## Facts

- Paul Hammontree was a truck driver for Consolidated Freightways (CF) and a member of the Teamsters Union.
- Under CF’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA), CF used a seniority-based system for assigning driving work, including relatively short, round-trip assignments known as “peddle runs,” and the CBA required posting of runs so senior employees could claim preferred work.
- Hammontree filed a grievance alleging CF’s method of assigning or posting peddle runs violated his seniority rights under the CBA.
- A joint grievance committee sustained that grievance and awarded Hammontree monetary relief.
- Shortly after that award, CF stopped posting peddle-run departure times.
- Hammontree filed a second grievance, asserting CF’s removal of the postings violated the CBA’s maintenance-of-standards obligation (and, in substance, operated against him because of protected activity).
- The second grievance was denied at the first step of the contractual grievance process, and Hammontree did not pursue the remaining steps, including further review and arbitration.
- Hammontree instead filed unfair labor practice (ULP) charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging CF removed the departure-time postings in retaliation for his grievance and union activity, violating §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
- An Administrative Law Judge found CF committed the alleged ULPs, but the NLRB reversed and dismissed the complaint on the ground that Hammontree had to exhaust the CBA’s grievance-and-arbitration procedure first.
- Hammontree petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of the Board’s exhaustion/deferral ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the NLRB may require an individual employee to exhaust CBA grievance-and-arbitration remedies before the Board will consider and decide the employee’s ULP charge.
2. Whether the Board’s exhaustion requirement, as applied to Hammontree’s retaliation-based §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) allegations, was a lawful exercise of the Board’s authority under the NLRA and consistent with Board deferral doctrine.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit (en banc) denied Hammontree’s petition for review.
- The court held that the NLRA and LMRA permit the NLRB to require an individual employee to exhaust contractual grievance remedies before the Board considers the employee’s ULP complaint.
- The court concluded the Board’s exhaustion order was reasonable and consistent with the Board’s established deferral practices, which give priority—at least initially—to the parties’ agreed dispute-resolution procedures when they are capable of addressing the controversy.
- The NLRB’s dismissal conditioned on exhaustion therefore stood.

## Legal Principles

- The NLRB may, in appropriate cases, defer action on a ULP charge and require use of contractual grievance-arbitration machinery before proceeding, so long as the Board retains ultimate authority to enforce the NLRA.
- Section 10(a) of the NLRA preserves the Board’s exclusive statutory power to prevent unfair labor practices while allowing the existence and use of other “means of adjustment” created by agreement; this language does not bar the Board from requiring exhaustion as a sequencing choice.
- Board deferral doctrines (including the Spielberg and Collyer lines) allow the Board to rely on grievance-arbitration processes where the dispute is closely tied to contract interpretation or application and the contractual forum can fairly address the matter.
- An employee’s decision to stop pursuing available contractual steps can justify the Board’s refusal to litigate the ULP claim until the employee completes those steps.
- Courts will sustain the Board’s exhaustion/deferral policy where the Board’s interpretation of its governing statutes is reasonable and its application is consistent with its own precedents.

## Conclusion

Hammontree held that the NLRB may require an individual employee to complete the grievance-and-arbitration process provided by a CBA before the Board will decide a related unfair labor practice charge, and the D.C. Circuit upheld the Board’s exhaustion order as a reasonable, precedent-consistent use of its authority under the NLRA and LMRA.


Hammontree v. National Labor Relations Board, 925 F.2d 1486 (1991)