Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01493/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01493-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
More Truck Lines, Inc.
Petitioner
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent

Document Text:

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify

the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made

before the bound volumes go to press.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 10, 2003 Decided April 11, 2003

No. 01-1493

MORE TRUCK LINES, 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

Lawrence J. Gartner argued the cause for petitioner. With

him on the briefs were Betty Southard Murphy and Johnine

P. Barnes.

David A. Seid, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board,

argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Arthur

F. Rosenfeld, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate

General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate

 Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.

The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out

of time.

USCA Case #01-1493 Document #743501 Filed: 04/11/2003 Page 1 of 7
2

General Counsel, Meredith L. Jason, Supervisory Attorney,

and Kira Dellinger Vol, Attorney. Frederick L. Cornnell,

Jr., Attorney, entered an appearance.

Before: RANDOLPH and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH.

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge: The issue in this petition for

review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board is

whether statements of More Truck Lines, Inc., that it would

withhold wage increases from its employees if they elected a

challenging union as their representative constituted threats

in violation of § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act,

29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). The Board cross-petitions for enforcement.

More Truck Lines transports paving materials, rock, sand,

and related equipment throughout southern California. On

June 18, 1998, the company and the Brotherhood, a labor

organization representing the company’s full-time and regular

part-time drivers, signed a collective-bargaining agreement,

effective from July 1, 1998, through June 30, 2001. The

agreement provided that each full-time driver who was already employed on the date the agreement went into effect

would receive an annual $1 per hour raise to be implemented

on the three anniversary dates of his hire falling within the

term of the agreement, unless the driver already received the

maximum wage.1

 The agreement further specified that each

full-time driver hired after the agreement went into effect

would receive a $1 per hour raise upon completing a three

month probationary period, and would thereafter receive an

1 The relevant part of the agreement read:

 Each regular full-time driver employed on the effective

date of this agreement shall receive, on his or her first,

second and third anniversary dates (anniversary date as

used herein means the employee’s date of hire) following

the effective date of this Agreement, a $1.00 per hour

increase provided that no driver shall receive an increase

USCA Case #01-1493 Document #743501 Filed: 04/11/2003 Page 2 of 7
3

additional $1 per hour increase on each of the anniversary

dates of his hire occurring during the term of the agreement.2

On April 29, 1999, the Board’s regional director conducted

a representation election pursuant to a petition filed by the

General Truck Drivers, Office, Food & Warehouse Union,

Teamsters Local 952, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO (‘‘Teamsters’’).3

 The drivers had three

choices: vote to be represented by the Teamsters, vote to be

represented by the Brotherhood, or vote not to be represented. None of the three options received a majority of the

votes. The regional director then scheduled a runoff election

between the Teamsters and the Brotherhood to take place on

May 20, 1999.

Between the April election and the May runoff, the company distributed three documents to its drivers. The first was

a signed letter from the company’s president, Dan Sisemore,

and its operations manager, Bill Pyles. The letter stated:

If the Teamsters win the election TTT [the company’s] current contract with the Brotherhood

becomes null and voidTTTT No matter what the

Teamsters have told you, if the Teamsters win

and are certified, we by law can no longer give

you the wage increases already bargained for in

the Brotherhood contract because that contract

will be null and void. In fact, the law would

require that all wages, benefits and working

which places him or her above the top driver wage

rateTTTT

2 The agreement provided, in relevant part:

 Each regular full-time driver hired after the effective

date of this Agreement shall be hired at a starting rate of

$10.00 per hour. Following the successful completion of a

90–day probationary period, said employee shall receive a

$1.00 per hour increase. Said employee shall thereafter be

paid a $1.00 per hour increase on each of his/her anniversary dates falling within the term of this Agreement.

3 The Teamsters filed the petition on September 25, 1997. The

Board subsequently conducted an election, which the Teamsters

won, but the Board set aside the result based upon the company’s

objections and scheduled a second election for April 29, 1999.

USCA Case #01-1493 Document #743501 Filed: 04/11/2003 Page 3 of 7
4

conditions be frozen until we either reach agreement with the Teamsters on a contract or there

is an impasse in the negotiations.

The second document was a flier on company letterhead.

Quoting the Board’s statement in The Maramont Corp., 317

N.L.R.B. 1035, 1044 (1995), that ‘‘a contract TTT become[s]

null and void’’ if a challenging union wins a representation

election, the flier reiterated the company’s position: ‘‘No

matter what the Teamsters have told you, the law is clear: if

the Teamsters win and is [sic] certified, [the company] by law,

can no longer give you the wage increases already bargained

for in the Brotherhood contract because that contract will be

null and void.’’ The third document was a copy of the

Board’s decision in RCA Del Caribe, Inc., 262 N.L.R.B. 963

(1982), with the following passage underlined: ‘‘If the incumbent prevails in the election held, any contract executed with

the incumbent will be valid and binding. If the challenging

Union prevails, however, any contract executed with the

incumbent will be null and void.’’ Id. at 966.

In addition to these handouts, Pyles and Sisemore on

separate occasions explained to drivers that if the Teamsters

were elected, the drivers’ wages would be frozen at their

current levels because the Brotherhood contract would be

null and void.

On May 6, 1999, the Teamsters filed unfair labor practice

charges, alleging that the company had violated § 8(a)(1) of

the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), by

threatening the drivers with adverse action if they elected the

Teamsters. The May 20 runoff election nevertheless proceeded, and the Brotherhood won a majority of votes.

On October 27, 1999, the Board’s general counsel, through

the regional director, issued a complaint. An Administrative

Law Judge found that the company violated § 8(a)(1) because

the annual raises were terms and conditions of employment

that the company would have to honor even after the Brotherhood contract became null and void. Thus, the company’s

statements that it would not implement the raises if the

Teamsters won the election were unlawful threats.

USCA Case #01-1493 Document #743501 Filed: 04/11/2003 Page 4 of 7
5

The Board affirmed the ALJ’s rulings, findings, and conclusions. By the time of the Board’s decision—October 1,

2001—the collective-bargaining agreement had expired. Presumably, the company had granted the wage increases set

forth in the agreement. The Board therefore did not issue a

backpay order, but did adopt (with a clerical modification) the

ALJ’s order setting aside the May 20 runoff election, ordering a new runoff election, and requiring the company to cease

and desist from threatening employees with the loss of negotiated wage increases if they elected the Teamsters. More

Truck Lines, Inc., 336 N.L.R.B. No. 69, at 3 (2001).

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act guarantees

employees ‘‘the right TTT to bargain collectively through

representatives of their own choosing.’’ 29 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 8(a)(1) enforces § 7, making it an ‘‘unfair labor practice’’ for an employer ‘‘to interfere with, restrain, or coerce

employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in’’ § 7.

29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). An employer who threatens employees

with adverse action if they elect a particular union commits

an unfair labor practice. See Southwire Co. v. NLRB, 820

F.2d 453, 457–58 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

The company says it merely informed its employees of

what the Board had said in RCA—that a collective-bargaining

agreement with an incumbent union becomes ‘‘null and void’’

if a challenging union is elected. Although an employer may

in some circumstances avoid liability imposed for actions

undertaken in good-faith reliance upon Board precedents, see

Clark–Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency v. FERC, 826 F.2d

1074, 1081 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (en banc), the company’s statements to its employees in this case went beyond the Board’s

RCA opinion. The company did not announce only that its

contract with the Brotherhood would be void if the Teamsters

won. It added that the ‘‘law’’ would preclude it from implementing the wage increases set forth in the contract. As the

Board sees it, this last statement is not within RCA’s holding

and is not an accurate reflection of an employer’s legal

obligation in these circumstances. The ‘‘null and void’’ language in RCA, the Board ruled, was intended to mean only

‘‘that a successful intervening union must be afforded an

USCA Case #01-1493 Document #743501 Filed: 04/11/2003 Page 5 of 7
6

opportunity to negotiate a new contract, rather than be

saddled with the one entered into by the defeated incumbent.’’ 336 N.L.R.B. No. 69, at 2.

The Act requires parties to negotiate in good faith over

‘‘wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.’’ 29 U.S.C. § 158(d). The general rule is that an

employer violates its bargaining obligation if it unilaterally

alters wage rates, including automatic wage increases, unless

it has bargained to an impasse. See 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5) &

(d); NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 743 (1962); Daily News of

Los Angeles v. NLRB, 73 F.3d 406, 410–11 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

The obligation to continue the wage rates then in effect is not

derived from the contract, but is imposed by the Act. Litton

Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190, 206–07 (1991).

Therefore, if a collective-bargaining agreement has expired,

an employer may not unilaterally alter the wage rates that

were set in the agreement.

The company here made a prediction about what would

happen to the automatic wage increases if the incumbent

union lost the runoff election. That situation, the Board

ruled, would be analogous to one in which an existing collective-bargaining agreement expired: hence, the company

would have to abide by the wage rates set forth in the ‘‘null

and void’’ contract, including the annual raises, until it entered into a new agreement with the Teamsters or the

bargaining reached an impasse. The Board’s analogy is

persuasive but not perfect. True, an expired contract is just

as null as a contract that ends because of an incumbent

union’s ouster. But the expired-agreement situation differs

in two respects: the employer is still dealing with the same

union, and, one would expect, any wage increases set forth in

the expired agreement already have been put into effect.

The company’s objection is of another sort. It claims that

the unilateral change doctrine does not apply because annual

wage increases cease to be terms of employment when the

collective-bargaining agreement becomes null and void. The

argument is not well-taken. Terms and conditions of employment may continue in effect by operation of law even after an

USCA Case #01-1493 Document #743501 Filed: 04/11/2003 Page 6 of 7
7

employer is released from any contractual obligations. The

Supreme Court so held in Litton Financial Printing Division, 501 U.S. at 206. See also Derrico v. Sheehan Emergency Hosp., 844 F.2d 22, 25–27 (2d Cir. 1988). Here, since the

Brotherhood agreement obligated the company to implement

wage increases each year for the duration of the agreement,

the Board reasonably concluded that those annual raises had

become terms and conditions of employment and, accordingly,

that the company’s statements that it would not–could not–

implement the raises if the Teamsters were elected constituted unlawful threats. See Illiana Transit Warehouse Corp.,

323 N.L.R.B. 111, 114, 118–19 (1997).

A caveat deserves mention. Under the collectivebargaining agreement, the drivers were to receive up to three

annual wage increases during the three-year term of the

agreement. After the contract’s expiration date (June 30,

2001), there would be no further annual raises unless the

parties negotiated a new agreement providing for them. The

Board did not mention this detail and had no reason to do so.

The Board rightly put its decision on the ground that the

company threatened not to implement any raises if the Teamsters were elected on May 20, 1999—well before the agreement expired.

We therefore enforce the Board’s order and deny the

petition for review.

So ordered.

USCA Case #01-1493 Document #743501 Filed: 04/11/2003 Page 7 of 7