## Facts

- Employees at the Pacific Beach Hotel in Honolulu selected a union as their bargaining representative after a contested organizing campaign and election.
- During subsequent bargaining, the hotel’s operators allegedly engaged in unfair labor practices, including discharging union supporters, withdrawing union recognition, and unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment without bargaining.
- An NLRB administrative law judge found multiple NLRA violations and recommended cease-and-desist and affirmative remedies, including reinstatement, bargaining, and rescission of unilateral changes.
- While the employer’s exceptions to the ALJ decision were pending before the NLRB and no final Board order had issued, the NLRB’s Regional Director petitioned in federal district court for interim relief under NLRA § 10(j).
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the employer to bargain in good faith, reinstate certain discharged employees, rescind unilateral changes at the union’s request, and cease specified unlawful conduct.
- The employer appealed, challenging the legal standard applied and the breadth and specificity of the injunction.

## Issues

1. What standard governs preliminary injunctions sought under NLRA § 10(j): the traditional four-factor equitable test (as articulated in *Winter*) or a more deferential, labor-specific approach.
2. Whether, under the governing standard, the district court abused its discretion in ordering interim bargaining, reinstatement, and rescission of unilateral changes.
3. Whether the injunction was impermissibly broad or insufficiently specific, including the provision requiring rescission of unilateral changes “at the Union’s request.”

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that § 10(j) injunctions are governed by the traditional four-factor preliminary-injunction framework, consistent with *Winter*, as applied through the circuit’s “serious questions” sliding-scale approach.
- The court affirmed the district court’s issuance of a § 10(j) injunction, concluding the Regional Director made a sufficient showing on likelihood of success (or serious questions), irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.
- The court upheld the injunction’s remedial scope, including bargaining, reinstatement, and rescission of unilateral changes, and rejected the employer’s overbreadth and vagueness objections.

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking interim relief under NLRA § 10(j) must satisfy the traditional preliminary-injunction factors: likelihood of success on the merits (or serious questions on the merits under the sliding-scale approach), likelihood of irreparable harm absent relief, balance of equities, and public interest.
- In assessing likelihood of success in the § 10(j) context, a district court does not finally adjudicate unfair labor practice merits, but evaluates the strength of the Board’s position; an ALJ decision following an evidentiary hearing may serve as probative support at the preliminary stage.
- Irreparable harm may be shown where alleged unfair labor practices threaten to chill protected activity, erode union support, or impair bargaining in ways that later Board relief may not fully repair, especially given delays inherent in administrative adjudication.
- Injunctive terms are permissible when tailored to preserve the status quo ante and protect the Board’s ability to grant effective final relief, including interim bargaining orders, reinstatement, and rescission of unilateral changes linked to litigated conduct.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a broad § 10(j) preliminary injunction against a hotel employer, holding that traditional equitable standards govern such relief and that interim bargaining, reinstatement, and rescission orders may be warranted to prevent ongoing labor-law violations from undermining collective-bargaining rights before final NLRB action.


Frankl v. HTH Corp., 650 F.3d 1334 (9th Cir. 2011)