Unfair labor practices (ULPs); The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA); Multiemployer bargaining; Withdrawal from a multiemployer CBA; Retail Assocs, Inc (NLRB); Charles D. Bonanno Linen Serv, Inc v NLRB; Whether the withdrawal was timely; Whether the employer violated the NLRA; NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) & (5); Claw back of fringe-benefit fund contributions; “Economic exigency”; Increasing bargaining-unit employees’ wages without bargaining with the Union; Whether a strike was a ULP strike or an economic strike; Michigan Infrastructure & Transportation Association (MITA); Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

On petition for review of an NLRB order, the court held that the intervenor-Union’s withdrawal from a multiemployer CBA was timely and lawful, and that petitioner-employer (Rieth-Riley) committed ULPs. Thus, it denied Rieth-Riley’s petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement of its order requiring Rieth-Riley to “bargain in good faith.” Rieth-Riley is based in Indiana and engaged with the Union through the MITA. When the CBA to which MITA and the Union were parties was about to expire, the Union told the MITA it wished to terminate the CBA because it would rather bargain with the individual employers. After it expired, conflicts arose. Eventually there was a strike and a lockout. The NLRB’s General Counsel brought a ULP complaint against Rieth-Riley alleging that the company had violated the NLRA. The ALJ found that the Union’s withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining was timely and lawful. He also concluded “that Rieth-Riley violated the NLRA by locking out Union members to pressure [it] to bargain on a multiemployer basis. Third, he determined that Rieth-Riley violated the NLRA by unilaterally granting employees wage increases in 2018 and 2020 and by making certain deductions from their paychecks. Fourth, he found that the 2019 strike was an economic strike” rather than a ULP strike. The NLRB reversed the fourth finding but otherwise affirmed. The court first held that the “Union timely withdrew from the multiemployer unit.” It notified MITA of its intent to do so “before negotiations on a new agreement began. Nothing more was required to withdraw from the multiemployer unit.” The court rejected Rieth-Riley’s arguments that this result did not comport with Retail Assocs, and that negotiations on a new agreement had begun. It next considered whether “Rieth-Riley’s clawback of benefit-fund contributions and its grant of wage increases in 2020, both of which [it] carried out without bargaining with the Union” violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and (5). It held that because “Rieth-Riley failed to prove an economic exigency, its clawback of benefit-fund contributions” did so. As the ALJ stated, “‘[t]he length of time that elapsed before [Rieth-Riley] acted contradicts the claim that time was of the essence and an economic exigency existed.’” Substantial evidence also supported “the Board’s determination that Rieth-Riley violated the NLRA by unilaterally increasing its employees’ wages in 2020.” Finally, as to the strike issue, the court found that because “the company’s 2018 lockout was an [ULP], sufficient evidence exists connecting the lockout to the strike.”