Seiu Local 1107 v. NLRB ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 30 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SEIU LOCAL 1107,                                No.    20-70312
    Petitioner,                     NLRB No. 
    369 NLRB No. 16
    .
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
    BOARD,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    National Labor Relations Board
    Argued and Submitted December 10, 2020
    Pasadena, California
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY,**
    District Judge.
    In a concurrently filed memorandum disposition in the related case, Local
    Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. NLRB, No. 19-73322, we remanded the
    case, without vacatur of the challenged decision, to the National Labor Relations
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for
    the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    Board (“NLRB” or “the Board”) with instructions that it address an identified gap
    in the decisionmaking process by which it determined that “dues checkoff” is
    excepted from the doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Katz, 
    369 U.S. 736
    , 743 (1962). This case presents the same question regarding the
    reasonableness of the Board’s decisionmaking, and we reach the same result here
    for the reasons stated in Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas.
    Accordingly, we remand to the NLRB so that it may have an opportunity to
    provide an adequate explanation for its approach to dues checkoff by explicitly
    addressing the precedents identified in our decision in Local Joint Executive Board
    of Las Vegas. We do not vacate the Board’s dues checkoff rule. The rule
    articulated by the Board may stand while it undertakes the process of
    supplementing its reasoning. In light of this disposition, and the likelihood of
    further proceedings before the Board, we do not address the propriety of the
    Board’s retroactive application of the challenged rule at this stage. This panel
    retains jurisdiction over any subsequent petition for relief.
    PETITION GRANTED, and REMANDED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-70312

Filed Date: 12/30/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/30/2020