted to arbitration was factually parallel to the unfair labor practice issue;

  4. The arbitrator was presented generally with the facts relevant to resolving the unfair labor practice; and

  5. The arbitrator’s decision was not clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act, i.e. the decision is susceptible to an interpretation that is consistent with the Act.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 2
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • Download PDF
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Advertisement
Advertisement

Related Legal Headlines

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Courts’ Use of ‘Look-Through’ Approach in Reviewing Arbitration Awards
By
Samia M. Kirmani
New Federal Law Bans Enforcement of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements in Sexual Assault and Harassment Cases
By
Employment Practice at Sherin and Lodgen
Arbitration under ERISA: A Roadmap for Enforcement
By
B. David Joffe
Beltway Buzz, February 11, 2022
By
James J. Plunkett
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Court Enjoins Law Requiring California Businesses Have Women on Their Board of...
By
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
FDA Updates Agricultural Water Protocol
By
Keller and Heckman LLP
What is Technology-Assisted Review? (TAR)
By
PracticePanther
Chicago City Council Expands Sexual Harassment Laws
By
Proskauer Rose LLP
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Keahn Morris, Sheppard Mullin Law Firm, San Francisco, Labor and Employment Law Attorney
Keahn N. Morris
Associate

Keahn N. Morris is an associate in the Labor and Employment Practice Group in the San Francisco office.Keahn’s practice focuses on all areas of labor and employment law, with an emphasis on traditional labor law, high-stakes employment-related litigation, and proactive counseling of management-side clients. Recognized by Super Lawyers as a "Rising Star", Keahn was identified as a top rated labor and employment attorney in San Francisco in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. He has significant experience in all aspects of labor-management relations law, including union corporate...

kmorris@sheppardmullin.com
415-774-2934
www.sheppardmullin.com
John S. Bolesta
John Bolesta, Lawyer, Employment, Sheppard Mullin Law Firm
Special Counsel

John S. Bolesta is a Special Counsel in the Labor and Employment Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office

Areas of Practice

Mr. Bolesta represents management in a wide variety of labor and employment litigation matters. He represents clients in a broad range of industries during union organizing attempts and litigation before the National Labor Relations Board, contract negotiation and labor arbitrations. Additionally, he advises clients on best practices in employee relations and the development of comprehensive labor strategies to preserve the...

jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com
202 747 3375
www.sheppardmullin.com
James R. Hays
James Hays, Legal Specialist, management of labor and employment law
Partner

 Mr. Hays is a partner in the Labor & Employment Practice Group in the firm's New York office and co-chairs the firm's Traditional Labor Law Team.

Areas of Practice

Mr. Hays' practice focuses on management labor and employment law. He represents clients in collective bargaining negotiations, labor arbitrations, and all stages of the labor election process, including election campaigns and hearings before the National Labor Relations Board. He also represents clients in employment litigation in federal and state courts, as well as...

jhays@sheppardmullin.com
212-634-3025
www.SheppardMullin.com
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
National Law Review
  • Antitrust Law
  • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
  • Biotech, Food, & Drug
  • Business of Law
  • Election & Legislative
  • Construction & Real Estate
  • Environmental & Energy
  • Family, Estates & Trusts
  • Financial, Securities & Banking
  • Global
  • Health Care Law
  • Immigration
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Insurance
  • Labor & Employment
  • Litigation
  • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
  • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
  • Tax
  • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
  • Coronavirus News
  • Law Student Writing Competition
  • Sign Up For NLR Bulletins
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs

 

As a woman owned company, The National Law Review is a certified member of the Women's Business Enterprise National Council

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC