Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-14-01175/USCOURTS-caDC-14-01175-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike-sell's Potato Chip Company
Respondent
National Labor Relations Board
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 14-1163 September Term, 2015

 FILED ON: NOVEMBER 24, 2015

MIKE-SELL'S POTATO CHIP COMPANY,

PETITIONER

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

RESPONDENT

Consolidated with 14-1175

On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement

of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board

Before: BROWN and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or 

Board) and on the briefs of the parties. The court has accorded the issues full consideration and has 

determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). For the reasons 

stated below, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for review is denied and the cross-application 

for enforcement is granted. 

Mike-sell’s Potato Chip Company (Mike-sell’s) seeks review of a Board decision finding that 

the company violated 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (5) by reducing union health benefits without 

obtaining the union’s consent or complying with a contractual reopening clause. The Board crosspetitions for enforcement of its order. 

“Judicial review of NLRB unfair labor practice findings is limited.” Douglas Foods Corp. v. 

NLRB, 251 F.3d 1056, 1061 (D.C. Cir. 2001). This court “will uphold a decision of the Board unless 

it relied upon findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, failed to apply the proper legal 

standard, or departed from its precedent without providing a reasoned justification for doing so.” 

USCA Case #14-1175 Document #1585100 Filed: 11/24/2015 Page 1 of 2
Inova Health Sys. v. NLRB, 795 F.3d 68, 80 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “The findings of the Board with

respect to questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole 

shall be conclusive.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). Credibility determinations made by the administrative law 

judge (ALJ) and adopted by the Board will be “accept[ed] . . . unless they are patently 

insupportable.” NLRB v. Creative Food Design Ltd., 852 F.2d 1295, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 1988). 

Mike-sell’s raises two issues. First, the company claims that the union agreed to the reduction in 

health benefits during a terse meeting on December 14, 2011. Because the Board’s contrary finding 

is supported by substantial evidence, we will not disturb it. Second, Mike-sell’s challenges 

credibility determinations made by the ALJ and adopted by the Board. This court should be 

“extremely reluctant to second-guess [credibility] conclusions based on our reading . . . years later . . 

. of a cold record.” Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union v. NLRB, 736 F.2d 1559, 

1563 (D.C. Cir. 1984). We conclude that the credibility determinations were not so “patently 

insupportable” as to merit reversal. Creative Food Design Ltd., 852 F.2d at 1297. 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to 

withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for 

rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See FED. R. APP. P. 41(b); D.C. CIR. R. 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

 Ken Meadows

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #14-1175 Document #1585100 Filed: 11/24/2015 Page 2 of 2