The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Garten Trucking’s challenge to an order requiring the Virginia-based carrier to negotiate with a union seeking to represent its drivers, despite the union having previously lost a representation vote.
The court rejected, without comment, the trucking company’s petition for certiorari on Monday, the first day of its new term. The decision leaves in place an earlier ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which had sided with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Garten Trucking, based in Covington, Virginia, had asked the Supreme Court to review that Fourth Circuit decision, issued earlier this year. The appellate court had upheld the NLRB’s order requiring the company to negotiate with the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, which has been attempting to organize Garten’s drivers.
The carrier’s main business is transporting paper products.
The dispute has its roots in an August 2021 union election at the company’s Covington operations. Employees voted 65-30 against union representation. The result, however, did not bring the organizing campaign to an end.
Union challenges election result
The Fourth Circuit characterized the subsequent conflict as involving “bitter and lengthy disputes.”
Following the vote, the union submitted numerous unfair labor practice allegations against Garten, covering conduct that occurred both before and after the election. The union argued before the NLRB that those alleged violations had seriously compromised the integrity of the vote.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) eventually examined the case in February 2023. The judge concluded that Garten had committed several unfair labor practices, including unlawfully questioning employees, creating the impression that workers’ union activities were being monitored, threatening to close the business and making threats involving employee discipline.
The ALJ responded by ordering another election. Such an order is known as a Gissel order, named after a 1969 Supreme Court ruling involving the NLRB. That precedent gave the labor board authority to require a new vote when unfair labor practices are found to have potentially tainted an earlier election.
Garten challenged the ALJ’s findings before the NLRB. There is no indication in the record that the second election has actually taken place.
In September 2023, the NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s findings. Garten subsequently took the dispute to the Fourth Circuit.
Dispute centered on First Amendment protections
One of the central legal questions involved the First Amendment and the distinction between protected employer speech and statements that could amount to unlawful coercion during a union campaign.
The Fourth Circuit emphasized that employers remain free to express views about unionization, but drew a distinction between legitimate persuasion and statements that could effectively pressure employees through promised rewards or threatened consequences.
“There is a fundamental difference between speech imposing a proper quid pro quo and speech which merely attempts to persuade on the merits, leaving employees free to vote without penalty or reward dangling over their heads,” the appellate court stated.
The court ultimately determined that Garten management had crossed that boundary with a statement telling employees that, “as a matter of fact if it wasn’t for the union trying to steal money out of your paychecks you would already have your raises.”
The Fourth Circuit considered the statement evidence that the company had moved beyond protected speech into coercive conduct. It therefore upheld the NLRB’s order calling for another union vote.
Company argued election was not tainted
In its petition to the Supreme Court, Garten maintained that the proceedings surrounding the 2021 election had been “fair and untainted.”
The company pointed to testimony from several witnesses who appeared for the NLRB’s general counsel. According to Garten’s petition, those witnesses said employees were able to discuss the union without fear or pressure, wear union-related clothing without facing consequences and never heard management threaten adverse consequences for supporting the union.
Garten also argued that employees had not been asked to disclose who supported the union. The company said workers were not questioned about their own union activities or those of colleagues, nor were they asked who had signed union authorization cards or attended union meetings.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves the Fourth Circuit’s decision and the NLRB’s bargaining order standing.
