Constellation Brands, U.S. Operations, Inc - Decision Summary

Constellation Brands, U.S. Operations, Inc. d/b/a Woodbridge Winery,Board Case No. 32-CA-148431 (reported at 363 NLRB No. 126) (2d Cir. decided November 21, 2016)

In a published opinion in this test-of-certification case, the court upheld the Board’s two-step standard for determining whether a proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate unit as clarified inSpecialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011).In doing so, the Second Circuit joined the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits in rejecting challenges to the standard.See FedEx Freight, Inc. v. NLRB, 839 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2016);NLRB v. FedEx Freight, Inc., 832 F.3d 432 (3d Cir. 2016);Macy’s Inc. v. NLRB, 824 F.3d 557 (5th Cir.),reh’g en banc denied(Nov. 18, 2016);FedEx Freight, Inc. v. NLRB, 816 F.3d 515 (8th Cir.),reh’g & reh’g en banc denied(May 26, 2016);Nestle Dreyer’s Ice Cream Co. v. NLRB, 821 F.3d 489 (4th Cir. 2016);Kindred Nursing Ctrs. East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013).

However, in reviewing the Board’s application of the standard, which resulted in certification of a unit of 46 employees in the outside cellar department at the Employer’s winery in Acampo, California, and rejected the Employer’s claim that the unit must also include 23 barrel department employees, the court found the Board’s analysis insufficient.Specifically, the court held that the Board did not adequately “analyze at step one of theSpecialty Healthcareframework whether the excluded employees had meaningfully distinct interests from members of the petitioned‐for unit in the context of collective bargaining that outweigh similarities with unit members.”Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The court’s decision ishere.