Mattina v. Kingsbridge Heights Rehabilitation & Care Center
Docket: Nos. 08-4059-cv (L), 08-5067-cv (Con)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; May 18, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Kingsbridge Heights Rehabilitation and Care Center appeals orders from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which granted the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court must apply a two-prong test for issuing such an injunction: first, it must find reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred, without making a final determination on the nature of those practices. Deference to the NLRB's judgment is essential, and relief should only be denied if the NLRB's theories are substantially flawed. Second, the court must determine that the requested relief is just and proper, typically when necessary to prevent irreparable harm or maintain the status quo.
The review of the district court's decision involves deference to its factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, while legal conclusions, including reasonable cause, are reviewed fully. Kingsbridge primarily contests the injunction's requirement to reinstate striking employees, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction for the reinstatement hearings. However, the court clarifies that the jurisdiction granted by the NLRA is broad, allowing for hearings related to temporary relief. Thus, the district court acted within its jurisdiction in conducting these hearings regarding the reinstatement of employees accused of strike misconduct.
Equity jurisdiction is characterized by its flexibility, allowing courts to tailor decrees to the specific needs of each case. The district court's assignment of the burden of proof during striker misconduct hearings is deemed harmless, referencing Garofolo v. Coomb, which established that errors in burden assignment do not negate a petitioner’s guilt when evidence overwhelmingly supports it. Kingsbridge's assertion that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the reinstatement of former strikers is rejected on several grounds.
The 'reasonable cause' standard under Section 10(j) permits injunctions even when issues are unresolved before the Board, allowing for remedies against egregious unfair labor practices. The court found reasonable cause to believe Kingsbridge committed such practices and that the strike was lawful, regardless of mixed motives behind the strike. The reinstatement was deemed necessary to prevent irreparable harm and maintain the status quo preceding the unfair practices.
Contrary to Kingsbridge's views, the court maintained that precedents do not necessitate a different outcome, and various circuits interpret the 'just and proper' standard differently, with the Second Circuit aligning with traditional equity rules. Additionally, delays by the Board in seeking injunctions do not render such injunctions inappropriate, as established in Kaynard v. MMIC, Inc. The district court's conditional reinstatement order is consistent with both Board practices and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), aiming to restore the status quo prior to the unfair labor practices, supported by case law.
Kingsbridge contends that the district court erred by including a provision (g) in the injunction that prohibits videotaping and photographing union members and employees outside the facility. While Kingsbridge acknowledges that photographing employees engaged in protected activities generally violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act due to potential intimidation, it claims to have justification based on evidence of misconduct and violence by striking employees. However, provision (g) remains valid as it allows Kingsbridge to direct cameras at entrances, exits, and patient elopement areas without justification and permits videotaping in other areas with proper justification. Despite Kingsbridge’s arguments regarding the incidents of alleged misconduct providing sufficient justification, the review indicates reasonable cause to believe Kingsbridge violated the Act by videotaping employees engaged in union activities. The court also finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kingsbridge's discovery requests. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, and the temporary stay on the prohibitions against videotaping and photographing (provision g) is vacated. Further factual details are available in the district court’s opinion granting the Section 10(j) injunction.
