Source: https://casetext.com/case/south-prairie-constr-v-operating-engineers
Timestamp: 2020-05-31 13:09:46
Document Index: 798787576

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 8', '§ 158', '§ 8', '§ 158', '§ 8', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 159', '§ 9']

South Prairie Constr. v. Operating Engineers, 425 U.S. 800 | Casetext Search + Citator
South Prairie Constr. v. Operating Engineers
Carpenters Local U #1846 v. Pratt-Farnsworth
Often the doctrine is invoked to combine the amount of business of two or more employers so that the whole…
United Telegraph Wkrs., Afl-Cio v. N.L.R.B
Because common ownership is necessarily a feature of any conglomerate organization, and because common…
Full title:SOUTH PRAIRIE CONSTRUCTION CO. v . LOCAL NO. 627, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF…
425 U.S. 800 (1976)
96 S. Ct. 1842
holding that appeals court usurped role of NLRB by reversing Board's legal conclusion and proceeding to decide issue of fact that should be decided by Board in the first instance
Summary of this case from Thomas v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Page 651
No. 75-1097.
Together with No. 75-1243, National Labor Relations Board v. Local No. 627, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, et al., also on petition for writ of certiorari to the same court.
Respondent union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that two highway contractors (South Prairie and Kiewit), the wholly owned subsidiaries of another corporation, had committed an unfair labor practice in violation of §§ 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to apply to South Prairie's employees the collective-bargaining agreement between the union and Kiewit, that South Prairie and Kiewit constituted a single "employer" under the Act for purposes of applying the agreement, and that hence under § 9 of the Act South Prairie was obligated to recognize the union as the bargaining representative of its employees. The NLRB held that South Prairie and Kiewit were separate employers and dismissed the complaint. But the Court of Appeals held that South Prairie and Kiewit were a "single employer," that their combined employees constituted the appropriate bargaining unit under § 9, and that therefore they had committed an unfair labor practice as charged, and remanded the case to the NLRB for enforcement of an order. Held: The Court of Appeals invaded the NLRB's statutory province when it proceeded to decide the § 9 "unit" question in the first instance, instead of remanding the case to the NLRB so that it could make the initial determination. Since the selection of an appropriate bargaining unit lies largely within the discretion of the NLRB, whose decision, if not final, is rarely to be disturbed, the Court of Appeals' function ended when the NLRB's error on the "single employer" issue was "laid bare."
Respondent Union filed a complaint in 1972 with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that South Prairie Construction Co. (South Prairie) and Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. (Kiewit) had violated §§ 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(5) and (1), by their continuing refusal to apply to South Prairie's employees the collective-bargaining agreement in effect between the Union and Kiewit. The Union first asserted that since South Prairie and Kiewit are wholly owned subsidiaries of Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc. (PKS), and engage in highway construction in Oklahoma, they constituted a single "employer" within the Act for purposes of applying the Union-Kiewit agreement. That being the case, the Union contended, South Prairie was obligated to recognize the Union as the representative of a bargaining unit drawn to include South Prairie's employees. Disagreeing with the Administrative Law Judge on the first part of the Union's claim, the Board concluded that South Prairie and Kiewit were in fact separate employers, and dismissed the complaint.
The relevant portions of the Act, §§ 8 and 9, 29 U.S.C. § 158 and 159, provide in part:
"Sec. 9(a) Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit . . . .
On the facts of this case, the Union first had to establish that Kiewit and South Prairie were a single "employer." If it succeeded, Page 802 the existence of a violation under § 8(a)(5) would then turn on whether under § 9 the "employer unit" was the "appropriate" one for collective-bargaining purposes.
On the Union's petition for review, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit canvassed the facts of record. It discussed, inter alia, the manner in which Kiewit, South Prairie, and PKS functioned as entities; PKS' decision to activate South Prairie, its nonunion subsidiary, in a State where historically Kiewit had been the only union highway contractor among the latter's Oklahoma competitors; and the two firms' competitive bidding patterns on Oklahoma highway jobs after South Prairie was activated in 1972 to do business there.
We need not for present purposes set out the facts as summarized at length in the Court of Appeals' opinion. See 171 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 104-107, 518 F.2d 1040, 1042-1045 (1975).
Stating that it was applying the criteria recognized by this Court in Radio Union v. Broadcast Service, 380 U.S. 255 (1965), the Court of Appeals disagreed with the Board and decided that on the facts presented Kiewit and South Prairie were a single "employer." It reasoned that in addition to the "presence of a very substantial qualitative degree of centralized control of labor relations," the facts "evidence a substantial qualitative degree of interrelation of operations and common management — one that we are satisfied would not be found in the arm's length relationship existing among unintegrated companies." 171 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 108, 109, 518 F.2d 1040, 1046, 1047 (1975). The Board's finding to the contrary was, therefore, in the view of the Court of Appeals "not warranted by the record." Id., at 109, 518 F.2d, at 1047.
"[I]n determining the relevant employer, the Board considers several nominally separate business entities to be a single employer where they comprise an integrated enterprise, N.L.R.B. Twenty-first Ann. Rep. 14-15 (1956). The controlling criteria, set out and elaborated in Board decisions, are interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership." 380 U.S., at 256.
Having set aside this portion of the Board's determination, however, the Court of Appeals went on to reach and decide the second question presented by the Union's complaint which had not been passed upon by the Board. The court decided that the employees of Kiewit and South Prairie constituted the appropriate unit under § 9 of the Act for purposes of collective bargaining. On the basis of this conclusion, it decided that these firms had committed an unfair labor practice by refusing "to recognize Local 627 as the bargaining representative of South Prairie's employees or to extend the terms of the Union's agreement with Kiewit to South Prairie's employees." Id., at 112, 518 F.2d, at 1050. The case was remanded to the Board for "issuance and enforcement of an appropriate order against . . . Kiewit and South Prairie." Ibid.
Petitioners South Prairie and the Board in their petitions here contest the action of the Court of Appeals in setting aside the Board's determination on the "employer" question. But their principal contention is that the Court of Appeals invaded the statutory province of the Board when it proceeded to decide the § 9 "unit" question in the first instance, instead of remanding the case to the Board so that it could make the initial determination. While we refrain from disturbing the holding of the Court of Appeals that Kiewit and South Prairie are an "employer," see NLRB v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co., 340 U.S. 498 (1951), we agree with petitioners' principal contention.
"Were we called upon to pass on the Board's conclusions in the first instance or to make an independent review of the review by the Court of Appeals, we might well support the Board's conclusion and reject that of the court below. But Congress has charged the Courts of Appeals and not this Court with the normal and primary responsibility for granting or denying enforcement of Labor Board orders." 340 U.S., at 502.
The Court of Appeals was evidently of the view that since the Board dismissed the complaint it had necessarily decided that the employees of Kiewit and South Prairie would not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit under § 9. But while the Board's opinion referred to its cases in this area and included a finding that "the employees of each constitute a separate bargaining unit," 206 N.L.R.B. 562, 563 (1973), its brief discussion was set in the context of what it obviously considered was the dispositive issue, namely, whether the two firms were separate employers. We think a fair reading of its decision discloses that it did not address the "unit" question on the basis of any assumption, arguendo, that it might have been wrong on the threshold "employer" issue.
Section 9(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 159 (b), directs the Board to
The Board's cases hold that especially in the construction industry a determination that two affiliated firms constitute a single employer "does not necessarily establish that an employer-wide unit is appropriate, as the factors which are relevant in identifying the breadth of an employer's operation are not conclusively determinative of the scope of an appropriate unit." Central New Mexico Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Assn., Inc., 152 N.L.R.B. 1604, 1608 (1965). See also B B Industries, Inc., 162 N.L.R.B. 832 (1967). Cf. Gerace Constr., Inc., 193 N.L.R.B. 645 (1971).
Compare Radio Union v. Broadcast Service, 380 U.S. 255 (1965), with Packard Motor Co. v. NLRB, 330 U.S. 485, 491-492 (1947).
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Board's principal case on the "unit" question, Central New Mexico Chapter, supra, was distinguishable because there the two affiliated construction firms were engaged in different types of contracting. It thought that this fact was critical to the Board's conclusion in that case that the employees did not have the same "community of interest" for purposes of identifying an appropriate bargaining unit. Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in this reasoning, we think that for it to take upon itself the initial determination of this issue was "incompatible with the orderly function of the process of judicial review." NLRB v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 380 U.S. 438, 444 (1965). Since the selection of an appropriate bargaining unit lies largely within the discretion of the Board, whose decision, "if not final, is rarely to be disturbed," Packard Motor Co. v. NLRB, 330 U.S. 485, 491 (1947), we think the function of the Court of Appeals ended when the Board's error on the "employer" issue was "laid bare." FPC v. Idaho Power Co., 344 U.S. 17, 20 (1952).
As this Court stated in NLRB v. Food Store Employees, 417 U.S. 1, 9 (1974):
"It is a guiding principal of administrative law, long recognized by this Court, that `an administrative determination in which is imbedded a legal question open to judicial review does not impliedly foreclose the administrative agency, after its error has been corrected, from enforcing the legislative policy committed to its charge.' FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 145 (1940)."
In foreclosing the Board from the opportunity to determine the appropriate bargaining unit under § 9, the Court of Appeals did not give "due observance [to] the distribution of authority made by Congress as between its power to regulate commerce and the reviewing power which it has conferred upon the courts under Article III of the Constitution." FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 141 (1940).
holding that federal court should not have made bargaining unit decision in multi-employer case
Summary of this case from Moriarty v. Svec
holding that federal courts cannot make initial findings on unit-representation issues, but must defer to the NLRB
Summary of this case from Gateway Structures, Inc. v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Conference Board of United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners
holding that a court's making an “initial determination” of representational issue is “incompatible with the orderly function of the process of judicial review.”
Summary of this case from United Steel v. Kentucky West Virginia Gas Company
holding that it was inappropriate for a court, rather than the NLRB, to make “the initial determination” as to an appropriate bargaining unit
holding that the function of the reviewing court ends when the administrative agency's error on the legal issue is laid bare
Summary of this case from DYNA CARE HOME HEALTH, INC. v. SHALALA
affirming D.C. Circuit's reversal of N.L.R.B. decision on single employer status, but vacating the circuit court's findings on single bargaining unit as an invasion of the N.L.R.B.'s authority
Summary of this case from Local 1 Amal. Lithographers v. Stearns Beale
noting that the "selection of an appropriate bargaining unit lies largely within the discretion of the Board, whose decision, `if not final, is rarely to be disturbed'" (quoting Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRB, 330 U.S. 485, 491, 67 S.Ct. 789, 793, 91 L.Ed. 1040 (1947))
Summary of this case from 3750 Orange Place Ltd. Partnership v. N.L.R.B
In South Prairie, the Supreme Court held that, on appeal of an NLRB decision, a federal court lacked jurisdiction and must remand to the NLRB to make an initial determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.
Summary of this case from Communication Workers of America v. US West Direct
In South Prairie Const. Co. v. Operating Eng'rs, 425 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1842, 48 L.Ed.2d 382 (1976) (per curiam), the Court held that a federal circuit court lacked jurisdiction, on appeal of an NLRB decision, to make an initial determination of which set of employees constituted the appropriate bargaining unit and must remand the case to the NLRB for an initial determination.
Summary of this case from Trustees of Iron Workers Fund v. a P Steel
In South Prairie Construction Co. v. Local 627, 425 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1842, 48 L.Ed.2d 382 (1976), the Supreme Court made it clear that it is "incompatible with the orderly function of the process of judicial review" for a court of appeals to take upon itself the original resolution of an issue entrusted to an administrative agency.
Summary of this case from Kessler Inst. for Rehabilitation v. N.L.R.B
noting that “the selection of an appropriate bargaining unit lies largely within the discretion of the [NLRB]”
Summary of this case from Lippert Tile Co. v. Int'l Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Dist. Council of Wisconsin Local 5
referring to an issues within the “statutory province of the Board” as one that should go to the Board for “the initial determination”
discussing unit determination as it applies to a suit brought pursuant to Sections 8 and
Summary of this case from OPERATIVE PLASTERERS CEMENT MASONS INT. v. AGJ CONS
establishing four-factor test for determining single employer status
Summary of this case from Finkel v. S.I. Associates Co., Inc.