Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01365/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01365-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent
Saint-Gobain Industrial Ceramics, Inc.
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

No. 01-1365 September Term, 2002

Filed On: December 3, 2002

Saint-Gobain Industrial Ceramics, Inc.,

Petitioner

v.

National Labor Relations Board,

Respondent

Before: Randolph and Rogers, Circuit Judges, and

Williams, Senior Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

It is ORDERED, sua sponte, that the opinion filed herein

on November 26, 2002 is amended as follows:

Page 2, revise the last sentence of the first paragraph:

"Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and grant the

Board's cross-application for enforcement of its order."

Page 10, revise end of paragraph to read: "Accordingly

..., we deny the petition for review and grant the Board's

cross-application for enforcement of its order."

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY:

Michael C. McGrail

Deputy Clerk

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 1, 2002 Decided November 26, 2002

No. 01-1365

Saint-Gobain Industrial Ceramics, Inc.,

Petitioner

USCA Case #01-1365 Document #716420 Filed: 11/26/2002 Page 1 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

v.

National Labor Relations Board,

Respondent

On Petition for Review and Cross-Application

for Enforcement of an Order of the

National Labor Relations Board

Alisa L. Pittman argued the cause for petitioner. With

her on the briefs was Stanford G. Wilson.

John R. McIntyre, Attorney, National Labor Relations

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

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

Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong,

Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Robert J. Englehart,

USCA Case #01-1365 Document #716420 Filed: 11/26/2002 Page 2 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Supervisory Attorney. Charles P. Donnelly, Supervisory

Attorney, entered an appearance.

Before: Randolph and Rogers, Circuit Judges, and

Williams, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Rogers.

Rogers, Circuit Judge: Saint-Gobain Industrial Ceramics,

Inc. appeals the decision of the National Labor Relations

Board that it violated s 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor

Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. s 158(a)(5) & (1) (2000), by refusing

to bargain with the United Steelworkers of America, AFLCIO, which the Board had certified as the exclusive unit

representative. Attempting to come within an exception to

the Board's rule that "once a ballot has been cast without

challenge and its identity has been lost, its validity cannot

later be challenged" on post-election challenges to voter

eligibility, NLRB v. A.J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 331-32

(1946), Saint-Gobain contends that the Board erred in certifying the Union because the Union knew prior to the election,

and suppressed the fact, that an employee who cast a ballot in

its favor was ineligible to vote. Under the Tower exception,

the Board's decision in a representation proceeding may be

challenged in an unfair labor practice proceeding "where the

Board's agents or the parties benefiting from the Board's

refusal to entertain the issue know of the voter's ineligibility

and suppress the facts." Id. at 333 (citation omitted). Because Saint-Gobain failed to present evidence that the Union

knew and suppressed information about an ineligible voter,

the Board reasonably overruled its objection to the Union's

certification as an impermissible post-election challenge. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and grant the Board's

cross-application for enforcement of its order.

I.

Saint-Gobain is located in Niagara Falls, New York, and

manufactures industrial ceramics. On July 13, 2000, the

Union filed a petition with the Board for a representation

election at Saint-Gobain. Pursuant to a Stipulated Election

Agreement approved by the Board's Regional Director, a

USCA Case #01-1365 Document #716420 Filed: 11/26/2002 Page 3 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

secret ballot election was conducted on August 23, 2000, for

all full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees and laboratory technicians at Saint-Gobain's

Niagara Falls facility. Of approximately 36 eligible voters, 35

cast ballots, with 18 in favor of the Union and 17 against.

On August 28, 2000, Saint-Gobain filed an objection to the

election with the Board's Regional Director on the ground

that the Union had unlawfully attempted to dilute the promanagement vote. Saint-Gobain claimed that it had learned

that one of its former employees, Donald Hotaling, who voted

on August 23, had begun working a full-time day shift on

August 21, as a registered nurse for Mount St. Mary's

Hospital and Health Center. Hotaling was on vacation leave

for the week of August 21; he resigned his employment with

Saint-Gobain on August 25, two days after the election.

Under an established policy, Saint-Gobain maintained, Hotaling was obligated to report his outside employment and had

not done so. Saint-Gobain asserted that had it known of

Hotaling's new job, it would have discharged him before the

election. Saint-Gobain further stated that the day after the

election two of its employees had informed a supervisor that

the Union was advising Hotaling not to resign until August

30, when Saint-Gobain would no longer be able to file objections to the election.

The Regional Director found that Hotaling was on approved vacation leave from Saint-Gobain during the week of

the election, he was employed in the unit during the payroll

eligibility period, he worked for Saint-Gobain through the

election date, and he had voted without challenge. In light of

Board precedent, the Regional Director concluded that the

objection was without merit and recommended to the Board

that the objection be overruled and the Union certified. The

Regional Director viewed Saint-Gobain's argument that it

would have discharged Hotaling had it known of his acceptance of another full-time position to be "in essence a postelection challenge in the guise of an objection." SaintGobain Indus. Ceramics, Inc., N.L.R.B. Third Region, Regional Director's Report on Objections, Case 3-RC-11014, at

4 (Sept. 18, 2000). The Regional Director rejected SaintUSCA Case #01-1365 Document #716420 Filed: 11/26/2002 Page 4 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Gobain's assertion that the Union had attempted to "pack"

the election unit, as the employer had in North Atlantic

Medical Services, 329 N.L.R.B. 85, 86 (1999), because the

Union had no such capacity nor control over when Hotaling

disclosed his new employment or submitted his resignation.

Finally, even if the Union had been aware of Hotaling's

acceptance of new employment, the Regional Director noted

that "the Board does not require parties in an election

campaign to make affirmative disclosures of fact." Id. at 6

(citing Florida Mining & Materials Corp., 198 N.L.R.B. 601,

601-02 (1972), aff'd, Florida Mining & Materials Corp. v.

NLRB, 481 F.2d 65, 69 (5th Cir. 1973)). The Board adopted

the Regional Director's findings and recommendation and

certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative

of the unit.

Thereafter, the Union made a request of Saint-Gobain to

meet for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining

agreement. When Saint-Gobain refused to recognize or bargain with it, the Union filed an unfair labor practice complaint

with the Board. The Acting General Counsel, in turn, filed a

complaint alleging that Saint-Gobain's refusal to recognize

and to bargain with the Union violated s 8(a)(5) and (1) of the

Act. In its answer, Saint-Gobain admitted its refusal to

bargain but claimed that the Union had been improperly

certified. Acting Counsel filed a motion for summary judgment, and the Board issued an order to show cause why the

motion should not be granted. In response, Saint-Gobain

challenged the certification on the grounds it raised in its

objection to the election in the representation proceeding.

The Board granted summary judgment, finding that SaintGobain's representation issues "were or could have been

litigated in the prior representation proceeding," and that

Saint-Gobain had failed either to identify newly discovered or

previously unavailable evidence to be offered at a hearing or

to allege any "special circumstances" that would require the

Board to reexamine its representative decision. SaintGobain Indus. Ceramics, Inc., 334 N.L.R.B. No. 60, at 1 (July

3, 2001).

USCA Case #01-1365 Document #716420 Filed: 11/26/2002 Page 5 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

II.

On appeal, Saint-Gobain contends the Board's decision that

it violated s 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act should be reversed and

the election set aside because the Board erred in overruling

its objection, based on the Union's concealment of Hotaling's

ineligibility to vote, on the ground the objection did not fall

within the Tower exception. Saint-Gobain challenges two

factual findings of the Board in the representation proceedings: that there was no evidence first, that the Union suppressed evidence of Hotaling's ineligibility to vote, and second, that Hotaling was, in fact, ineligible to vote.

Our jurisdiction to review the representation proceeding is

limited to deciding whether to enforce, modify, or set aside

the unfair labor practice order of the Board. See 29 U.S.C.

s 159(d) (2000); Family Serv. Agency San Francisco v.

NLRB, 163 F.3d 1369, 1373 & n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Our

review of the Board's unfair labor practice finding is for

substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Universal

Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 487-88 (1951). The

court will uphold the Board "if its conclusions are based upon

reasonable inferences drawn from the facts as it found them."

Terrace Gardens Plaza, Inc. v. NLRB, 91 F.3d 222, 225 (D.C.

Cir. 1996); see Sitka Sound Seafoods, Inc. v. NLRB, 206 F.3d

1175, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

In overruling Saint-Gobain's objection to the election, the

Board noted that there was no evidence that prior to the

election the Union had "encouraged or induced [Hotaling] to

conceal his acceptance of employment with another employer." Saint-Gobain Indus. Ceramics, Inc., Case 3-RC-11014,

slip op. at 1 n.1 (Oct. 25, 2000). Saint-Gobain maintains,

citing William R. Whittaker Co., 94 N.L.R.B. 1151, 1154-55

(1951), that it presented evidence revealing that, as a result of

the Union's suppression of information, Saint-Gobain was

denied a reasonable opportunity to exercise its right to challenge the election. Saint-Gobain points to three affidavits of

its employees and two proffers of evidence from its managers

to show that the Union suppressed evidence of Hotaling's

ineligibility to vote in the election. An examination of this

USCA Case #01-1365 Document #716420 Filed: 11/26/2002 Page 6 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

evidence reveals that it does not show that the Board's

findings in the representation proceeding were unsupported

by substantial evidence.

The affidavit of Dan Polocko states that the day after the

election the Union told Saint-Gobain employees to give Hotaling the message that he should not resign until August 28,

2000, or to let the company terminate him for not showing up

for work after his vacation ended. The affidavit of Anthony

Fiore refers to an anonymous email message on the evening

of the election inviting employees to Hotaling's going-away

party and welcoming them as members of the Union. Both

affidavits, on their face, refer to Union actions after the

election took place. Hence, they do not establish either that

before the election the Union knew about Hotaling's new job

or that the Union did anything to conceal or to encourage

Hotaling to conceal his employment at Mount St. Mary's from

Saint-Gobain. In fact, the affidavits suggest that before the

election Hotaling told his co-workers about his new position

and that Saint-Gobain employees knew he would resign after

the election. The proffered testimony of Supervisor David

Rumpf essentially repeats the substance of Dan Polocko's

affidavit, adding only that Hotaling had decided to arrange

his vacation time in a way that allowed him to start his new

job and to vote in the election at Saint-Gobain, and that the

Union's advice that Hotaling postpone his resignation arose

out of a concern that the election might be invalidated. An

affidavit of Eric Siegmann and the proffered testimony of

Plant Manager George Davis add nothing material. At most,

then, the evidence shows that Hotaling was planning to leave

his job at Saint-Gobain, had taken vacation leave so he could

begin his new job before he resigned from Saint-Gobain, and

after the election the Union was concerned that the timing of

his resignation might affect the validity of its one-vote margin

of victory. This is a far cry from evidence showing Union

knowledge prior to the election of Hotaling's ineligibility to

vote or its suppression of the information.

But even assuming that Saint-Gobain's evidence was sufficient to show that prior to the election the Union knew of

Hotaling's employment at Mount St. Mary's, the evidence still

USCA Case #01-1365 Document #716420 Filed: 11/26/2002 Page 7 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

fails to show that Hotaling was, by virtue of his new job,

ineligible to vote on August 23, much less that the Union

knew of, and suppressed information of, his ineligibility. To

the contrary, the parties' Stipulated Election Agreement provided that "eligible voters shall be unit employees employed

during the payroll period for eligibility, including employees

who did not work during that period because they were ...

on vacation ... who appear in person at the polls." SaintGobain does not dispute that Hotaling was employed in the

unit during the payroll eligibility period and on the date of

the election. These requirements are sufficient, the Board has

concluded, to ensure the requisite community of interest with

unit employees. See Sitka, 206 F.3d at 1178 (citing Saltwater, Inc., 324 N.L.R.B. 343, 343 n.1 (1997)). So long as these

eligibility requirements are satisfied, an employee is eligible

to vote even if the employee intends to quit his employment

after the election and does so. See NLRB v. Res-Care, Inc.,

705 F.2d 1461, 1471 (7th Cir. 1983); Harold M. Pitman Co.,

303 N.L.R.B. 655, 655 & n.3 (1991); Computed Time Corp.,

228 N.L.R.B. 1243, 1250-51 (1977); Pers. Prods. Corp., 114

N.L.R.B. 959, 961 (1955).

Saint-Gobain attempts to distinguish Board precedent on

the ground that Hotaling had abandoned his employment

prior to the election, as his conduct indicated that he had no

reasonable expectation of returning to work after he voted in

the election, and thus he did not share a community of

interest with unit employees. Yet in Reidbord Brothers Co.,

99 N.L.R.B. 127, 128-29 (1952), the Board found an employee

was eligible to vote even though prior to the election she had

started working for a second employer and had told the first

employer that she did not intend to return to her former job.

Id. at 128-29. After so informing the first employer, the

employee did return to work at her former job for one day,

then did not show up for work for the next three days, but on

the fourth day showed up for work and voted in the election

and then quit the next day. Id. at 129. Further, applying

the vacation exception in Amoco Oil Corp., 289 NLRB 280,

280 (1988), the Board found an employee who was on the

payroll on the date of the election was eligible to vote

USCA Case #01-1365 Document #716420 Filed: 11/26/2002 Page 8 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

although the employee was on vacation at the time of the

election and before the election had taken all the necessary

steps to retire. Thus, in Reidbord and Amoco, as is true of

Hotaling, the employee was eligible to vote because the

"essential element in determining an employee's eligibility to

vote" is, in the Board's view, the employee's "status on the

eligibility payroll date and on the date of the election. It is

without controlling significance that an individual employed

on those dates may have intended to quit, or actually did quit,

shortly after the election." Reidbord, 99 N.L.R.B. at 129

(citations omitted); see Res-Care, 705 F.2d at 1471. SaintGobain's reliance on Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. NLRB, 705

F.2d 570, 581 (1st Cir. 1983), is misplaced; Hotaling's relationship to the bargaining unit is not comparable to that of a

temporary seasonal employee for he was employed on the

date of the election.

Saint-Gobain's reliance on its established "notice" policy

fares no better. The policy provides that employees must

notify Saint-Gobain of outside employment that would interfere "in any way" with the performance of their duties.

According to Saint-Gobain, had it known of Hotaling's new

job, it would have fired him before the election in accordance

with its policy. Like the employee in Choc-Ola Bottlers, Inc.

v. NLRB, 478 F.2d 461, 464 (7th Cir. 1973), who was discharged on the election date for violating company policy and

theft, Hotaling, Saint-Gobain maintains, would no longer have

had a community of interest with other employees in the unit.

There are several flaws in this argument. First, at the

relevant time there was no necessary incompatibility between

the two jobs. As of the date of the election, Hotaling was on

approved vacation leave, and to that extent his new job at

Mount St. Mary's did not necessarily conflict with his status

at Saint-Gobain. Saint-Gobain does not suggest that anything prevented Hotaling from changing his mind and deciding at the end of his vacation leave to quit his new job in

favor of remaining at Saint-Gobain. Cf. Willmar Elec. Serv.,

Inc. v. NLRB, 968 F.2d 1327, 1329-30 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

Second, Saint-Gobain's policy appears to require reporting

only when the outside employment interferes with an employUSCA Case #01-1365 Document #716420 Filed: 11/26/2002 Page 9 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ee's performance of his duties at Saint-Gobain. No such

conflict occurred prior to the election while Hotaling was on

vacation, and when Hotaling was scheduled to return from

vacation on August 28, had he not resigned on August 25,

nothing in the policy required Saint-Gobain to discharge him.

Third, even if Saint-Gobain might have discharged Hotaling

before the election, it did not do so. What Saint-Gobain

effectively seeks is a retroactive termination to make Hotaling ineligible to vote, a result that would directly undermine

the Board's reason for barring post-election challenges to

voter eligibility. Were the Board in the unfair labor practice

proceeding to have entertained Saint-Gobain's objection to

the Union's certification, the objection process would become

a hunt for employees who could have been discharged prior to

the election but were not. See Tower, 329 U.S. at 332-35.

We have no occasion to decide whether a union's failure to

report a clear violation of an employment policy that would

clearly result in automatic and immediate termination of an

employee would constitute suppression of information and

entitle an employer to make a post-election challenge. Here,

there was insufficient evidence to show either that the Union

knew about Hotaling's new job and suppressed the fact, or

that Saint-Gobain's policy would require termination of Hotaling for acceptance of the new job and the Union knew of this

policy.

Finally, Saint-Gobain asserts that Hotaling was ineligible

to vote because he was a "salt," i.e., a paid union organizer,

see 299 Lincoln Street, Inc., 292 N.L.R.B. 172, 180 (1988), and

thus did not share a community of interest with the other unit

employees. Although Saint-Gobain stated in its objection to

the election that Hotaling was "an open Union supporter,"

this is not the same as claiming that Hotaling was paid by the

Union and working at Saint-Gobain for the purpose of organizing the unit. See NLRB v. Town & Country Elec., Inc.,

516 U.S. 85, 96-97 (1995); Willmar, 968 F.2d at 1329. Because the Board had no opportunity to address this claim, it is

not properly before the court. See 29 U.S.C. s 160(e) (2000);

Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645,

665-66 (1982).

USCA Case #01-1365 Document #716420 Filed: 11/26/2002 Page 10 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Accordingly, because the Board acted reasonably in overruling Saint-Gobain's objection to the election as an impermissible post-election challenge of Hotaling's eligibility, and

Saint-Gobain presents no other challenge to the Board's

unfair labor practice decision, we deny the petition for review

and grant the Board's cross-application for enforcement of its order.

USCA Case #01-1365 Document #716420 Filed: 11/26/2002 Page 11 of 11