Summary
This Third Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reviews a National Labor Relations Board decision regarding whether temporary COVID-19 hazard pay bonuses constituted mandatory bargainable wages or non-bargainable gifts under the National Labor Relations Act. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the bonuses were tied to employment-related factors like attendance and job role, making them subject to mandatory bargaining. Additionally, the court held that the collective bargaining agreement's management rights clause did not survive the contract's expiration, meaning the employer could not unilaterally implement or rescind the bonuses without prior notice to the union. The court denied the employer's petition for review and granted the General Counsel's cross-petition for summary enforcement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the COVID-19 bonuses were wages or other terms and conditions of employment subject to mandatory collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act.
- Whether the COVID-19 bonuses constituted hazard pay and therefore were a mandatory subject of bargaining.
- Whether the pandemic created exigent economic circumstances excusing Alaris from its duty to bargain.
- Whether the management-rights clause in the expired collective bargaining agreement authorized Alaris to implement and modify the bonuses unilaterally.
- Whether the Board properly granted partial summary judgment and ordered the make-whole remedy based on Alaris's deficient answer to the compliance specification.
- Whether the Board's order concerning Alaris's failure to respond to the Union's information request should be enforced.
Holdings
- The bonuses were sufficiently tied to employment-related factors that they constituted wages or other terms and conditions of employment and were subject to mandatory bargaining under the Act.
- Hazard pay is a form of wages or remuneration and therefore falls within the terms and conditions of employment subject to mandatory bargaining under the Act.
- The court declined to excuse Alaris's unilateral implementation and modifications of the bonuses because the Company did not establish exigent economic circumstances, and the argument was not preserved before the Board or ALJ.
- The management-rights clause did not survive expiration of the collective bargaining agreement and therefore did not authorize Alaris to act unilaterally.
- The Board properly granted partial summary judgment and ordered the make-whole remedy because Alaris's answer consisted of impermissible general denials and failed to specify the basis for disagreement or provide supporting figures.
- The court enforced the Board's order concerning Alaris's failure to respond to the Union's information request because the issue was not meaningfully contested and was forfeited.
Key quotations
“The mandatory duty to bargain is limited to “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.”” (13)
“Given that hazard pay is simply a subset of one’s salary or “remuneration,” it clearly falls under “wages” or “other terms and conditions of employment” as used in the Act and therefore subject to mandatory bargaining.” (20)
“In sum, when analyzed using ordinary contract principles, we find the management rights clause does not survive the CBA’s expiration.” (28)
“Finally, we will enforce the Board’s order with respect to the Company’s failure to respond to the information request.” (34)
Factual background
Alaris operated a nursing facility in New Jersey whose employees were represented by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. During the early COVID-19 pandemic, Alaris implemented temporary hourly bonuses, increased some bonuses, and later reduced or discontinued them without giving the Union prior notice or an opportunity to bargain. The bonuses were limited to hours worked and varied by employee position and hourly rate; the Union repeatedly objected and requested bargaining. Alaris also failed to provide information requested by the Union concerning employee health-insurance coverage.
Procedural history
The General Counsel issued a complaint and compliance specification alleging that Alaris violated sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally implementing, changing, and ending COVID-19 wage bonuses without notice and an opportunity to bargain, and by failing to provide requested information. An Administrative Law Judge initially found that the bonuses were gifts rather than wages and that the management-rights clause authorized them, but found an information-request violation. The Board reversed the principal liability findings, ordered make-whole relief, granted partial summary judgment concerning the compliance specification, and affirmed the information-request violation. Alaris petitioned for review, and the General Counsel cross-petitioned for enforcement.