Opinion ID: 719584
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Work-Assignment Awards Under Section 10(k)

Text: 21 Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(D) (1994), makes it unlawful for a union to act to coerce an employer with an object to force the employer to assign work to employees in a particular labor organization rather than to another group of employees. Upon a charge of a violation of this section, the Board is to suspend proceedings on the charge pending its consideration of the underlying dispute under section 10(k) of the Act. See NLRB v. Plasterers' Local Union No. 79, 404 U.S. 116, 123-24, 92 S.Ct. 360, 365-66, 30 L.Ed.2d 312 (1971). When the Board is faced with a dispute between two or more groups of employees over which is entitled to do certain work for an employer, it is a dispute within the Board's jurisdiction under section 10(k). NLRB v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, 364 U.S. 573, 579, 81 S.Ct. 330, 334-35, 5 L.Ed.2d 302 (1961) (CBS ). 22 The Board exercises its authority over jurisdictional disputes by determining whether there is reasonable cause to believe (1) that section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and (2) that the parties are unable to settle the dispute voluntarily. See International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. NLRB, 884 F.2d 1407, 1409 n. 5 (D.C.Cir.1989) (Sea-Land ). Once these elements are established, the Board holds a hearing to determine which group of employees is entitled to perform the disputed work. See CBS, 364 U.S. at 586, 81 S.Ct. at 338. However, the Board's resolution of this question does not immediately result in a reviewable order. Instead, the Board issues a request that the competing employee groups comply with its work-assignment award. If a rival employee group does not comply, its actions may then become the subject of an unfair labor practice proceeding under section 8(b)(4)(D), through which the Board's section 10(k) award may be reviewed. See International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 62-B v. NLRB, 781 F.2d 919, 923 (D.C.Cir.1986) (Alaska Timber ). 23 The scope of our review of the Board's section 10(k) orders is limited. As this court explained in Alaska Timber, 24 [i]n reviewing § 10(k) orders, as implemented by § 8(b)(4)(D) proceedings, we perform a limited inquiry. To the extent that the Board decisions reflect conclusions as to factual matters, for which there is substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, we must defer to the Board's conclusion. 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) (1982). To the extent that the Board decisions reflect a legal conclusion, however, we must determine whether the decisions were arbitrary and capricious. 25 781 F.2d at 923. 26