## Facts

- Grand Rapids Public Schools (GRPS) operated a transportation facility on Union Street in Grand Rapids, Michigan, staffed by drivers, route planners, and mechanics represented by an incumbent union.
- Dean Transportation, Inc., a private company, won the contract to provide GRPS bus services and took over operations at the Union Street facility.
- Dean hired a large majority of the former GRPS transportation employees and continued operations at the same facility using the same buses and equipment, with substantially similar day-to-day work.
- Dean declined to recognize the incumbent union and instead recognized a different union that represented employees at Dean’s other facilities, applying that union’s collective-bargaining agreement to the Union Street workforce.
- The incumbent union demanded recognition; unfair labor practice charges followed.
- An ALJ and the NLRB found Dean to be a successor employer obligated to recognize and bargain with the incumbent union for a single-facility Union Street bargaining unit, and ordered Dean to withdraw recognition of the rival union for that unit.
- Dean petitioned for review in the D.C. Circuit; the NLRB sought enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether Dean was a successor employer obligated to recognize and bargain with the incumbent union based on substantial continuity of operations and workforce.
2. Whether the Union Street employees constituted an appropriate single-facility bargaining unit rather than being included in a broader multi-facility unit.
3. Whether the public-to-private transition (public school district to private contractor) precluded applying federal successorship doctrine.
4. Whether the Union Street employees should be accreted into the rival union’s existing multi-facility bargaining unit.
5. Whether the incumbent union made a sufficient demand for recognition to trigger a duty to bargain and whether Dean’s refusal violated the NLRA.

## Decision

- The court denied Dean’s petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-petition for enforcement.
- The court upheld the Board’s finding that Dean was a successor employer because substantial continuity existed in operations, workforce, and working conditions.
- The court upheld the Board’s determination that the Union Street workforce was an appropriate, distinct bargaining unit based on shared worksite, functional cohesion, and bargaining history.
- The court held that successorship doctrine may apply even when the predecessor is a public employer and the successor is a private employer covered by the NLRA.
- The court upheld the Board’s rejection of accretion to the rival union’s multi-facility unit due to insufficient employee interchange, common supervision, or operational integration.
- The court agreed that the incumbent union’s recognition demand was adequate and that Dean unlawfully refused to bargain and unlawfully recognized/applied the rival union’s contract to the Union Street unit.

## Legal Principles

- A successor employer must recognize and bargain with an incumbent union when there is substantial continuity in the business enterprise and the successor hires a majority of its workforce from the predecessor’s represented employees.
- Substantial continuity focuses on continuity of operations and workforce; changes to wages, benefits, or policies do not necessarily defeat successorship.
- The NLRB has broad discretion to define an appropriate bargaining unit; a single-facility unit may be appropriate where employees share a distinct location, cohesive operations, and bargaining history.
- Accretion into an existing unit is disfavored because it denies employees a representation choice; it requires strong proof of employee interchange and functional integration across facilities.
- A union’s communications are sufficient to demand recognition if they clearly convey its desire to represent the relevant employees; refusal to bargain in these circumstances violates § 8(a)(5), and recognition of a rival representative for the unit may violate § 8(a)(2).

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit enforced the NLRB’s order requiring Dean, as a successor employer, to recognize and bargain with the incumbent union for a distinct single-facility unit at Union Street, rejecting arguments that a public-to-private transition barred successorship or that the employees could be accreted into a rival union’s multi-facility unit.


Dean Transp., Inc. v. NLRB, 551 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2009)