Nestle Dreyer's Ice Cream Company v. NLRB

Case Updates

The Fourth Circuit panel decided, “Because the Board did not violate the NLRA or abuse its discretion in certifying the maintenance-only unit, we deny Dreyer’s petition for review and grant the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement of its order.”

In this case, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) upheld a regional director's determination that a unit comprised solely of maintenance employees at the employer’s manufacturing plant constituted an appropriate bargaining unit based on the micro union standard established in the Specialty Healthcare decision. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, this case was re-decided by the Fourth Circuit with a new panel and reached the same result. The U.S. Chamber asked the Fourth Circuit to grant Nestle-Dreyer's petition and deny the NLRB's cross-petition.

In its coalition brief, the U.S. Chamber argues that the NLRB's Specialty Healthcare rule is inconsistent with Section 9(B) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and with the contemporaneous legislative record of the Act. Furthermore, the NLRB ignored Section 9(b)'s command to assure employees the fullest freedom in exercising all of the rights guaranteed by the NLRA. The rule violates Section 9(C)(5) of the NLRA as well, the Chamber's brief explains.

The U.S. Chamber filed this brief jointly with the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, International Foodservice Distributors Association, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Federation of Independent Business, National Retail Federation, and Society for Human Resource Management.

Mark Theodore, Ronald Meisburg, and Joshua F. Alloy of Proskauer Rose LLP served as co-counsel for the amici with the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.