OZBURN-HESSEY LOGISTICS, LLC, dba Geodis Logistics, LLC v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, - Articles

All Content

OZBURN-HESSEY LOGISTICS, LLC, dba Geodis Logistics, LLC v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Sep 24, 2019

Head Comment: UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1:

ARGUED: Benjamin H. Bodzy, GEODIS LOGISTICS, INC., Nashville, Tennessee, for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent. Steven A. Bieszczat, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner.

Attorneys 2:

ON BRIEF: Benjamin H. Bodzy, GEODIS LOGISTICS, INC., Nashville, Tennessee, Stephen D. Goodwin, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, Memphis, Tennessee, for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent. Steven A. Bieszczat, Elizabeth A. Heaney, David Habenstreit, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. Keren Wheeler, UNITED STEELWORKERS, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Intervenor. 

Judge(s): SUTTON, GRIFFIN, and READLER, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: National Labor Relations Board

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC (“OHL”) and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) have what can only be described as “a long and acrimonious history,” during which OHL has engaged in a multitude of unfair labor practices and anti-union activity. McKinney v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC, 875 F.3d 333, 336 (6th Cir. 2017). In this latest dispute, the Board found that OHL violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) when it unilaterally changed its employee attendance policy two separate times—without giving the union that represents its employees notice and the opportunity to bargain—and then discharged an employee pursuant to the new policy. OHL challenges the Board’s finding with respect to the second violation on due process grounds, arguing that it was neither specifically alleged in the administrative complaint nor tried at the hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). OHL also contends that the change to the attendance policy did not cause the employee’s discharge. The Board opposes the petition and has filed a cross-petition for enforcement of its order.

We conclude that the Board did not deprive OHL of due process. While OHL is correct that the second violation was not specifically alleged in the charge or the complaint, the record is replete with evidence that the Board provided ample notice to OHL, and the parties thoroughly litigated the issue at the hearing. OHL’s causation argument fails as a result of this conclusion. Accordingly, we deny OHL’s petition and grant the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement.

Attachments: