Cargill, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 16-1565 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCargill petitioned for review of the Board's order concluding that the company engaged in unfair labor practices when it refused to bargain with the Union, in violation of sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5). The court concluded that the Union did not run afoul of 29 C.F.R. 102.65(e)(1), which prohibits a motion for reconsideration, rehearing, or reopening of the record on a matter that could have been raised in the earlier proceedings; the court rejected Cargill's argument that the Board erred in declining to dismiss the second petition; the Board reasonably determined that the packaging, shipping, and receiving employees were readily identifiable as a group and share a community of interest; the Board also reasonably determined that Cargill failed to show that the terminal, quality-control, and maintenance employees, all of whom were excluded from the bargaining unit, shared an "overwhelming community of interest" with the bargaining-unit employees such that their exclusion from the unit rendered it inappropriate; the Board's finding that, even accepting the testimony of Cargill's witnesses, the company had failed to establish that the complained-of conduct created the necessary atmosphere of fear and reprisal that rendered a free election impossible, was supported by substantial evidence; and because there was no employee conduct sufficiently objectionable to require action by the Board's agent, the Board did not err in concluding that Cargill failed to establish that the Board agent's conduct cast a reasonable doubt on the Board's neutrality or the integrity of the election. Accordingly, the court denied the petition and enforced the order.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Wright, District Judge] Petition for Review - National Labor Relations Board. By electing to file a new petition which differed from the original representation petition, the Union did not, as asserted by Cargill, run afoul of 29 C.F.R. Sec. 102.65(e)(1) which prohibits a motion for reconsideration, rehearing or reopening of the record; as a result, the Board did not err in declining to dismiss the second petition; the Board did not err in approving the bargaining unit at issue as it could reasonably determine that the packaging, shipping and receiving employees were readily identifiable as a group and shared a community of interest; nor did the Board err in determining that Cargill failed to show that the employees it thought should be included in the unit shared an overwhelming community unit with the bargaining unit employees such that their exclusion rendered the bargaining unit determination inappropriate; the Board did not err in concluding Cargill had not carried the heavy burden of showing that the complained-of conduct at the election created a general atmosphere of fear and reprisal rendering a free election impossible; because no employee action was sufficiently objectionable to require action by the Board's on-site agent, the Board did not err in determining that Cargill failed to establish that the agent's actions cast a reasonable doubt on the Board's neutrality or the integrity of the election. [ March 23, 2017
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.