Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-14-01080/USCOURTS-caDC-14-01080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
NBCUniversal Media, LLC
Respondent
National Labor Relations Board
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 11, 2016 Decided February 23, 2016 

No. 14-1055 

NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, 

PETITIONER

v. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 

RESPONDENT

Consolidated with 14-1080 

On Petition for Review and Cross-Application 

for Enforcement of a Decision and Order of 

the National Labor Relations Board 

Paul A. Salvatore argued the cause for petitioner. On the 

briefs were Bernard M. Plum, Michael J. Lebowich, and 

Daniel Jerome Davis. 

Gregoire Sauter, Attorney, National Labor Relations 

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

were Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, John H. 

Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, 

Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Robert J. Englehart, 

Supervisory Attorney. Amy H. Ginn, Attorney, entered an 

appearance. 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 1 of 26
2 

Before: TATEL and MILLETT, Circuit Judges, and 

EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge 

EDWARDS.

EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge: NBCUniversal Media, 

LLC (“NBC” or the “Company”) petitions for review of a 

2014 Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations 

Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”). The Board cross-petitions 

for enforcement. Because, as described below, we are unable 

to discern the rationale underlying a significant portion of the 

Board’s decision, we remand the case for clarification. We 

mean to express no opinion on the merits. Rather, we are 

remanding the case because we cannot meaningfully review 

the Board’s decision as it now stands. 

In 2009 and 2010, the Board received unit clarification 

petitions from the National Association of Broadcast 

Employees & Technicians (“NABET” or the “Union”) and 

several NABET local unions. The petitions requested that the 

Board clarify that all NBC employees represented by NABET 

under the parties’ 2006-2009 collective bargaining agreement 

were part of a single, nationwide bargaining unit. The 

petitions also sought to clarify that any persons assigned to 

the newly created Content Producer position at NBC were 

both covered by the agreement and were part of the 

nationwide bargaining unit. The petitions were consolidated 

and set for hearing. On October 26, 2011, the Board’s Acting 

Regional Director for Region 2 (“ARD”) issued a decision 

largely granting NABET’s unit clarification petitions. He 

found that all NBC employees represented by the Union were 

part of one nationwide bargaining unit and that the Content 

Producer position should be included in that unit. Decision on 

Unit Clarification Petitions (Oct. 26, 2011), reprinted in Joint 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 2 of 26
3 

Appendix (“J.A.”) 548-631 (“Clarification Decision”). On 

September 25, 2013, the Board denied NBC’s request for 

review of the ARD’s decision. NBC then declined to bargain 

over the terms and conditions of employment for Content 

Producers. 

On October 28, 2013, NABET filed unfair labor practice 

charges against NBC. On April 7, 2014, the Board issued a 

Decision and Order finding that NBC had violated sections 

8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 158(a)(1) and (5), by failing and refusing to recognize and 

bargain with the Union as the Content Producers’ exclusive 

collective bargaining representative, and by failing to provide 

the Union with information necessary to the fulfillment of its 

duties. NBC Universal, Inc., 360 N.L.R.B. No. 69 (Apr. 7, 

2014) (“ULP Decision”). The Board’s unfair labor practice 

findings are largely based on the findings made by the ARD 

in the Clarification Decision. The Company refused to 

comply with the Board’s Order and filed a petition for review 

with this court. 

NBC’s principal argument is that the Board erred in 

adopting the findings of the ARD. NBC contends that the 

Clarification Decision rests on the erroneous conclusion that 

NABET represents a single, integrated bargaining unit at 

NBC. According to NBC, Content Producers cannot be added 

to a consolidated unit that does not exist. We cannot decipher 

– either from the ARD’s decision or the Board’s decision 

adopting the Clarification Decision – how the Board 

determined that all NBC employees represented by NABET 

are part of a single, nationwide bargaining unit. The 

conclusion may or may not be right, but the reasoning 

supporting the Board’s judgment – in particular, the ARD’s 

application of Board precedent – is incomprehensible. When 

an agency’s decision lacks adequate justification because it is 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 3 of 26
4 

neither logical nor rational, or because it fails to offer a 

coherent explanation of agency precedent, the judgment under 

review is wanting for lack of reasoned decisionmaking. See,

e.g., Fox v. Clinton, 684 F.3d 67, 80 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In these 

circumstances, we are constrained to remand the case to the 

Board for further consideration and an opportunity to explain 

the rationale supporting its judgment in a fashion that is 

consistent with reasoned decisionmaking. 

I. BACKGROUND

A. Creation of the Content Producer Position 

The dispute in this case is a by-product of actions taken by 

NBC in 2008 and 2009 to reorganize its production methods. 

That reorganization resulted in the shift of work previously 

assigned to employees working in positions covered by the 

parties’ collective bargaining agreement to the Content 

Producer position, which, at least as conceived by NBC, was 

not a bargaining unit position. 

Creation of the Content Producer position was a critical 

part of NBC’s overhaul of the news creation and delivery 

systems at its local television stations. The Company 

implemented its new model in “Content Centers” at local 

NBC stations in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. The 

initiative, which involved the creation of new job 

classifications and the integration of new technology into 

newly reorganized work spaces, facilitated a significant shift 

in editorial focus from the production of broadcast television 

news to the production of news content appropriate for 

multiple platforms, including internet, cable, mobile devices, 

and taxi-casts. NBC also created a Content Center in 

Washington, D.C., but NABET representation of the Content 

Producers at that location is not at issue here. 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 4 of 26
5 

Before the reorganization, various producers oversaw and 

coordinated the production of broadcast news stories. These 

producers worked closely with Camera Operators and Video 

Editors to shoot, select, and assemble visual and audio 

materials, and with Newswriters to create scripts. The Camera 

Operators, Editors, and Newswriters were indisputably 

covered by the 2006-2009 collective bargaining agreement 

executed by NBC and NABET. Producers, however, were 

excluded. 

According to the job description posted by NBC, persons 

assigned to the newly created Content Producer position 

“‘desktop edit, write, produce and gather content on all . . . 

platforms’ and are ‘responsible for the overall coverage of 

assigned stories on all platforms throughout the day.’” 

Clarification Decision at 27, J.A. 574 (quoting Content 

Producer Job Posting, reprinted in J.A. 521). And, according 

to NBC’s Vice President of News and Content, Content 

Producers have “‘ownership of a story’ which ‘could include 

pitching an idea, it could include setting up the story; who’s 

going to be interviewed, . . . [i]t could include going an [sic] 

shooting the interview and the pictures for the story . . . 

[w]riting the story, editing the story, writing the anchor intro 

and tag for the story, creating a web version of the story, 

pitching a taxi-cast iteration of the story.’” Id. (alterations and 

ellipses in original) (quoting Transcript of Hearing 350 

(testimony of Vickie Burns, NBC Vice President of News and 

Content), reprinted in J.A. 48). 

Thus, while NBC conceived of the Content Producer 

classification as a non-bargaining unit position, see Request 

for Review by Respondent NBCUniversal Media, LLC 2 

(Dec. 15, 2011), reprinted in J.A. 637, and Content Producers 

are responsible for certain conceptual and supervisory tasks 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 5 of 26
6 

that were performed by non-bargaining unit producers before 

the Company’s reorganization, the position also includes 

bargaining unit work traditionally performed by Editors, 

Camera Operators, and Newswriters. And it is undisputed that 

the number of Editor and Newswriter positions at NBC’s 

local stations decreased dramatically, sometimes altogether 

disappearing, as a result of the Company’s reorganization and 

creation of the Content Producer positions. Indeed, NBC 

actually recruited and hired a number of Content Producers 

from within the ranks of its existing Editors and Newswriters. 

B. The Collective Bargaining Agreement 

The Union and NBC have negotiated numerous collective 

bargaining agreements during the course of their nearly 70-

year relationship. The agreement at issue in this case is the 

NABET-CWA NBCU Master Agreement 2006-2009 

(“Master Agreement”), reprinted in J.A. 206-519, which took 

effect on April 1, 2006, and expired on March 31, 2009. 

The Master Agreement covers various job classifications 

at NBC-owned stations in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, 

and Washington, D.C., and it explicitly states that the parties’ 

contract is “between NBC Universal, Inc., as the owner and 

operator” of the covered TV and radio operations, “and the 

National Association of Broadcast Employees and 

Technicians, the Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers 

Sector of the Communications Workers of America.” Master 

Agreement at 1, J.A. 215. Neither NABET local unions nor 

any other unions are referenced in the Master Agreement. 

The structure of the Master Agreement plays a pivotal role 

in the parties’ dispute over whether it is meant to cover one 

nationwide bargaining unit. The preamble to the Master 

Agreement says that “the intent and purpose of the parties [is] 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 6 of 26
7 

to set forth . . . the basic collective bargaining agreements 

between [them] in two (2) parts.” Id. Those parts consist of: 

(I) GENERAL ARTICLES covering those subjects 

which are uniformly applicable to substantially all of 

the basic relationships, hours of work and general 

conditions of employment, including a procedure for 

prompt, equitable adjustment of grievances to the end 

that there shall be no work stoppages or other 

interferences with operations during the life of these 

Agreements; and 

(II) INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES which will contain 

the description of each bargaining unit, which shall not 

be affected hereby, the rates of pay and any unusual 

working conditions which have no general application. 

Id. The preamble also provides that, “[i]n the event of any 

conflict between the General and Individual Articles, the 

Individual Articles will prevail.” Id.

In addition to 26 General Articles and 15 Individual 

Articles (each titled “Agreement” in the Table of Contents), 

the Master Agreement contains numerous “Sideletters” that 

supplement or modify the General and Individual Articles. 

The only signatories to the Master Agreement are 

NABET’s President, John Clark, and NBC’s former Senior 

Vice President of Labor Relations and Talent Negotiations, 

Day Krolik. Id. at 57, J.A. 271. Their signatures appear at the 

end of the General Articles. The Individual Articles and 

Sideletters are not separately signed. And there is no evidence 

that any NBC representatives of local stations or officials of 

NABET local unions signed the Master Agreement. 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 7 of 26
8 

The first of the General Articles, Article I Recognition and 

Warranty, provides: 

The Union represents and warrants, and it is of the 

essence hereof, that it represents for collective 

bargaining purposes all of the employees of the 

Company as defined in the applicable SCOPE OF 

UNIT clause, and the Company recognizes the Union 

as the exclusive bargaining agent for all such 

employees of the Company. 

Id. at 1, J.A. 215. As noted in the preamble, the remainder of 

the General Articles describe matters applicable to all 

employees covered by the Master Agreement, including, inter 

alia, work schedules and overtime; seniority, layoffs, and 

rehiring; leaves of absence; discharges; severance pay; 

vacations; and grievances and arbitration. 

 

The Individual Articles, together, identify all of the job 

classifications or positions covered by the Master Agreement. 

Individually, each Article describes the various wage rates 

agreed to for the positions identified therein and any unusual 

working conditions specific to those positions. With the 

exceptions of Individual Article A (which encompasses all of 

the many covered engineering and technical positions 

regardless of location) and Individual Article D (which covers 

“new businesses,” i.e., positions involving new work not 

previously associated with a job classification), each 

Individual Article covers positions specific to a particular 

city. For example, Newswriters in Chicago, Los Angeles and 

New York are covered by Individual Articles H, M, and N, 

respectively. 

Some Individual Articles encompass many job 

classifications, and some only one. Eleven of the fifteen 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 8 of 26
9 

Individual Articles identify the positions or job classifications 

covered in a subsection titled “Scope of Unit.” Four 

Individual Articles do not contain Scope of Unit sections. One 

of those, Individual Article D, as noted above, covers 

positions involving new work not previously associated with a 

job classification. The remaining three indicate (via an 

incorporated Sideletter or agreement) that the job positions 

previously identified in each had either been moved into 

Individual Article A or eliminated as identifiable positions 

subject to bargaining. Throughout the Master Agreement, 

“unit,” “units,” “each bargaining unit,” and “any unit” 

frequently stand in for or are used to reference groups of job 

classifications identified in each Individual Article. 

There are three job classifications relevant to the Content 

Producer position at issue here: Video Editor and Camera 

Operator – both of which are covered by Individual Article A 

– and Newswriter, a position covered by Individual Article N 

for New York, H for Chicago, and M for Los Angeles. 

C. Procedural Background 

On September 19, 2008, as NBC was preparing to 

establish the first Content Center at WNBC New York, the 

Company and NABET Local 11 entered into a written 

agreement providing that, except for employees who had 

occupied NABET-represented jobs and who chose to remain 

represented by the Union, Content Producers at WNBC would 

not be covered by the Master Agreement. See Agreement

(Sept. 19, 2008), reprinted in J.A. 522-24. The agreement also 

stated that the Union “agrees that it will make no claims to 

represent any non-NABET-represented Content Producers 

employed by WNBC except in the event such employees elect 

NABET-CWA as their bargaining agent in an election 

supervised by the NLRB.” Id. at 3, J.A. 524. 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 9 of 26
10 

When NBC launched the Content Centers in Chicago and 

Los Angeles, NABET locals in those cities refused to sign 

agreements similar to the one signed by Local 11. Instead, the 

Union and its locals (including Local 11) filed unfair labor 

practice charges, as well as the petitions for clarification at 

issue here. After initially pursuing the unfair labor practice 

charges against NBC, the Board reversed the order of the 

proceedings, held the unfair labor practice charges in 

abeyance, and informed the parties that it would proceed with 

the unit clarification petitions. See Request for Review by 

Respondent NBCUniversal, LLC 2-4, J.A. 637-39. 

The Board subsequently consolidated the clarification 

petitions, and a Board hearing officer took testimony over the 

course of several weeks during a two-month period. On the 

basis of that testimony, accompanying exhibits, and posthearing briefs, the ARD for Region 2 issued the Clarification 

Decision that the Board adopted in its subsequent ULP 

Decision.

Before the ARD, the principal arguments advanced by 

NABET and NBC were largely premised on their differing 

views as to whether the NABET employees covered by the 

2006-2009 Master Agreement belonged to a single, 

nationwide bargaining unit, as NABET contended, or twelve 

separate bargaining units defined by the Individual Articles, 

as NBC asserted. See Clarification Decision at 54, J.A. 601. 

NABET argued that if covered employees belonged to a 

single, nationwide unit, application of the “same basic 

functions” standard of Premcor, Inc., 333 N.L.R.B. 1365 

(2001), was appropriate and would support a finding that 

Content Producers belonged within the unit. See Clarification 

Decision at 2, 67-68, J.A. 549, 614-15. NBC argued that the 

“community-of-interest” accretion standard applied and, 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 10 of 26
11 

under that standard, the Content Producer position could not 

be added to any of the extant bargaining units. See id. 

The ARD resolved the unit clarification question in 

NABET’s favor, finding that all employees covered by the 

Master Agreement constituted a single unit. In determining 

which standard to apply to that single unit – the Premcor

analysis or the community-of-interest accretion analysis – the 

ARD “recognize[d] that the instant case differs from 

Premcor, in part because the Content Producers have some 

responsibilities that do not appear to have been previously 

performed by bargaining unit employees.” Id. at 70, J.A. 617. 

Nonetheless, the ARD found that Premcor provided the most 

appropriate standard, explaining: 

[A]pplication of a traditional accretion analysis here is 

problematic in light of [NBC’s] contention that such 

an analysis cannot compare the Content Producers 

with bargaining unit classifications that no longer 

exist. Clearly, “community of interest” factors such as 

interchange between unit employees and the new 

classification, supervision, and even functional 

integration, are rendered meaningless, or in any case 

are substantially compromised, in circumstances where 

the most relevant bargaining unit classifications, here 

Newswriters and Editors, have been eliminated as a 

result of the very change in [NBC’s] operations that 

produced the new classification. This was the case in 

Premcor, and it is also the case here. 

Id. 

 The ARD additionally rejected NBC’s argument that the 

agreement signed by Local 11 was binding on NABET with 

respect to Content Producers in New York. Id. at 62, J.A. 609. 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 11 of 26
12 

On this point, the ARD found that “[t]here is nothing in the 

NABET-CWA By-Laws tending to establish that Local Union 

Presidents have authority to sign agreements with the 

Employer concerning who will and will not fall within the 

Union’s representation.” Id. The ARD further found that 

“there is no evidence that NABET-CWA President Clark even 

knew of Local 11 President McEwan’s negotiations with the 

Employer, let alone designated Local 11 President McEwan 

to negotiate in regard to the representation of the New York 

Content Producers on the [sic] his behalf. . . . In short, there is 

no evidence to warrant the conclusion that Mr. McEwan had 

actual or apparent authority to bind the [Union] in regard to 

the unit placement of the Content Producers.” Id. at 63, J.A. 

610. 

NBC sought Board review of the ARD’s Clarification 

Decision. The Board declined. See NBC Universal, Inc., 02-

UC-000619 et al. (Sept. 25, 2013), reprinted in J.A. 677. And 

when NABET subsequently sought bargaining information 

regarding the Content Producer position and attempted to 

bargain with NBC over the position, NBC refused on the 

ground that the Clarification Decision was wrongly decided. 

NABET then filed unfair labor practice charges and, when 

NBC persisted in refusing to bargain, the Board issued a 

complaint on those charges. The Board’s General Counsel 

filed a motion for summary judgment. NBC responded, again 

arguing for review and reversal of the Clarification Decision. 

On April 7, 2014, the Board issued the ULP Decision at 

issue here. Without elaboration, the Board adopted the ARD’s 

Clarification Decision, stating: 

The employees described in the scope of unit clauses 

of the individual articles of the most recent master 

agreement between the Respondent and the Union . . . 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 12 of 26
13 

constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of 

collective bargaining . . . within the meaning of 

Section 9(b) of the Act[, 29 U.S.C. 159(b)]. 

ULP Decision, 360 N.L.R.B. No. 69 at 2. Using similarly 

concise language, the Board also adopted the ARD’s 

conclusion “that [NBC’s] newly created position of content 

producer at [its] New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles owned 

and operated local stations was properly included in the unit.” 

Id. Finally, describing the correspondence between the parties 

regarding NBC’s refusal to provide information and bargain, 

the Board concluded that NBC was engaging in unfair labor 

practices, granted summary judgment against the Company, 

and ordered NBC to recognize, provide information to, and 

bargain with NABET. See id.at 2-4. 

NBC refused to comply with the Board’s order, and 

petitioned this court for review. The Board cross-petitioned 

for enforcement. This court has jurisdiction under sections 

10(e) and (f) of the National Labor Relations Act. 29 U.S.C. 

§ 160(e) and (f). 

II. DISCUSSION

NBC does not dispute that it refused to bargain with 

NABET over the Content Producer position and that it also 

refused to provide the Union with information about the new 

job classification. In addition, the Company does not now 

contest that if the Master Agreement encompasses a single, 

nationwide bargaining unit, then the Premcor standard would 

apply to determine whether the Content Producer position is 

within the unit. 

NBC’s principal claim is that the Board’s ULP Decision

must be overturned because it rests on a flawed Clarification 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 13 of 26
14 

Decision. In the Company’s view, the ARD erred in ignoring 

and misreading clear and unambiguous language in the 

parties’ Master Agreement, relying on extrinsic evidence, 

misconstruing the history of the parties’ bargaining 

relationship, and failing to properly consider and apply Board 

precedent. The gravamen of NBC’s argument is that the ARD 

improperly looked beyond the words of the Master 

Agreement in determining whether employees covered by it 

belonged to a single, nationwide bargaining unit or to multiple 

individual units, and that he drew the wrong conclusion from 

the extrinsic evidence that he considered.

A. Standard of Review 

The National Labor Relations Act delegates to the NLRB 

the authority to “decide . . . whether, in order to assure to 

employees the fullest freedom in exercising the[ir] rights[,] 

. . . the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective 

bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or 

subdivision thereof.” 29 U.S.C. § 159(b). The Supreme Court 

long ago recognized that the Board’s “broad” discretion in 

this area “reflect[s] Congress’ recognition ‘of the need for 

flexibility in shaping the [bargaining] unit to the particular 

case.’” NLRB v. Action Auto., Inc., 469 U.S. 490, 494 (1985) 

(quoting NLRB v. Hearst Publ’ns, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 134 

(1944)). The “wide deference” afforded the Board in its unit 

determinations also reflects the reality that each decision rests 

on “a fact-intensive inquiry and a balancing of various 

factors.” United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 540 v. 

NLRB, 519 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); 

see also Dodge of Naperville, Inc. v. NLRB, 796 F.3d 31, 38 

(D.C. Cir. 2015). 

Because unit determinations involve such “a large 

measure of informed discretion,” a Board decision, “if not 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 14 of 26
15 

final, is rarely to be disturbed.” Packard Motor Car Co. v. 

NLRB, 330 U.S. 485, 491 (1947). Congress has “delegate[d] 

to the Board the responsibility to make a reasonable 

determination supported by its own precedent and evidence in 

the record. That this Court, or other reasonable people, may 

prefer a bargaining unit with different contours is immaterial 

as a reviewing court may not substitute its own judgment for a 

rationally supported position adopted by the Board.” Country 

Ford Trucks, Inc. v. NLRB, 229 F.3d 1184, 1189, (D.C. Cir. 

2000) (citation omitted). In other words, we must uphold a 

unit determination if it is supported by substantial evidence, 

29 U.S.C. § 160(e)-(f), and is “rational and in accord with 

past precedent,” Int’l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. 

Workers, 604 F.2d 689, 695 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 

The deference we owe the Board in determining the 

appropriate size of a bargaining unit prevents us from 

reviewing a Board determination on any rationale other than 

the one supplied in its decision and order. See Point Park 

Univ. v. NLRB, 457 F.3d 42, 49-50 (D.C. Cir. 2006). When 

we cannot discern that rationale, we are in no better a position 

than when the Board is silent. We cannot guess at what the 

Board means to say for to do so would result in the court 

improperly filling critical gaps in the Board’s reasoning and 

perhaps sustaining the Board’s action on a ground that the 

Board did not intend – something which is prohibited. See id.

at 50 (citing SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196-97 

(1947)). In such situations, remand of the case for 

clarification is a prerequisite to meaningful judicial review. 

See Point Park Univ., 457 F.3d at 51; see also Detroit 

Newspaper Agency v. NLRB, 435 F.3d 302, 304-05 (D.C. Cir. 

2006) (stating that in the unlawful discharge context, “where 

we cannot discern the precise basis upon which the Board 

rested in reaching its conclusion, meaningful judicial review 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 15 of 26
16 

requires us to remand the case to the Board for clarification”) 

(ellipsis, alteration, and citation omitted). 

B. The ARD’s Clarification Decision

In analyzing whether employees represented by NABET 

are part of a single, nationwide bargaining unit, the 

Clarification Decision purports to apply or distinguish five 

Board decisions. However, we are unable to follow the thread 

of the decision’s reasoning at a number of critical points. 

Most fundamentally, we are unable to discern the factual and 

precedential bases for the ARD’s rigidly bifurcated approach 

to assessing when and how to focus on the terms of the 

Master Agreement, the structure of the agreement, and the 

parties’ bargaining history in a unit clarification proceeding. 

As an initial matter, it is noteworthy that the Clarification 

Decision says that because “[n]either party has introduced the 

certification(s) of representation, which presumably would 

contain a clear statement of the unit or units for which the 

Union has been certified as the exclusive collectivebargaining representative. . . . the parties’ agreement governs 

the scope of the unit.” Clarification Decision at 54-55, J.A. 

601-02 (citing La. Dock Co., 293 N.L.R.B. 233 (1989), enf’t. 

denied on other grounds, 909 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1990)). The 

ensuing discussion of this point is garbled, to say the least. 

 

Specifically, we do not know what to make of the ARD’s 

footnoted acknowledgment that NABET did, in fact, point to 

a Board decision certifying it as the representative of a 

nationwide unit of NBC engineering and technical employees. 

See Clarification Decision at 54 n.82, J.A. 601-02 (citing 

Nat’l Ass’n of Broad. Eng’rs & Technicians, 59 N.L.R.B. 478 

(1944)). The ARD says that this “tends to support the 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 16 of 26
17 

Employer’s position that there exist multiple units, [but] the 

case is not conclusive.” Id. The ARD then points out that 

the Board has found that even where parties have 

initially treated a group of employees at a particular 

location as a separate unit, the parties may 

subsequently establish a single national unit by a 

practice of joint bargaining, repeated negotiation of a 

national agreement, and other indicators of such 

intention. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 

208 NLRB 825 (1974). 

Clarification Decision at 54 n.82, J.A. 602. This line of 

analysis is unilluminating because the Columbia Broadcasting 

System (“CBS”) case involved a situation in which the 

company and union established a bargaining relationship 

pursuant to voluntary recognition. To make matters worse, the 

ARD then states that, in this case, “it is unclear” whether 

“(any of) the asserted unit(s) here” were established pursuant 

to voluntary recognition. Id. at 54 n.83, J.A. 602. And the 

ARD does not explain whether this has a bearing on the unit 

clarification issue. 

We are thus at a loss to understand the Board’s view of 

the effect of either the certification decision proffered by 

NABET or the apparently indeterminate state of the record 

with respect to agreements negotiated pursuant to voluntary 

recognition. And the Clarification Decision offers no useful 

analytical framework. 

In addition, we are unable to understand the precedential 

basis for the ARD’s two-step, bifurcated approach to 

determining the appropriate unit in a unit clarification 

proceeding. Under the ARD’s approach, the parties’ history of 

collective bargaining and the structure of their agreement are 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 17 of 26
18 

not relevant unless the Board first finds that the literal terms 

of the contract are ambiguous. We find little support in the 

Board’s decisions for this bifurcated analysis. 

 

It is true that in Louisiana Dock, the Board, citing 

Sambo’s Restaurants, Inc., 212 N.L.R.B. 788 (1974), said: 

“When there is no clear and unambiguous contract provision 

setting forth the parties’ agreement, it may be evidenced by 

bargaining history or a pattern of bargaining.” 293 N.L.R.B. 

at 234. However, the wholistic approach generally followed 

by the Board in cases involving “master agreements” suggests 

that the statement in Louisiana Dock may be permissive 

(indicating how “bargaining history” may be useful), and not 

restrictive as the ARD thought. 

There is no doubt here that the Master Agreement covers 

all of the groups of job classifications identified in the 

Individual Articles. This case is thus plainly distinguishable 

from unit clarification cases in which the reach of the parties’ 

agreement is in dispute. See, e.g., Commonwealth Comm’ns, 

Inc. v. NLRB, 312 F.3d 465, 468 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The 

question here is not whether the Master Agreement reaches all 

of the positions identified in the Individual Articles; rather, 

the issue is whether each group identified in the Individual 

Articles is a separate bargaining unit or whether all of the 

positions covered by the Master Agreement constitute one 

nationwide bargaining unit. Obviously, the structure of the 

Master Agreement and the parties’ bargaining history may be 

highly relevant to the latter inquiry. 

Sambo’s Restaurants, on which the ARD rests his 

approach, surely does not make textual ambiguity a 

prerequisite to examination of the parties’ bargaining history. 

In that decision, the Board acknowledged the persuasive 

support in the collective bargaining history for a multi-store 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 18 of 26
19 

unit. See 212 N.L.R.B. at 788. It concluded, however, that the 

support was undermined by a letter written by the union 

during the course of collective bargaining negotiations with 

the employer. See id. The Board never suggested that 

ambiguity in the language of the collective bargaining 

agreements was a prerequisite to its review of the parties’ 

bargaining history. 

Columbia Broadcasting Systems, 208 N.L.R.B. 825 

(1974), even more explicitly rejects the ARD’s bifurcated 

approach. That decision involved a master agreement that, 

similar to the one at issue here, consisted of a national 

agreement and local supplements. The national agreement 

contained language that the Board characterized as “clearly 

indicat[ing]” an “expressed intention of recognizing one 

comprehensive unit.” Id. at 826 & n.10. Nonetheless, the 

Board undertook a detailed examination of the parties’ 

collective bargaining history and put great weight on that 

history in finding the existence of a single unit. See id. at 825-

26 & n.10. Moreover, the Board laid out a number of factors 

which it characterized as relevant to determining whether “the 

scope and nature of the local bargaining and the resulting 

local supplements to the national agreement are not so 

substantial as to defeat” the finding of a national bargaining 

unit. See id. at 826. Those factors variously involved the 

language, structure, and history of the collective bargaining 

agreement. See id. And there was no suggestion that the 

factors pertaining to the language of an agreement must be 

examined and ambiguity found before evidence of the parties’ 

bargaining history or the structure of the agreement can be 

considered. See id.

Moreover, in neither National Broadcasting Co. (“NBC”), 

114 N.L.R.B. 1 (1955), nor American Broadcasting Co. 

(“ABC”), 114 N.L.R.B. 7 (1955), did the Board make 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 19 of 26
20 

ambiguity in the language of the collective bargaining 

agreement a prerequisite to consideration of the parties’ 

bargaining history. In NBC, the Board first noted the course of 

the relationship between the parties prior to the execution of 

the master agreement at issue. See NBC, 114 N.L.R.B. at 2. It 

then detailed the language of the master agreement. See id. at 

2-4. Finally, it weighed that language (which the Board 

concluded supported a finding that the master agreement 

covered multiple, individual bargaining units) against the 

testimony describing a post-agreement course of collective 

bargaining that NABET argued supported a finding of a 

single unit. See id. at 2, 4-5. In identifying the appropriate 

unit, the Board reviewed the language of the relevant general 

and individual articles in detail and rested particularly on the 

language setting forth the purpose and intent of the parties. 

See id. at 4. But it also considered the evidence of bargaining 

history. See id. at 4-5. 

Following a similar course of analysis, the Board in ABC 

first considered the evolution of the parties’ relationship from 

consent agreement to initial contract and from initial contract 

to the collective bargaining agreement at issue. See ABC, 114 

N.L.R.B. at 9. After describing the provisions of that “Master 

Contract” in some detail, the Board turned to evidence 

showing that the employer was administering the master 

contract on the basis of separate units and that the parties had 

bargained on the basis of separate units. See id. In view of the 

entire record, the Board found that the history of bargaining 

for the employees at issue had been on the basis of a separate 

unit, previously certified by the Board. See id. Again, there 

was no suggestion that the Board looked at the evidence of 

the collective bargaining history only because the language of 

the Master Contract was ambiguous. 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 20 of 26
21 

The Board’s wholistic approach to the record in ABC and 

NBC is hardly surprising given the reliance of both decisions 

on American Can Co., 109 N.L.R.B. 1284 (1954). See ABC, 

114 N.L.R.B. at 9 n.2; NBC, 114 N.L.R.B. at 4 n.1. In 

American Can, the Board was explicit in examining both the 

language of the relevant agreements and the evidence of the 

parties’ interactions as evidence of “bargaining history,” 109 

N.L.R.B. at 1285, bearing on whether multiple plants covered 

by the “basic” (or master) contract should be treated as one or 

multiple collective bargaining units. See id. at 1285-88. 

Setting the pattern for ABC and NBC, the Board considered 

evidence of the past and current relationship between the 

union and the company, as well as the details of both the 

language and structure of past contracts and the contract at 

issue. See id. Based on all of those factors, the Board found 

that there was “no unequivocal manifestation of an intent” to 

create a multi-plant bargaining unit. Id. at 1288. 

In light of these decisions, it seems that the ARD’s 

bifurcated approach may be attributable to a misreading of 

Louisiana Dock and a failure to take account of other Board 

precedent. We cannot be sure what the Board meant to say, 

however, because it simply adopted the Clarification Decision

without amplification. Thus, we will leave this matter for the 

Board to address on remand. 

Upon finding that the Master Agreement was 

“contradictory and thus ambiguous as to the existence of a 

single or multiple units,” the ARD turned to the “extrinsic 

evidence bearing on the single unit/multiple units question.” 

Clarification Decision at 56, J.A. 603. He pointed to the fact 

that only the General Articles of the Master Agreement were 

signed and that the only signatories were John Clark 

(President of the Union) and Day Krolik (NBC’s Senior Vice 

President of Labor Relations and Talent Negotiations). See id.

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 21 of 26
22 

at 56-57, J.A. 603-04. The ARD explained that while each 

Individual Article had its own ratification process, ratification 

of the entire agreement and ratification of the Individual 

Articles were not independent procedures. See id. at 56, J.A. 

603. He also noted that there was no indication in the record 

that the Individual Articles were negotiated “separately, at a 

different time, or by different representatives than those who 

negotiated the Master Agreement.” Id. And he observed that 

“[t]here is no indication that the Local Union representatives 

on the negotiating committee are currently or have in the past 

negotiated collective-bargaining agreements or even subagreements such as those contained in the Master Agreement 

independently in regard to the ‘unit’ of employees within their 

geographic area of responsibility.” Id. at 57, J.A. 604. Finally, 

citing CBS and contrasting NBC, he concluded that “the mere 

existence of supplemental agreements covering specific 

groupings of employees does not undercut the existence of a 

single unit where the parties’ course of conduct otherwise 

supports a single unit. See Columbia Broadcasting Systems, 

Inc., 208 NLRB at 826; but see National Broadcasting 

Company, Inc., 114 NLRB 1, 2 (1955).” Clarification 

Decision at 57, J.A. 604. We find it difficult to understand 

how the ARD meant to apply CBS and NBC to his factual 

findings. 

The statement of law attributed to CBS is correct, as far as 

it goes. But critically, the ARD fails to address the factors that 

CBS describes as relevant to determining whether the nature 

of bargaining and the resulting supplements to a national 

agreement are so substantial as to defeat the conclusion that a 

national unit has been agreed upon. See CBS, 208 N.L.R.B. at 

826. Were it our place to guess, we would still be at a loss to 

comprehend the ARD’s findings because the CBS factors 

point in different directions. One factor cited as undermining 

a potential finding that the parties’ course of conduct supports 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 22 of 26
23 

a nationwide unit is a “reference in the master agreements to 

‘units’ with inclusion of a description of each ‘plant unit.’” Id.

This favors NBC in this case. However, another factor is the 

“existence of separate agreements with no master agreement.” 

Id. This favors NABET in this case. 

With respect to the first factor, the references in the 

NABET-NBC Master Agreement to “units” and the Scope of 

Unit provisions in each Individual Article suggest that the 

ARD’s conclusion that the parties’ course of conduct 

supported a nationwide unit may be undermined. However, 

because the NABET-NBC collective bargaining agreement is 

structured as a master agreement consisting of general and 

individual articles, application of the second factor supports 

the conclusion that the negotiations for the Individual Articles 

did not undermine the ARD’s conclusion. This may be 

particularly so because it is not clear that the Individual 

Articles here can be characterized as “separate agreements,” 

as that term is used in CBS. They are not separately signed 

and do not take effect absent ratification of the General 

Articles. 

If the Board is to be true to its precedent, we believe the 

CBS factors must be addressed. And given the fact that they 

seem to point toward inconsistent outcomes, we think the 

deference we owe the Board weighs in favor of allowing the 

Board to explain whether the CBS factors are as relevant as 

they appear to be and, if so, to apply the factors in the first 

instance. 

We also find confusing the ARD’s attempt to distinguish 

the Board’s 1955 decision in NBC. This decision is obviously 

significant because the NABET-NBC collective bargaining 

agreement in force in 1955 was identically structured to the 

one here, and it contained a number of identical provisions. 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 23 of 26
24 

The question in NBC was whether the Los Angeles film group 

(which was the subject of an Individual Article) had, over the 

course of collective bargaining, been made part of a single, 

nationwide unit. See 114 N.L.R.B. at 2. As a predicate to that 

assessment, the Board concluded that the other groups of 

employees covered by the NABET-NBC agreement did not 

constitute a single nationwide unit. See id. at 2-5. 

In an attempt to distinguish NBC, the ARD states that the 

Board relied on the testimony of NABET’s attorney “that, 

following the certification of [NABET] as the exclusive 

representative of [the Los Angeles film service] employees, 

the parties had agreed that the collective-bargaining 

agreement covering them would be added to the master 

agreement and that bargaining thereafter would be done in 

conjunction with nationwide negotiations.” Clarification 

Decision at 57 n.87, J.A. 604. The ARD notes that “[i]n this 

context, the Board viewed the mere fact of nationwide 

negotiations as insufficient to undercut the initial intent of the 

parties that the Los Angeles ‘film service’ employees would 

exist as a separate unit.” Id. The Clarification Decision

concludes that “[t]here is no comparable evidence here.” Id. 

Try as we might, we cannot discern with any certainty 

how the ARD meant to distinguish NBC. We can guess that 

the “comparable evidence” to which he refers is the 

certification of the Los Angeles film service employees. But 

we are not at all sure that this is what he intended. And if it is, 

then, as earlier indicated, we wonder how the evidence of 

certification that the ARD dismissed out-of-hand should be 

considered. On remand, the Board must address NBC, and it 

must do so in a way that makes more sense than does the 

Clarification Decision. 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 24 of 26
25 

Based on American Can, NBC, ABC, and CBS, it appears 

that when a unit clarification proceeding involves a “master 

agreement” covering a number of divisions of a company, the 

parties’ bargaining history and the structure of their 

agreement are always relevant. If that is the case, then the 

Board’s 1955 decision in NBC, while undeniably relevant, is 

not likely dispositive. There has been too much bargaining 

history during the decades since that decision issued to treat it 

as the final word in a unit clarification proceeding focused on 

the 2006-2009 Master Agreement. Just the fact that in 1955 

the Board had only 14 years of collective bargaining history 

to consider, see NBC, 114 N.L.R.B. at 2, whereas now it has 

75 years, may be enough for the Board to conclude that the 

1955 decision is not controlling. 

III. CONCLUSION

We deny both the petition for review and the Board’s 

cross-application for enforcement and remand the case for 

clarification consistent with this opinion. The Board adopted 

the ARD’s Clarification Decision without explanation or 

elaboration. Because we cannot discern how the Clarification 

Decision applies relevant Board precedent to the facts of this 

case, we are constrained to remand the case to the Board. On 

remand, the Board must explain both the principles embodied 

in the relevant precedent and how application of those 

principles to the facts here supports its resolution of the 

parties’ dispute. In addition to resolving the unit clarification 

issue, the Board must also address the parties’ dispute over 

the Local 11 agreement. The resolution of the Local 11 issue 

may depend in part on how the Board resolves the unit 

clarification issue. We leave this matter to the Board to 

address in the first instance. Nothing in this decision is meant 

to foreclose the Board from reopening the hearing record in 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 25 of 26
26 

the event that it determines that additional evidence and 

argument are necessary to reach an informed judgment in this 

case. 

So ordered. 

USCA Case #14-1080 Document #1600260 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 26 of 26