🗞️ CCI Industrial Services: Why Time Alone Doesn't Satisfy NLRB's Bargaining Requirement

The National Labor Relations Board's settlement bar doctrine prevents challenges to a union's majority status when parties have entered into a settlement agreement requiring bargaining, until a "reasonable period" for collective bargaining has elapsed. This doctrine balances employees' Section 7 rights to choose their representative against the statutory policy favoring stable collective bargaining relationships.

In January 2026, NLRB Region 19 issued a decision dismissing a decertification petition filed by CCI Industrial Services employee Bradley Jacob Renfrew seeking to remove Teamsters Local 959 as the collective bargaining representative. The case arose after the union lost a March 2024 representation election but subsequently filed unfair labor practice charges. The parties entered an informal settlement agreement in October 2024 requiring the employer to recognize and bargain with the union.

The Regional Director applied the five-factor test from Poole Foundry & Machine Co., 95 NLRB 34 (1951), which examines: (1) whether parties are negotiating a first contract; (2) complexity of issues and bargaining structure; (3) time spent bargaining and number of sessions; (4) progress made toward agreement; and (5) whether impasse has been reached. This older test applies in settlement cases without findings or admissions of unlawful conduct; Lee Lumber's six-month to one-year framework applies only when unlawful refusal to bargain has been found or admitted.

The decision found that while the parties held 15 bargaining sessions over several months, meaningful negotiations only began in August 2025 when experienced labor attorney Bill Evans replaced general counsel Stephen Cox as the employer's representative. Cox, who lacked collective bargaining knowledge and authority, repeatedly deferred decisions to consult with Evans or referenced other collective bargaining agreements. After months of requests, Cox finally provided one CBA, but it was an expired agreement for a closed facility that actually contradicted his claims about lacking union security provisions. This ineffective representation during the first five months meant that by the petition's November 2025 filing date, only 6 sessions totaling 12.5 hours of actual productive bargaining had occurred.

The Regional Director concluded that "a reasonable period sufficient to reach agreement has not yet passed," emphasizing that under Board precedent dating to Poole Foundry & Machine Co., 95 NLRB 34 (1951), the test focuses on "what transpires during the time period under scrutiny rather than the length of time elapsed." The settlement agreement's requirement to bargain would have no force if parties could not have adequate opportunity to actually engage in meaningful negotiations.

This decision illustrates the Board's commitment to protecting the collective bargaining process from premature challenges, particularly when an employer's own conduct—bringing inexperienced representatives without authority—has delayed progress. The ruling reinforces that employers who agree to recognize and bargain with a union as part of settlement agreements cannot subsequently facilitate decertification by failing to bargain effectively.

Key Points

• Settlement Bar Applied: Decertification petition dismissed because reasonable bargaining period had not elapsed since October 2024 settlement
• Five-Factor Test: Regional Director evaluated first contract status, complexity, time spent, progress made, and impasse
• Employer Responsibility: Employer's use of inexperienced representative without authority (Cox) for 5 months undermined meaningful bargaining
• Measuring Reasonable Time: Focus on actual bargaining opportunity, not merely calendar time elapsed
• Productive Bargaining Limited: Only 12.5 hours of effective bargaining with competent counsel (Evans) before petition filed
• Legal Foundation: Doctrine rooted in Poole Foundry (1951) and refined in Lee Lumber (2001)
• Policy Balance: Protects collective bargaining stability while respecting employee free choice rights

Primary Source Author: Ronald K. Hooks, Regional Director

Primary Source: CCI Industrial Services, LLC, Case 19-RD-375698 (NLRB Region 19, January 6, 2026)

Primary Source Link: [Regional Decision provided in uploaded document]

Supplemental Links

• NLRB - Bargaining in Good Faith with Employees' Union Representative
• Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp. v. NLRB, 310 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
• Poole Foundry & Machine Co. v. NLRB, 192 F.2d 740 (4th Cir. 1951)
• NLRB Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations Act
• NLRB - Investigate Charges Process
• Crowell & Moring - Recognition Bar and Successor Bar Doctrines
• Supreme Court Remands NLRB Successor Bar Case (December 2024)
• NLRB - FAQ on Labor Relations