NLRB v. EAD Motors, et al.
This text of 2004 DNH 107 (NLRB v. EAD Motors, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NLRB v . EAD Motors, et a l . CV-04-012-SM 07/22/04 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Rosemary Pye, Regional Director of the First Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner
v. Civil N o . 04-012-SM Opinion N o . 2004 DNH 107 EAD Motors Eastern Air Devices, Inc., Respondent
O R D E R
Pursuant to section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations
Act, Rosemary Pye, on behalf of the National Labor Relations
Board (the “Board”), seeks injunctive relief against respondent,
EAD Motors Eastern Air Devices, Inc., pending final disposition
of the Board’s administrative complaint against respondent (which
is presently pending). See 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). In support of
its petition, the Board alleges that EAD Motors violated sections
8(a)(1), ( 2 ) , and 5 of the Act. EAD Motors disputes the Board’s
allegations and opposes its request for injunctive relief. Discussion
On May 2 6 , 2004, the court held a hearing on the petition,
at which both parties appeared and presented oral argument.
Subsequently, on June 1 5 , 2004, Administrative Law Judge Martin
Linsky issued his decision on the underlying complaint brought by
the Board against EAD Motors. A copy of that order is attached
to petitioner’s Motion to Receive Administrative Law Judge’s
Decision (document n o . 2 7 ) . Among other things, the ALJ
concluded that:
[1.] Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act when it unlawfully declared impasse and unilaterally implemented changes to the terms and conditions of employment of its employees;
[2.] Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act when it failed and refused to turn over to the Union [various] information requested by the Union.
[3.] Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act when it unlawfully withdrew recognition from the Union.
[4.] Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act when it unlawfully assisted, dominated, and interfered with the “Have Your Say” committee, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
2 [5.] The above violations of the Act are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Id. at 1 9 .
In light of the findings and conclusions made by the ALJ,
and based upon the written memoranda and oral argument presented
by the parties, the court concludes that the Board has carried
its burden of demonstrating entitlement to a preliminary
injunction. Specifically, the Board has shown reasonable cause
to believe that respondent engaged in unfair labor practices and
has demonstrated that issuing an injunction against continuing
unfair labor practices on the part of respondent is both “just
and proper.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(j).
In reaching this conclusion, the court has considered (and
resolved in favor of the Board) the familiar four-part test for
granting preliminary relief. See generally, Pye v . Sullivan
Bros. Printers, Inc., 38 F.3d 5 8 , 63 (1st Cir. 1994). First, in
light of the decision issued by the ALJ, the Board has
demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its
claims against respondent. Second, the court concludes that
3 there exists a potential for irreparable injury in the absence of
injunctive relief. As the ALJ determined, the union has been
rendered virtually ineffective as a consequence of respondent’s
unfair labor practices. And, absent judicial intervention,
member support for the union will likely erode even further as
the administrative case moves through the system. Under those
circumstances, respondent’s employees would be denied the
benefits of good-faith collective bargaining during the period of
time leading up to a final resolution of the Board’s
administrative complaint against respondent - harm that is
unlikely to be remedied by the final order in that proceeding.
Third, the relative harm to respondent if injunctive relief
is granted is comparatively slight - the status quo will be
restored and respondent will be obligated to negotiate in good
faith with the union. As noted above, however, in the absence of
an injunction, the union and its membership will likely suffer
irreparably. Thus, the likely injury to the union if injunctive
relief is not granted substantially outweighs any hardship that
an injunction would impose on respondent. And, finally, granting
the Board’s request for injunctive relief is in the public
4 interest - in ensuring that the purposes of the Act are
furthered. See generally Asseo v . Centro Medico Del Turabo, 900
F.2d 445 (1st Cir. 1990). See also Pye v . Excel Case Ready, 238
F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2001); Rivera-Vega v . Conagra, Inc., 70 F.3d
153 (1st Cir. 1995).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in the
Board’s Memorandum (document n o . 22) and its Rebuttal Memorandum
(document n o . 2 5 ) , the court concludes that the Board has
demonstrated its entitlement to the injunctive relief it seeks.
Having considered the pleadings, evidence, briefs, argument
of counsel, and the entire record in this case (including the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge), the court finds that
there is reasonable cause to believe that respondent has engaged
i n , and is engaging i n , acts and conduct in violation of Sections
8(a)(1), ( 2 ) , and (5) of the Act, which affect commerce within
the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The court also
concludes that such acts and conduct will likely be repeated or
continued unless enjoined.
5 Accordingly, pending the final disposition of the matters
presently pending before the National Labor Relations Board,
respondent, EAD Motors Eastern Air Devices, Inc., its officers,
representatives, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,
successors, and all persons acting in concert or participation
with them, are hereby enjoined from:
1. Unlawfully withdrawing recognition o f , and ceasing to bargain with, the union;
2. Refusing to provide information to the union which respondent is legally obligated to provide;
3. Recognizing, dealing with, or assisting in any manner any labor organization that has not been certified by the National Labor Relations Board to represent respondent’s employees, including the “Have Your Say” employee committee established in August of 2003;
4. Making unilateral changes to the terms and conditions of its employees’ employment; and
5. Otherwise interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
Additionally, respondent is affirmatively ordered t o :
1. Immediately recognize and bargain with the union;
6 2. Within ten (10) days of the issuance of this order, restore all terms and conditions of employment as they existed on September 1 8 , 2002, prior to the unilateral changes implemented by respondent;
3. Within ten (10) days of the issuance of this order, provide the union with all lawfully requested information;
4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2004 DNH 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nlrb-v-ead-motors-et-al-nhd-2004.