National Labor Relations Board v. Southern Bakeries, LLC
Filing
51
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 42 Motion to Stay filed by Southern Bakeries, LLC. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on April 24, 2015. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
M. KATHLEEN MCKINNEY, Regional
Director of Region 15 of the National
Labor Relations Board and on behalf
of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD
V.
PETITIONER
CIVIL NO. 4:14-cv-4037
SOUTHERN BAKERIES, LLC
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Southern Bakeries, LLC’s (“Southern Bakeries”) Motion
for Stay of Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal. (ECF No. 42). Petitioner M. Kathleen
McKinney (“McKinney”), the Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations
Board, has responded. (ECF No. 46). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.
BACKGROUND
Southern Bakeries seeks a stay pending its appeal of the Court’s Order granting
Petitioner’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 41). The Court’s Order requires
Southern Bakeries to bargain with the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain
Millers International Union, Local 111 (“the Union”) in good faith to an agreement or impasse.
On appeal, Southern Bakeries contends that the Court erred in finding that McKinney had
presented sufficient evidence of a causal nexus between the alleged unfair labor practices and the
employees’ decision to submit a withdrawal-of-recognition petition.
Southern Bakeries
maintains that it was the employees’ free choice to divest from the union, and the injunction will
1
irreparably harm Southern Bakeries because it must continue bargaining with a union that the
majority of its employees have rejected.
DISCUSSION
A court should consider four factors in determining whether to stay an injunction pending
an appeal:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be
irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay
will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). In considering a stay, a court balances the
equities between the parties and does not have to engage in a detailed analysis of the applicant’s
probability of success on the merits. Dakota, Minnesota & E. R.R. Corp. v. Schieffer, 742 F.
Supp. 2d 1055, 1061 (D.S.D. 2010).
“The applicant bears the burden of establishing the propriety of a stay.” Id. at 1060. “A
stay is an ‘intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review’ and
accordingly ‘is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.’” Nken v.
Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009) (internal citations omitted). Because a stay is discretionary
and not a matter of right, the applicant bears the heavy burden of showing that the circumstances
warrant an exercise of that discretion. Id. at 433-434.
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Southern Bakeries argues that the evidence failed to establish a causal relationship
between employees who signed a withdrawal-of-recognition petition and Southern Bakeries’
2
alleged unfair labor practices, and therefore Southern Bakeries is likely to succeed on the merits
of its appeal. In the Court’s Order granting the preliminary injunction, the Court found that
McKinney had presented sufficient evidence of a causal connection between the alleged unfair
labor practices and the employees’ withdrawal petition.
McKinney offered evidence that
between March 2012 and February 2013, Southern Bakeries had threatened job losses and plant
closures, among other alleged unfair labor practices. In June 2013, employees presented a
withdrawal petition to Rick Ledbetter, Southern Bakeries’ executive vice president and general
manager. Southern Bakeries maintains that the five month gap in time between submission of
the withdrawal petition and the alleged unfair labor practices weighs against a finding of a causal
nexus. Nevertheless, for a preliminary injunction, the Court only needs to consider whether
McKinney is likely to establish a causal connection. The disparaging comments, threats, and
coercive statements could have caused the employees’ disaffection with the Union and tainted
their withdrawal petition. See Radisson Plaza Minneapolis v. N.L.R.B., 987 F.2d 1376, 1383
(8th Cir. 1993). Therefore, the Court does not agree with Southern Bakeries’ contention that the
Court erred in finding that McKinney had presented sufficient evidence of a causal nexus
between the alleged unfair labor practices and the withdrawal petition. Accordingly, Southern
Bakeries has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal.
2. Irreparable Injury to the Applicant
Southern Bakeries asserts that it should be under no obligation to continue bargaining
with a union that the majority of appropriate-unit employees have rejected, and it will suffer
irreparable harm if the Court’s Order is not stayed pending appeal. It further alleges that its
employees will suffer irreparable harm as they will lose the right to represent themselves
individually. The Court disagrees. As discussed in the Court’s Order granting the preliminary
3
injunction, the employees’ loss of support for the Union can be attributed to Southern Bakeries’
alleged unfair labor practices and not the employees’ own free choice.
Moreover, the
preliminary injunction only requires the parties to bargain in good faith. This interim bargaining
obligation does not compel Southern Bakeries to agree to any unfavorable terms or conditions
urged by the Union.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Southern Bakeries has failed to
demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm if the Order is not stayed.
3. Injury to the Opposing Party
Southern Bakeries contends that a stay will not injure McKinney or the Union because
(1) a complete remedy is available through the normal administrative process; (2) McKinney
tarried nearly eight months before seeking injunctive relief; and (3) the Union has not enjoyed
the majority support of the bargaining unit since May 2012. McKinney argues that for more than
a year, Southern Bakeries has refused to recognize and bargain with the Union, and the Union’s
position has been undermined by Southern Bakeries’ unlawful conduct. The Court agrees with
McKinney that a stay of the preliminary injunction will prejudice McKinney and the Union. The
longer Southern Bakeries refuses to recognize the Union, the harder it will be for the Union to
regain support if the Board finds that Southern Bakeries’ conduct was unlawful. Furthermore,
months could pass before the Board issues a final decision. McKinney’s delay in filing the
petition does not undermine the case for temporary injunctive relief. As previously discussed in
the Court’s Order granting the preliminary injunction, a court is not required to take the
timeliness of a National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) petition into consideration when
determining whether to grant temporary relief. Hubbel v. Patrish LLC, 903 F. Supp. 2d 813, 818
(E.D. Mo. 2012). Thus, the Court finds that this factor weighs against a stay of the preliminary
injunction.
4
4. Public Interest
Southern Bakeries argues that the public interest lies in staying the preliminary injunction
during the course of the appeal because a forced labor agreement would destroy the free choice
of the employees and could lead to a labor dispute. The Court rejects this argument. McKinney
established a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the unfair labor practices in her
Petition for Injunctive Relief. The likelihood that Southern Bakeries committed unfair labor
practices counsels against a stay of the preliminary injunction. Moreover, Congress has revealed
a strong public interest in protecting employees’ rights to organize and bargain collectively
through the NLRA. Chester ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Eichorn Motors, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 2d 621, 630
(D. Minn. 2007).
Accordingly, public interest favors denying a stay of the preliminary
injunction.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Southern Bakeries’ Motion for Stay of
Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal (ECF No. 42) should be and hereby is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 24th day of April, 2015.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?