Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01247/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01247-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
King Curb
Petitioner
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent

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 April 16, 2002 Decided June 7, 2002

No. 01-1247

King Curb, a Division of Span Construction

and Engineering, Inc.,

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

Patrick W. Jordan argued the cause and filed the briefs for

petitioner.

Kathleen E. Lyon, Attorney, National Labor Relations

Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the

brief were Arthur F. Rosenfeld, General Counsel, John H.

Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong,

USCA Case #01-1247 Document #682115 Filed: 06/07/2002 Page 1 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Sharon I. Block,

Supervisory Attorney.

Before: Sentelle, Randolph, and Garland, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.

Randolph, Circuit Judge: King Curb petitions for review,

and the National Labor Relations Board cross-petitions for

enforcement, of a Board order finding the company in violation of s 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act,

29 U.S.C. s 158(a)(1) & (5). The questions in the case center

on whether the Board, through its Regional Director, properly determined that former employees of the company were

eligible to vote in a representation election, in which the

Sheet Metal Workers International, Local Union 162, AFLCIO, prevailed.

King Curb is in the metal fabrication business. Located in

Madera, California, the company fabricates fittings--

"curbs"--used for skylights, building ventilation and roof

access systems. Its parent company--Span Construction and

Engineering, Inc.--erects shells of large commercial buildings. Ninety-eight percent of King Curb's products are used

in Span's buildings. Span's main customer, Costco, accounts

for 60 percent of Span's business.

King Curb operates year round, but it experiences seasonal

fluctuations because its business is tied to Span's construction

projects. Typically, the fall, winter and early spring are King

Curb's slow times, with production rising in the summer. As

production levels ebb and flow, so do the company's staffing

levels. In 1996, for example, King Curb employed between

10 and 12 employees for seven months of the year, with a

high of 14 employees in June and July and a low of 7 in

November and December. In 1997, the staffing level remained constant at 11 employees throughout the year except

for June and July, when it decreased to 10 employees. In

1998, King Curb employed between 9 and 13 workers for

eight months of the year, with a low of 7 in May and a peak of

21 in August. In 1999, the staffing level ranged from a low of

13 in January to a high of 22 in June.

USCA Case #01-1247 Document #682115 Filed: 06/07/2002 Page 2 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In 2000--the year at issue--King Curb employed 15 workers in January, 17 from February through April, 19 in May,

24 in June and July, and 26 in August. When the company

then received a request for curbs for ten Costcos, three of

which were large regional distribution centers, it added new

employees to its roster in September and October 2000,

causing staffing levels to swell to 31 in September and 46 in

October. On November 3, 2000, the union filed a representation petition with the Board, seeking to represent all of King

Curb's regular and part-time employees engaged in the fabrication of sheet metal. Shortly thereafter, Costco delayed

taking delivery of some of the curbs it had ordered. This

caused King Curb to lay off many of its workers. By

November 21, 2000--the day the Board held a representation

hearing--the company's employee roster had dropped to 13.

The Board's Regional Director issued a decision on December

20, 2000, directing an election. He determined that, in addition to the workers employed at the time of the election, all

laid-off employees who had worked a minimum of 15 days in

either of the two 3-month periods preceding his decision and

direction of election had a reasonable expectation of recall

and were therefore eligible to vote in the election. This

eligibility formula, according to the Regional Director, indicated that there were approximately 30 employees in the unit.

(The formula ultimately yielded 40 employees eligible to

vote.)

The Board denied the company's request for review, and

the election took place on January 18, 2001. In all, there

were 22 votes for the union, 9 votes against, and 5 challenged

ballots. The Board therefore certified the union as the

employees' exclusive bargaining representative. The company refused to bargain, precipitating the unfair labor practice

charges. The company argues here, as it did unsuccessfully

in defense to the charges, that the Board's eligibility formula

was arbitrary and contrary to precedent.

The Board has "a wide degree of discretion in establishing

the procedure and safeguards necessary to insure the fair and

free choice of bargaining representatives by employees." See

NLRB v. A.J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 330 (1946). Board

USCA Case #01-1247 Document #682115 Filed: 06/07/2002 Page 3 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

eligibility decisions therefore stand unless they are irrational,

contrary to precedent, or "without justification in law or

reason." See id. at 332; see also Sitka Sound Seafoods, Inc.

v. NLRB, 206 F.3d 1175, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2000); DIC Entertainment v. NLRB, 238 F.3d 434, 436 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Eligibility formulas are used to ascertain which individuals

work for an employer with sufficient continuity and regularity

so as to establish their community of interest with other unit

employees. See generally Sitka, 206 F.3d at 1178. "Ordinarily the Board uses a simple formula to determine who is

eligible to vote in a representation election: Employees in the

bargaining unit are eligible to vote if they were employed on

the date of the election and 'during the payroll period ending

immediately prior to the Decision and Direction of Election.' "

Id. (quoting Saltwater, Inc., 324 N.L.R.B. 343, 343 n.1 (1997)).

But employment situations may differ, and "the Board has an

'obligation to tailor [its] general eligibility formulas to the

particular facts of the case.' " Sitka, 206 F.3d at 1178-79

(quoting BB&L, Inc. v. NLRB, 52 F.3d 366, 369 (D.C. Cir.

1995)); see also American Zoetrope Prods., Inc., 207

N.L.R.B. 621, 623 (1973). When employees are temporary or

seasonal, the Board has attempted to devise alternative formulas designed " 'to permit optimum employee enfranchisement and free choice, without enfranchising individuals with

no real continuing interest in the terms and conditions of

employment offered by the employer.' " DIC Entertainment,

238 F.3d at 436 (quoting Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort,

306 N.L.R.B. 294, 296 (1992)).

Here the Board adopted an eligibility formula that looked

to: (1) whether the employees had worked a minimum of

fifteen days in either of the two 3-month periods immediately

preceding the date of the issuance of the direction of election;

and (2) the employees' eligibility for future employment with

King Curb. The Board borrowed from Daniel Ornamental

Iron Co., 195 N.L.R.B. 334 (1972), which utilized the same

eligibility formula.

Daniel Ornamental was engaged in the fabrication of ornamental iron. It operated year-round, employing regular fullUSCA Case #01-1247 Document #682115 Filed: 06/07/2002 Page 4 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

time welders as well as extra part-time welders that it called

upon during peak production periods. Id. The part-time

welders came from a pool of 27 "on-call" welders, and many of

them had substantial histories of employment with the company. Id. The Board therefore concluded that it was equitable to include in the unit all part-time employees who had

worked a minimum of fifteen days in either of the two 3-

month periods immediately preceding the date of issuance of

the direction of election. Id. at 334-35.

King Curb argues that the Board erred in applying Daniel

Ornamental's eligibility formula without explaining why its

laid-off employees had any continuity or regularity of employment, or why the Daniel Ornamental formula fit this case.

We agree. There are, to be sure, some similarities between

this case and Daniel Ornamental. For example, both of the

companies were year-round employers with peak production

periods. But there are also significant differences between

the two cases--the most notable being that unlike the "oncall" welders in Daniel Ornamental, the employees in this

case were hired by King Curb for a very brief period to meet

a short-lived and unprecedented spike in demand. Nowhere

did the Board explain why it was appropriate to enfranchise

these individuals. Nor did the Board discuss the evidence

showing that King Curb had no plans to increase production

to its October 2000 levels ever again. Cf. Heatcraft, 250

N.L.R.B. 58, 58 (1980) (holding that laid-off employees were

not eligible to vote when the employer had "no plans to recall

employees in the near future" due to a severe decline in the

homebuilding industry). In addition, the Board failed to

address evidence indicating that very few of the employees

King Curb had laid off in the past had ever been reemployed

by the company. Finally, the Board did not mention the

Regional Director's mistaken assumption that the eligibility

formula he devised understated the number of eligible employees by 25 percent: he thought the formula enfranchised

30 employees when it actually enfranchised 40. It is one

thing to approve a formula that is expected to yield a unit

that includes only 4 more employees than were working just

prior to a one-time surge in the unit's work. It is quite

USCA Case #01-1247 Document #682115 Filed: 06/07/2002 Page 5 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

another, however, to approve a formula that, while predicated

on the former assumption, actually yields 14 (54 percent)

more employees--and to do so without explaining why the

mistaken calculation does not render the formula inappropriate.

In short, the Board's decision was devoid of reasoning and

explanation, and we therefore are unable to conclude that the

Board met its " 'obligation to tailor [its] general eligibility

formulas to the particular facts of the case.' " Sitka, 206 F.3d

at 1178-79 (quoting BB&L, Inc., 52 F.3d at 369). Accordingly, King Curb's petition for review is granted, the Board's

order is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Board for

an explanation of why the Daniel Ornamental formula was

appropriate here, or for the development of an eligibility

formula that is adequately justified and tailored to the facts of

this case.

So ordered.

USCA Case #01-1247 Document #682115 Filed: 06/07/2002 Page 6 of 6