Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Davidson Hotel Company, LLC v. NLRB (DC Court of Appeals)

 

As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Last Thursday, the DC Court of Appeals held oral arguments in Davidson Hotel Company, LLC v. NLRB in which the Court is considering what an administrative agency needs to include in an adjudicative decision.

In Davidson Hotel Company, LLC, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a decision in which it authorized a pair of bargaining units.  Counsel for Davidson had argued that the hotel’s food and beverage workers and housekeeping employees worked together to provide “highly integrated” guest services such that the NLRB should not have allowed them to be grouped in separate bargaining units.  The NLRB’s decision to approve the pair of bargaining units was in conflict with its prior rulings which allowed only a single unit of hotel employees because their work was similarly integrated.  However, the NLRB’s decision did not directly address the cases cited by counsel for Davidson.

In oral arguments before a three judge panel from the DC Court of Appeals, the Court noted that if the NLRB is adjudicating disputes on a case by case basis (such as in Davidson), the NLRB might have an obligation to explain why earlier decisions are sufficiently different from the case at hand.  Counsel for the NLRB countered that the NLRB had met its burden to engage in reasoned decision making.  The argument followed that it would be a different situation if a party felt a major decision set a controlling legal standard that the NLRB did not discuss.  However, in Davidson, counsel for NLRB argued that the analysis was appropriate and it was not necessary for there to be a separate paragraph delineating between the facts in Davidson and prior precedent.

It will be interesting to see how the Court of Appeals rules.  Should the Court of Appeals find that the NLRB failed to distinguish the facts of Davidson with prior precedent, requiring administrative agencies to differentiate between all relevant prior precedent would be somewhat...unprecedented.  Pardon the pun.


For a link to the audio of the oral arguments:  https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/71467/davidson-hotel-company-llc-v-nlrb/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more