Skip to main content

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 147 v. National Labor Relations Board

D.C. CircuitJuly 9, 2002No. No. 01-1301Cited 9 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Ginsburg, Randolph, Tatel
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Retaliation

Outcome

The D.C. Circuit Court vacated and remanded the NLRB's decision dismissing the unfair labor practice complaint, finding the Board failed adequately to explain why evidence of antiunion animus did not support a finding that Tidewater unlawfully refused to consider six applicants for employment during a lockout.

What This Ruling Means

**Union Workers Win Appeal Against Construction Company** This case involved six union workers who applied for jobs at Tidewater Construction Company during a labor dispute called a lockout, where the employer temporarily shuts out workers. The workers' union claimed that Tidewater refused to consider hiring these applicants because of their union membership, which would be illegal workplace discrimination. Initially, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) dismissed the union's complaint, saying there wasn't enough evidence that the company acted illegally. However, the workers' union appealed this decision to federal court. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the union and overturned the NLRB's decision. The court found that the NLRB had failed to properly explain why evidence of anti-union bias shouldn't lead to a finding that Tidewater illegally refused to consider the union applicants. The court sent the case back to the NLRB for a more thorough review. **What this means for workers:** This ruling reinforces that employers cannot refuse to hire people simply because they belong to a union. Even during labor disputes, companies must follow fair hiring practices and cannot discriminate against union members. The decision also shows that workers can successfully challenge government agencies when they don't properly investigate workplace discrimination claims.

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.