Skip to main content

International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 845 v. National Labor Relations Board

9th CircuitJanuary 24, 2008No. Nos. 05-77400, 05-77408, 05-77419
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

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.

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit denied the union's petition for review and upheld the NLRB's decision not to issue a Gissel bargaining order against Desert Toyota, finding that traditional remedies (cease-and-desist orders, notices, reinstatement, and backpay) were sufficient to address the employer's unfair labor practices.

What This Ruling Means

**Union Loses Bid to Force Employer Bargaining After Unfair Labor Practices** This case involved a dispute between the International Association of Machinists union and Desert Toyota dealership. The union wanted to represent workers at the dealership, but claimed the company committed unfair labor practices that made it impossible to hold a fair union election. The union asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to order the company to recognize the union and bargain with them without an election – something called a "Gissel order." The NLRB refused to issue this special order, and the union challenged that decision in federal court. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the NLRB, ruling that standard remedies were enough to fix the employer's wrongdoing. These standard remedies included ordering the company to stop its unfair practices, post notices about workers' rights, reinstate any fired workers, and pay back wages. **What this means for workers:** This decision shows how difficult it can be for unions to get special orders forcing employers to bargain. Even when companies break labor laws during organizing campaigns, courts may decide that basic remedies like reinstatement and back pay are sufficient, rather than automatically granting union recognition.

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

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.