Opinion ID: 3002225
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Decision to Grant Injunctive Relief

Text: Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) authorizes a district court to order injunctive relief pending the NLRB’s final disposition of an unfair labor practices claim if such relief would be “just and 14 No. 07-3925 proper.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). The court looks to the same factors to which it looks in other contexts when deciding whether to grant injunctive relief: “the lack of an adequate remedy at law, the balance of potential harms posed by the denial or grant of interim relief, the public interest, and the petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits of its complaint.” Bloedorn v. Francisco Foods, Inc., 276 F.3d 270, 286 (7th Cir. 2001) (citing Kinney v. Pioneer Press, 881 F.2d 485, 490 & n.3, 493 (7th Cir. 1989)); see also NLRB v. Electro-Voice, Inc., 83 F.3d 1559, 1566 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1055 (1997). The Regional Director is entitled to interim relief when: (1) the Director has no adequate remedy at law; (2) the labor effort would face irreparable harm without interim relief, and the prospect of that harm outweighs any harm posed to the employer by the proposed injunction; (3) “public harm” would occur in the absence of interim relief; (4) the Director has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits of his complaint. Bloedorn, 276 F.3d at 286. The Director bears the burden of establishing the first, third and fourth of these circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. The second prong is evaluated on a sliding scale: The better the Director’s case on the merits, the less its burden to prove that the harm in delay would be irreparable, and vice versa. Id. at 286-87. We review the district court’s decision to grant interim injunctive relief under section 10(j) for an abuse of discreNo. 07-3925 15 tion. Bloedorn, 276 F.3d at 286; Electro-Voice, 83 F.3d at 1566. We examine the district court’s decision only to ensure that it does not “depend[] on faulty legal premises, clearly erroneous factual findings, or improper application of the criteria governing preliminary injunctive relief.” Electro-Voice, 83 F.3d at 1566 (quoting Kinney, 881 F.2d at 493).
As we noted in Bloedorn, “[s]ection 10(j) relief is an extraordinary remedy . . . reserved for ‘those situations in which the effective enforcement of the NLRA is threatened by the delays inherent in the NLRB dispute resolution process.’ ” 276 F.3d at 297 (quoting Szabo v. PIE Nationwide, Inc., 878 F.2d 207, 209 (7th Cir. 1989)). We first consider whether the district court clearly erred when it determined that the rights of the employees under the NLRA would suffer irreparable harm from the passage of time between the filing of charges and the resolution of the complaint by the NLRB. Id.; see also Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 386 (7th Cir. 1984) (“Only if [the employees] will suffer irreparable harm in the interim—that is, harm that cannot be prevented or fully rectified by the final judgment after trial—can [they] get a preliminary injunction.”). The process of NLRB resolution has long been recognized as extraordinarily slow—indeed, the purpose of section 10(j) was to prevent employers from taking advantage of this significant passage of time in their efforts to quash 16 No. 07-3925 union support in the interim. See NLRB v. PIE Nationwide, Inc., 894 F.2d 887, 891 (7th Cir. 1990); Szabo, 878 F.2d at 20910; Kinney, 881 F.2d at 493-94. The longer that an employer is able to chill union participation or avoid bargaining with a union, the less likely it is that the union will be able to organize and to represent employees effectively once the NLRB issues its final order. See Bloedorn, 276 F.3d at 299; see also Electro-Voice, 83 F.3d at 1573; Schaub v. W. Mich. Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 250 F.3d 962, 971 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting the significant effects of chill on the ability of a union to organize). This risk is particularly true in cases involving fledgling unions, where the passage of time is especially critical. See Arlook v. S. Lichtenberg & Co., Inc., 952 F.2d 367, 373 (11th Cir. 1992). Here, the district court, noting the precipitous decline in Union participation, credited the testimony of many Spurlino employees who stated that they were hesitant to attend Union meetings because they feared discrimination. If Spurlino is allowed to proceed in its quest to defeat the Union before it becomes established, the court found, then merely requiring the company to pay its employees damages after the fact will not remedy the adverse impact to the Union and the employees in the interim period. Spurlino contends that immediate injunctive relief is unnecessary in this case. In support, it notes that the Regional Director filed a motion to postpone for a few weeks the district court’s hearing on the preliminary injunction, which, in Spurlino’s view, shows that the need for injunctive relief is not urgent. See Schaub v. Detroit No. 07-3925 17 Newspaper Agency, 154 F.3d 276, 280 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding that the Director’s 18-month delay in filing a petition for injunction showed that interim relief was unnecessary); but see Gottfried v. Frankel, 818 F.2d 485, 495 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding that delay is a factor that may be considered, but it is not particularly probative; the question is whether interim relief is necessary to restore the parties to the status quo). Spurlino also contends that evidence in the record shows that the Union is not in precipitous decline, and it suggests that any reduction in attendance at Union meetings is because the meetings are held on Friday evenings, a popular time for other activities. Spurlino’s arguments, however, show only that there may be an alternative view of the evidence presented to the district court; they do not establish that the district court’s view of the evidence was clearly erroneous. After a review of the record, we must conclude that the district court did not clearly err when it found that an award of damages in future years would be an inade- quate remedy in this case.
For the same reasons that the district court concluded that the Director has no adequate remedy at law, it also concluded that the employees are likely to suffer substantial and irreparable harm if Spurlino is allowed to continue its effort to subvert the Union until the case is resolved by the NLRB. As we noted in Electro-Voice: The deprivation to employees from the delay in bargaining and the diminution of union support is im- 18 No. 07-3925 measurable. That loss, combined with the likelihood that the Board’s ability to rectify the harm is diminishing with time, equals a sufficient demonstration of irreparable harm to the collective bargaining process. 83 F.3d at 1573. Spurlino first contends that the Director cannot show a likelihood of irreparable harm during the interim period because the actions about which the employees complain largely involved assignments to the portable plant, which is no longer in operation. The district court disagreed, however, and noted that Spurlino continues to make daily decisions about other work assignments and the terms and conditions of employment. The court concluded that the Director had presented evidence of Spurlino’s clear hostility toward the Union, as well as a pattern of discrimination against employees active in the Union. It found that there was a substantial risk that Spurlino would continue its efforts to undermine the Union while the dispute was pending before the NLRB, and that irreparable harm was likely to result. After a review of the record, we cannot say that the district court’s view of the evidence was clearly erroneous. Spurlino next contends that an injunction would present a risk of substantial and irreparable harm to the company because it would subject it to contempt proceedings upon any further allegations of labor law violations. Although an injunction certainly would restrict Spurlino’s ability to engage in unfair labor practices, as well as perhaps subject it to an increased risk of unwarranted contempt proceedings, Spurlino does not explain why this potential No. 07-3925 19 harm would be irreparable. Furthermore, even if the company were at risk of irreparable harm, Spurlino makes no effort to weigh this risk against the risk of harm to the Union. Additionally, the strength of the Director’s case on the merits affects a court’s assessment of the relative harms posed by the grant or denial of injunctive relief: The greater a party’s prospects of prevailing on the merits, the less compelling a showing of irreparable harm is required. Bloedorn, 276 F.3d at 286-87; Electro-Voice, 83 F.3d at 1568. As we discuss below, the district court’s conclusion that the Regional Director has a high likelihood of success on the merits is supported by the record; accordingly, he need not make an extremely strong showing of irreparable harm in order to warrant granting interim relief.
The district court concluded that granting preliminary injunctive relief here was in the public interest. As we noted in Electro-Voice, “[t]he public interest is furthered, in part, by ensuring that an unfair labor practice will not succeed because the Board takes too long to investigate and adjudicate the charge.” 83 F.3d at 1574 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Spurlino presented no evidence of public harm to challenge the district court’s decision. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court correctly determined preliminary injunctive relief in this case to be in the public interest. 20 No. 07-3925
We have held that, “in evaluating the likelihood of success, it is not the district court’s responsibility, nor is it ours, to rule on the merits of the Director’s complaint”; deciding the merits of the case is the sole province of the Board. Bloedorn, 276 F.3d at 287. Our inquiry is confined to the likelihood that the Director will prevail before the Board. Id. “For our purposes, we must decide whether the Director has a better than negligible chance of success: whether the Director has ‘some chance’ of succeeding on the merits.” Electro-Voice, 83 F.3d at 1568. In evaluating this likelihood, “given the Board’s expertise in matters of labor relations, we must be ‘hospitable’ to the General Counsel’s view of the law.” Bloedorn, 276 F.3d at 287 (citation omitted). We also must give some measure of deference to the view of the ALJ, id. at 288,4 as well as our traditional deference to the findings of the district court. On this appeal, we are asked only to determine whether the district court clearly erred when it concluded that the Regional Director’s evidence was sufficient to establish a “better than negligible” chance of success on the merits. Electro-Voice, 83 F.3d at 1570. 4 The ALJ’s opinion certainly is relevant to the propriety of section 10(j) relief. Evaluating the Director’s likelihood of success calls for a predictive judgment about how the NLRB is likely to rule. The ALJ is the NLRB’s first-level decisionmaker, and, “[h]aving presided over the merits hearing, the ALJ’s factual and legal determinations supply a useful benchmark against which the Director’s prospects of success may be weighed.” Bloedorn v. Francisco Foods, Inc., 276 F.3d 270, 288 (7th Cir. 2001). No. 07-3925 21 The district court considered the entire record, including the testimony of Union supporters, employees either neutral or against the Union and management. It concluded that the Director had made a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits on the retaliation/discrimination charge. It also concluded that the Director had made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits of the charge that Spurlino made unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of employment without bargaining over those issues. Finally, the court concluded that the Director had made “at least a substantial showing” that Spurlino had not been bargaining in good faith. R.30 at 23. Spurlino’s main contention is that the PLA that governed the stadium project superceded any obligations that the company might have had to bargain with the Union or to respect its employees’ seniority; the company also contends that the PLA provided it with the right to assign the stadium project work to whomever it pleased. In support of its contention, Spurlino points to section 3.12 of the PLA, which states: “Individual seniority will not be recognized or applied to employees working on the Project.” R.19, Joint Ex. 4, at 12. The district court, however, considered this argument and concluded that “Spurlino’s position misinterprets the PLA.” R.30 at 18. In the view of the district court, the PLA provision barring individual seniority meant only that there would be no effort to recognize seniority as between employees of different employers working at the stadium site. Such a provision was sensible, it noted, 22 No. 07-3925 considering that managing the large stadium project likely would be nearly impossible if individual seniority had to be recognized among different employers. The court concluded that the many major unions whose members worked on the stadium had not surrendered all of their employees’ internal seniority rights by signing on to the PLA. Id. It noted that other provisions of the agreement specified that, unless there was a specific conflict between the PLA and existing collective bargaining agreements, the collective bargaining agreements would remain in effect. The ALJ took the same view as the district court. He also concluded that, even if Spurlino had no obligation to assign the most senior drivers to the portable plant, the company’s treatment of the portable plant drivers’ overall seniority still violated section 8(a)(5) because an employee’s work at the stadium project adversely affected the terms and conditions of the rest of his employment with the company (i.e., he was moved to the bottom of the Kentucky Avenue seniority list). Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court’s interpretation of the PLA was unreasonable. In sum, we conclude that the district court properly considered the relevant factors when deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction. Spurlino failed to show that the court relied upon an error of law or a clearly erroneous interpretation of the evidence in the record. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the Director’s motion for interim injunctive relief under section 10(j). No. 07-3925 23