Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01524/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01524-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent
Time Warner Cable
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 4, 1998 Decided November 6, 1998

No. 97-1524

Time Warner Cable,

Petitioner

v.

National Labor Relations Board,

Respondent

On Petition for Review and Cross-Application

for Enforcement of an Order of the

National Labor Relations Board

Jon W. Tryon argued the cause for the petitioner.

Leslie Randolph, Attorney, National Labor Relations

Board, argued the cause for the respondent. Linda Sher,

Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy

Associate General Counsel at the time the brief was filed, and

Peter Winkler, Attorney, were on brief. John D. Burgoyne,

USCA Case #97-1524 Document #394723 Filed: 11/06/1998 Page 1 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Acting Deputy Associate General Counsel, entered an appearance.

Before: Williams, Henderson and Garland, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge: Time Warner

Cable, Inc. (Time Warner) petitions for review of an order of

the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) concluding that it engaged in an unfair labor practice by refusing

to bargain with the Communication Workers of America,

Local 1120 (Union). Time Warner Cable, 324 N.L.R.B. No.

25 (Aug. 5, 1997). The NLRB cross-applies for enforcement

of its order. Time Warner admitted that it refused to

bargain but challenged the validity of the Union's certification

based on the NLRB's disqualification of a challenged, and

potentially determinative, ballot. As explained below, we

conclude that the NLRB's decision was not based on substantial evidence and therefore, grant Time Warner's petition and

deny the Board's cross-application for enforcement.

I.

On March 5, 1995, the Union petitioned the NLRB seeking

certification as the exclusive collective bargaining representative at Time Warner, formerly Paragon Communications d/b/a

Paragon Cable of Newburgh, New York (Cable),1 for "all fulltime and regular part-time service technicians ... employed

by the employer at or out of its 400 Auto Park Place,

Newburgh, New York facility." Paragon Communications

d/b/a Paragon Cable, Hearing Officer's Report (Sept. 18,

1996) (hereinafter Hearing Officer's Report), Joint Appendix

(JA) 7A. The original election ended in a tie and the Union

filed an objection alleging management misconduct. The

NLRB agreed with the Union and on September 25, 1995, it

ordered a second election. The Notice of Second Election

also specified the eligible voters:

__________

1 Time Warner's predecessor and Primestar operated as divisions of Paragon Communications Northeast Division (Paragon

Included: All full-time and regular part-time service

technicians, installer technicians, warehouse coordinators,

customer service representatives, production staff, and

dispatchers employed by the employer at or out of its 400

Auto Park Place, Newburgh, New York Facility;

...

Eligible voters are those in the unit who were employed during the payroll period ... [ending September

15].

Paragon Communications d/b/a Paragon Cable, Notice of

Second Election (Sept. 18, 1996), JA 1A-2A. The rerun

election was conducted on October 6, 1995. Of the twentyeight ballots cast, fourteen were for unionization, thirteen

were against and the Union challenged one ballot, cast by

Willie Jackson. JA 8A.

USCA Case #97-1524 Document #394723 Filed: 11/06/1998 Page 2 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Cable had hired Jackson in February 1994 as an installer

and promoted him to the position of installer technician in

August 1994, at which time he received a raise. JA 12A.

After an initial orientation period, Jackson was assigned a

vehicle and generally worked alone, performing installation

and some repair work. Id. In March 1995 Jackson applied

for and received a higher paid position performing similar

work for Primestar. At Primestar Jackson oversaw "quality

control of the work performed by contractors retained to

install satellite dishes." Id.

While the Union initially challenged Jackson's ballot on the

ground that he was a member of management, id. at 10A, it

changed its position during the hearing to challenge whether

Cable had employed Jackson in the unit as of the eligibility

date. Id. The hearing officer then issued a subpoena for

relevant documents2 and allowed testimony on the Union's

__________

Northeast), which operated cable and satellite systems for Time

Warner in New York, New Hampshire and Maine. Cable was one

of nine cable television operations Paragon Northeast operated and

Primestar was one of its two satellite service divisions. Paragon

Communications d/b/a Paragon Cable, Hearing Officer's Report

(Sept. 18, 1996), Joint Appendix (JA) 11A. Paragon Northeast has

since been disbanded. Id.

2 The subpoena directed Paragon to produce Jackson's payroll

records and timesheets for June 1, 1995 to September 30, 1995. JA

151.

new issue. Id. at 8A-9A n. 2. The Union, however, called no

additional witnesses on the issue. It had already called

Jackson to testify on the management member issue and

Cable then called Gemma Slacik, Paragon Northeast's area

manager. Based on perceived inconsistencies between their

testimony and the documentary evidence, the hearing officer

decided that Jackson was not a regular part-time employee as

of the eligibility date. Id. at 17A-19A. She concluded that

"as of September 15, the payroll eligibility date herein, Jackson had a conditional promise of employment, but had not yet

returned to work as a regular, part-time employee" of Cable.

Id. at 20A. Noting an earlier Board decision that had

declared ineligible an employee who was in the bargaining

unit before the eligibility date but had not performed unit

work for a " 'sufficiently substantial amount of time,' " the

hearing officer implied a similar fate for Jackson. Id. at 20

n.11 (quoting Meadow Valley Contractors, 314 N.L.R.B. 217,

217 (1994)).

Cable filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report and on

January 15, 1997 the Board issued an order denying oral

argument and affirming the hearing officer. In re Paragon

Communications d/b/a Paragon Cable, 2-RC-21521 (Jan. 15,

1997), JA 24A. On March 28, 1997, the Union filed an unfair

labor practice charge alleging that Cable violated sections

8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act),

29 U.S.C. ss 151 et seq. by refusing to bargain. Cable

admitted its failure to negotiate but challenged the Union's

status as the exclusive bargaining representative. On August

USCA Case #97-1524 Document #394723 Filed: 11/06/1998 Page 3 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

5, 1997 the Board concluded that "[a]ll representation issues

raised by [Cable] were or could have been litigated in the

prior representation proceeding," Time Warner Cable, 324

N.L.R.B. No. 25, at 1 (Aug. 5, 1997), granted the General

Counsel's summary judgment motion and ordered Cable to

cease and desist from violating sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of

the Act. Id. at 2. Cable petitioned for review, invoking this

Court's jurisdiction pursuant to section 10(f) of the Act.

USCA Case #97-1524 Document #394723 Filed: 11/06/1998 Page 4 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

II.

Our role in reviewing the NLRB's findings of fact is

limited. We will reverse the NLRB only if its findings are

not "supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole." 29 U.S.C. s 160(e); see also Universal

Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 493 (1951). We also

give substantial deference to the inferences drawn by the

NLRB from the facts. Peoples Gas Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 629

F.2d 35, 42 (D.C. Cir. 1980). We do not, however," 'merely

rubber stamp NLRB decisions,' " Davis Mem'l Goodwill Indus. v. NLRB, 108 F.3d 406, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting

Avecor, Inc. v. NLRB, 931 F.2d 924, 928 (D.C. Cir. 1991))

and, in reviewing the findings, we must "take into account

whatever in the record fairly detracts from [their] weight."

Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 488.

In order to vote in a representation election, an employee

must be "employed and working on the eligibility date."

NLRB v. Dalton Sheet Metal Co., 472 F.2d 257, 258 (5th Cir.

1973). At the hearing both Jackson and Slacik testified

without contradiction that Jackson was employed by and

working for Cable as of the eligibility date. JA 42-43 (Jackson's testimony); id. at 127, 130-31 (Slacik's testimony).

Jackson testified that in August 19953 Slacik approached him

about returning to work for Cable because Cable was understaffed. Jackson testified that he accepted the position parttime, effective immediately, planning to work for Primestar

on Monday and Friday and for Cable on Tuesday, Wednesday

and Thursday. Because of the short notice, however, he and

Slacik agreed that if Jackson needed additional time for

Primestar work, Slacik would allow it. JA 61. Slacik likewise testified that Jackson was working at Cable before the

eligibility date. She testified that when she learned that

Primestar was relocating its Newburgh operations to Binghamton, New York, she met with Jackson about his returning

to Cable. JA 127. She made a record of the meeting in a

September 8 memorandum, noting that on September 6 she

met with Primestar's general manager (Eric Behre) and

__________

3 All dates referred to occurred in 1995 unless otherwise noted.

Jackson and informed Jackson in confidence that Primestar

was relocating. The memorandum also noted that "[i]t was

determined as a result of this meeting that Willie [Jackson]

fit the Installer/Tech 2 job description and salary range and

he was rehired on a part-time basis until the Primestar office

officially closed at which time he would become a full-time

employee." JA 221. Finally, the memorandum noted that on

September 7 Jackson accepted the offer.

Rejecting this evidence, the hearing officer first focused on

the Employee Change Request Turnaround Document (turnaround form) that Cable prepared in connection with Jackson's return. JA 18A. She noted that the turnaround form

indicated an "Effective Date" of September 22 and that

Slacik had testified that personnel actions were only proposUSCA Case #97-1524 Document #394723 Filed: 11/06/1998 Page 5 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

als until approved by either Joan Judge, Paragon Northeast's

Human Resources Director, or Paragon Northeast's President, Robert Merlese.4 Id. at 18A. But the hearing officer's

reliance on the turnaround form ignored the relationship that

existed between Primestar and Cable. First, both were part

of the Paragon Northeast and, until its relocation, Primestar

shared office and warehouse facilities with Cable. Id. at 13A.

Second, Paragon Northeast paid the employees, including

Jackson, of both Cable and Primestar. JA 133A. Third,

Jackson's 1995 transfers between Primestar and Cable were

effectuated by internal transfer procedures, he reported to

the same facility throughout his employment, id. at 13A, and

he retained the same benefits package. JA 133A-37A. In

addition, nothing in Slacik's testimony suggested that a personnel change that eventually failed to receive Judge's or

Merlese's approval was void ab initio rather than simply

reversed. For example, nothing indicated that a transferred

employee would not be paid because he had worked in his

"new" (but ultimately disapproved) position. JA 120A.

Thus, the testimony that a transfer was not "final" until

approved by Judge or Merlese does not determine whether,

and when, Jackson worked in the new position. Given these

factors, we do not believe that the September 22 "[e]ffective"

__________

4 Neither Judge nor Merlese testified.

USCA Case #97-1524 Document #394723 Filed: 11/06/1998 Page 6 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

date overrides the uncontested testimony that Jackson was in

fact employed by and working for Cable as of September 15.5

JA 41-43, 59, 130-31.

The hearing officer also disregarded Slacik's September 8

memorandum as evidence that Jackson had returned to work

for Cable before the September 15 eligibility date based on

inconsistencies she perceived in evidence regarding Jackson's

and Slacik's August and early September meetings. The

testimony on the issue was limited,6 however, and the inconsistencies were not necessarily inconsistencies or, if they

were, they were, at most, trivial. First, the hearing officer

noted that Slacik testified that she approached Jackson because Primestar was relocating, JA 18A, while Jackson testified that Slacik approached him because of a personnel

shortage at Cable, JA 19A. The hearing officer also noted

Jackson's testimony that management told him about

Primestar's relocating during an October 13 employee meeting7 as well as Jackson's failure to testify, when he was asked:

"[D]id Ms. Slacik tell you why she was asking you to come

back to [Cable]?" JA 43, that he intended to become a full-

__________

5 We do not, however, agree with Time Warner that the September 22 date was an "apparent clerical error." Pet'r Br. at 18.

The document manifests that the date was changed from (perhaps)

a single-digit date in September to September 22 by the hand

notation of "JJ," presumably Joan Judge. JA 244.

6 As noted earlier, the Union originally challenged Jackson's

ballot on the ground that he was a member of management. The

theory that Jackson was not working in the bargaining unit as of

the eligibility date did not arise until the middle of Slacik's testimony, after Jackson had testified. JA 110.

7 Jackson testified:

Q [Cable]: "Mr. Jackson, has anyone told you what's going to

happen to Primestar?"

A [Jackson]: "Yes. We had a--on October 13th, the new

General Manager came down. We had a meeting. And what

we learned is that, it will no longer list--remain Primestar."

JA 72A.

time Cable employee once Primestar relocated. But the

Union never asked Slacik why she met with Jackson. Instead the hearing officer concluded that Primestar's relocation was Slacik's only reason for meeting with Jackson based

merely on Cable's question to Slacik on direct examination

that she explain her September 8 memorandum.8 And Jackson's testimony regarding Primestar's relocation also arose

from the single question, "Mr. Jackson, has anyone told you

what's going to happen to Primestar?" JA 72A. Jackson

was never asked when he first, and confidentially, heard

about the relocation.9

Finally, the hearing officer discredited Jackson's timesheets. She noted that for the weeks ending September 8

and 15 the timesheet showed that Jackson received eight

USCA Case #97-1524 Document #394723 Filed: 11/06/1998 Page 7 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

hours of "holiday pay," seventy-two hours of "regular pay"

and three hours of "overtime"; the timesheet, however, failed

to attribute the overtime or holiday pay to either Primestar

or Cable. JA 16A. The hearing officer emphasized the

hand-printed notation:

Cable 16 HRS

Primestar 64 HRS.

__________

8 Slacik testified:

Q [Cable]: Would you please explain that document?

A [Slacik]: [The September 8, 1995 memo is a memo] to Willie

Jackson's file from me ... which details the discussion that we

had with Willie Jackson when we found out that Primestar

Satellite Services was going to be moving ...

And it just pretty much details discussions that we had in [sic]

the offer we put on the table....

JA 127.

9 In rejecting Slacik's September 8 memorandum, the hearing

officer also noted that it listed September 7 as the date of reemployment while Slacik dated her signature on the turnaround form on

September 6. JA 19A. We fail to see any significance in the

different dates.

Id. She noted that Slacik initialed the notation and that in

her opinion Jackson did not print the notation. Id. Jackson's

timesheet for the weeks ending September 22 and 29 contained similar hand-printed notations. Based on "the disparity between the time recorded as compared to that which was

allocated [the three-day, two-day allocation], the ambiguity as

to who noted the breakdown of Jackson's time,10 and the

discrepancy between the hours allocated to Cable during this

two-week period and Jackson's clear testimony" (emphasis

added), the hearing officer concluded that she could not "rely

upon these documents to establish when Jackson commenced

working at Cable." Id. at 20A.

At least two of the hearing officer's three reasons for

rejecting the timesheets' credibility, however, are not supported by the record. The "disparity" between the recorded

and the allocated times, that is, the difference between the

Primestar (Monday and Friday) and Cable (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday) allocations, on the one hand, and the

recorded 16 hours for Cable and 64 hours for Primestar, on

the other, was expressly anticipated as Jackson's testimony

and Slacik's September 8 memorandum make clear.11 And

the "discrepancy" between the 16 hours allocated to Cable

and Jackson's "clear" testimony also disappears when Jackson's actual testimony is reviewed. He testified that "Slacik

__________

10 Neither Jackson nor Slacik was asked whose handwriting was

on the timesheets.

USCA Case #97-1524 Document #394723 Filed: 11/06/1998 Page 8 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

11 Jackson testified:

Q [Union]: Now, you testified that Ms. Slacik--if you have

work that you need to do for Primestar on Tuesday, Wednesday or on Thursday, Ms. Slacik allows you to do that?

A [Jackson]: We made an agreement that if we had a problem

that, if we had a problem that came--arose, as far as a delivery

of some equipment, that I could let her know and she would

allow me the time to go back and take care of that.

JA 71. Slacik's September 8 memo noted: "As issues of Primestar

closure came up, [Primestar management and I] would work together to resolve them, even if that meant changing the agreed upon

schedule." JA 221A.

has been relaxed in that manner. If I have deliveries or

something comes up, that I can get--let them know what

problems might arise at Primestar, that I may go back and

take care of that." JA 61.

Finally, the hearing officer's footnote inference that Jackson, even if he was doing unit work as of September 15, had

not worked for a " 'sufficiently substantial amount of time,' "

JA 20 n.11 (quoting Meadow Valley Contractors, 314

N.L.R.B. at 217), is unsupported by the record. The NLRB

determines the right of a dual-function12 employee to vote in a

bargaining unit representation election by weighing whether

the employee "regularly performs duties similar to those

performed by unit employees for sufficient periods of time to

demonstrate that [he has] a substantial interest in the unit's

working conditions." Martin Enters., Inc., 325 N.L.R.B. No.

133, at 2 (April 30, 1998). The NLRB "has no bright line rule

as to the amount of time required to be spent in performing

unit work. Rather, the [NLRB] examines the facts in each

particular case." Id.

After his meeting with Slacik, which, it bears noting, occurred before the eligibility date had been set, Jackson returned to unit employment. See JA 1A-2A. In the two

weeks immediately preceding the eligibility cut-off date, August 30 to September 15, Jackson worked sixteen hours for

Cable according to his timesheet. JA 238. In the two weeks

after the eligibility cut-off date, September 16 to September

29, Jackson worked twenty-four hours for Cable according to

his timesheet.13 JA 239. Cf. Stockholm Valve & Fittings,

__________

12 The dual-function analysis is used for employees "who perform more than one function for the same employer." Martin

Enters., Inc., 325 NLRB No. 133, at 2 (April 30, 1998). To

determine the eligibility of a dual-function employee the Board uses

the part-time employee test. Textron Lycoming Div., Avco Corp.,

308 N.L.R.B. 1045, 1045 (1992).

13 The NLRB has considered post-eligibility date work in determining the eligibility of both dual-function and part-time employees.

See, e.g., Meadow Valley, 314 N.L.R.B. at 217; Stockholm Valve &

Fittings, Inc., 222 N.L.R.B. 217 (1976).

USCA Case #97-1524 Document #394723 Filed: 11/06/1998 Page 9 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Inc., 222 N.L.R.B. 217 (1976) (finding eligible part-time employees who were hired month before election and who

worked five days by election day). At a minimum, then,

Jackson worked forty hours in the unit before the election

and unit work accounted for at least thirty per cent of his

time in two of the three weeks between the eligibility date

and the election. The Board has identified no case in which

an employee worked as high a percentage of hours in the

bargaining unit in the weeks before the election date and yet

was denied voting rights. In the absence of such precedent,

we believe this work level demonstrates a sufficient interest

in the bargaining unit's conditions of employment to warrant

his inclusion in the unit, especially in light of the surrounding

circumstances. First, Jackson began unit work before the

eligibility date was set. Second, Jackson's hours increased

during the relevant time period as Jackson transferred parttime into the unit. Third, Jackson worked the hours as part

of a permanent return to the unit. JA 221. These circumstances make clear that Jackson worked in the unit for a

sufficient time to demonstrate Jackson's substantial interest

in the unit's working conditions and, thus, his eligibility to

vote.

III. Conclusion

Notwithstanding the substantial deference we give to

NLRB orders, we do not find substantial evidence in this

record to support its conclusion that Jackson was not employed and working in the bargaining unit as of the eligibility

date. We further find the hearing officer's alternative, and

inferential, conclusion that Jackson worked insufficient hours

to demonstrate a "substantial interest in the terms and

conditions of employment" unsupported. Accordingly, we

grant Time Warner's petition, deny the Board's crossapplication for enforcement and order that the ballot of Willie

Jackson be opened and counted.

So 

ordered.

USCA Case #97-1524 Document #394723 Filed: 11/06/1998 Page 10 of 10