stating that unions have a duty to use “ ‘objective criteria’ and ‘consistent standards’ ” in the operation of hiring-halls
How later courts described this case
- stating that unions have a duty to use “ ‘objective criteria’ and ‘consistent standards’ ” in the operation of hiring-halls
- "We are ... required by Chevron to defer to [the agency's] reasonable and permissible interpretation of the Act."
- “upholding the Board’s decision that the Union’s mistake [in failing to refer a member to a job based on an undisputed mistake] did not amount to a violation of the [Act] or result in a breach of the DFR”; and that “the Union’s single mistake in managing its hiring hall did not begin to approach conduct that is proscribed by § 8(b)(1)(A) and § 8(b)(2)”
- discussing overlap between DFR and unfair labor practice claims
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
While I concur, I by no means believe the issue is as open-and-shut as the substantive portion of the majority’s opinion suggests. See Majority Op. at 308-310. Plainly, Jacoby I did not find it so-Jacoby I declined to accept the Board’s position that as a matter of law “merely negligent conduct can never breach the duty of representation in any context, including that of the hiring hall.” Jacoby v. NLRB, 233 F.3d 611, 616 (D.C.Cir.2000). Nor did the Board, which apparently deemed its disposition here in conflict with its own decision in Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 118 (California Erectors), 309 N.L.R.B. 808 , 1992 WL 389435 (1992)-“a Board case that upheld a [Duty of Fair Representation] charge for negligent conduct under similar circumstances.” Majority Op. at 303.