Skip to main content

United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local Nos. 135, 324, 770, 1036, 1167, 1428, 1442 v. National Labor Relations Board

9th CircuitSeptember 26, 2016No. 14-70771, 14-71004, 14-71202
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Trott, Davis, Owens
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Retaliation

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit denied Ralphs Grocery Company's petition for review of the NLRB's final order, affirmed the Board's decision on all substantive issues, and rejected the Union's belated request for litigation expense reimbursement as jurisdictionally barred.

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a labor dispute between grocery store chain Ralphs and several United Food & Commercial Workers Union locals. The dispute centered on issues of privilege waiver during labor proceedings and litigation expenses. Ralphs had challenged a decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regarding privilege waiver - essentially whether certain confidential communications could be used as evidence in the labor dispute. The union locals also wanted the court to order reimbursement for their legal expenses, but they had not raised this issue during the original proceedings before the NLRB. The court sided with the NLRB and denied Ralphs' challenge to the agency's decision about privilege waiver. However, the court dismissed the unions' request for litigation expense reimbursement because they had not brought up this issue earlier in the process - they couldn't raise it for the first time on appeal. For workers, this case reinforces that the NLRB's decisions on procedural matters in labor disputes will generally be upheld by courts. It also shows the importance of raising all legal arguments early in the process, as courts typically won't consider new issues brought up only during appeals.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Retaliation cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.