Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01405/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01405-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antelope Valley Bus Company, Inc.
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 September 12, 2001 Decided January 4, 2002

No. 00-1405

Antelope Valley Bus Company, 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

Gary C. Moss argued the cause for petitioner. With him

on the briefs were Joanna S. Kishner and Celeste M. Wasielewski.

Christopher W. Young, Attorney, National Labor Relations

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

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

Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong,

USCA Case #00-1405 Document #648567 Filed: 01/04/2002 Page 1 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Robert J. Englehart,

Supervisory Attorney.

Before: Tatel and Garland, Circuit Judges, and Williams,

Senior Circuit Judge.1

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Garland.

Garland, Circuit Judge: Antelope Valley Bus Company

petitions for review of a decision and order of the National

Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Board found that the

company violated s 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor

Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. s 158(a)(5) & (1), by refusing to bargain with the Chauffeurs, Sales Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 572, International Brotherhood

of Teamsters, AFL-CIO. The Board had certified the union

as the collective-bargaining representative of a group of

Antelope Valley employees following an election conducted by

mail ballot. The company alleges that the certification election was invalid because some employees in the bargaining

unit did not receive their mail ballots, and that therefore its

refusal to bargain with the union did not violate the NLRA.

We deny the petition for review and grant the Board's crossapplication for enforcement of its order.

I

Antelope Valley operates a bus company that provides

transportation for commuters, tours, and charters. The

length of a bus driver's trip ranges from a few hours to two

weeks or more. The buses are garaged at the company's

facility in Sylmar, California, where employees report to

check in, process paperwork, and obtain their buses. At the

time of the contested election, the company employed approximately 149 drivers.

On August 23, 1999, the union filed an election petition with

the NLRB, seeking to represent Antelope Valley's bus drivers. The parties entered into a stipulated election agree-

__________

1 Senior Circuit Judge Williams was in regular active service at

the time of oral argument.

USCA Case #00-1405 Document #648567 Filed: 01/04/2002 Page 2 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ment, which specified that the balloting would be conducted

by U.S. Mail. Pursuant to that agreement, Antelope Valley

posted three standard election notices in the Sylmar dispatch

area in early September, 1999. Each notice advised the

employees that an election would be conducted by mail, and

that "[a]ny person who has not received a ballot by Tuesday,

September 28, 1999, should immediately contact the Election

Unit, National Labor Relations Board, Region 31, [address

and phone number], and request a ballot." Joint Appendix

(J.A.) at 242.

The company provided the NLRB with a list, commonly

referred to as an Excelsior list,2 of the names and addresses

of employees eligible to vote. The NLRB mailed ballots to

those employees on September 17, using address labels provided by the company. The ballots were due on October 13,

and the NLRB counted them the next day. Of 149 eligible

voters, 49 cast ballots in favor of representation by the union,

and 46 cast ballots against the union.

Antelope Valley filed a timely objection to the election,

alleging that four eligible employees--Barbara Cameron,

Richard Guzman, Leo Molina, and Beverly Strong--did not

receive ballots during the election period. After a hearing, an

NLRB Hearing Officer rejected the company's allegations

regarding the four employees, finding that each had had

adequate notice and opportunity to vote. Antelope Valley

Bus Co., No. 31-RC-7776, slip op. at 14-15 (Jan. 20, 2000)

("Hearing Officer Op."). Thereafter, the Board adopted the

findings and recommendations of the Hearing Officer and

certified the union. Antelope Valley Bus Co., No. 31-RC7776 (Apr. 17, 2000) ("Board Certification Op.").3

__________

2 See Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 N.L.R.B. 1236 (1966).

3 At the hearing, Antelope Valley also alleged that one employee,

Garret Green, received a ballot too late to vote in the election. The

Hearing Officer rejected that allegation on the ground that, inter

alia, it was outside the scope of the objection filed by the company.

Hearing Officer Op. at 16. The Board, however, found it unnecessary to pass on the allegation regarding Green: because the Board

rejected the company's allegations concerning the other four emUSCA Case #00-1405 Document #648567 Filed: 01/04/2002 Page 3 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Following certification, the union asked Antelope Valley to

recognize it as the collective-bargaining representative for the

unit and to begin bargaining. The company refused, and the

union filed a charge with the Board. The NLRB's General

Counsel then issued a complaint alleging that the company's

refusal to bargain constituted an unfair labor practice in

violation of s 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA.4 In response, the

company admitted its refusal to bargain, but argued that the

refusal was not unlawful because certification of the union

had been improper. The Board granted summary judgment

in favor of the General Counsel, holding that Antelope Valley

had violated the NLRA and ordering the company to bargain

with the union upon its request. Antelope Valley Bus Co.,

331 N.L.R.B. No. 171 (2000).

Antelope Valley seeks review of the Board's final decision

and order. It does not dispute that the use of a mail ballot

was appropriate in this case. It contends, however, that the

Board's refusal to overturn the election in light of the failure

of four employees to receive ballots conflicts with prior

NLRB precedent and is unsupported by substantial evidence.

The company further contends that the Board should have

used additional procedures to ensure that all eligible voters

__________

ployees, the allegation regarding Green could not affect the outcome

of the election. Board Certification Op. at 2 n.1. We find it

unnecessary to consider the claim regarding Green for the same

reason.

4 Section 8(a) states, in relevant part:

It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the

exercise of the rights guaranteed in [NLRA s 7];

...

(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives

of his employees....

29 U.S.C. s 158(a) (1994). NLRA s 7 guarantees employees "the

right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,

... and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of

collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection...." 29

U.S.C. s 157 (1994).

received their election ballots. We consider these three

arguments below.

II

Antelope Valley maintains that the Board misapplied its

controlling precedents in rejecting the company's objection to

certification of the union. We review Board decisions in part

to determine whether "the Board acted arbitrarily or otherwise erred in applying established law to the facts of the

case." International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Mach. & Furniture Workers v. NLRB, 41 F.3d 1532,

1536 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (internal quotations omitted). The

Board "cannot ignore its own relevant precedent but must

explain why it is not controlling." See B B & L, Inc. v.

USCA Case #00-1405 Document #648567 Filed: 01/04/2002 Page 4 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

NLRB, 52 F.3d 366, 369 (D.C. Cir. 1995). However, it is not

necessary for the Board to distinguish a precedent expressly

if the grounds for distinction are readily apparent. See

Gilbert v. NLRB, 56 F.3d 1438, 1445-46 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

In determining the validity of the election in this case, the

Hearing Officer relied on the "adequate notice and opportunity to vote" test of Lemco Construction, Inc., 283 N.L.R.B.

459, 460 (1987). In Lemco, the Board upheld an election

notwithstanding that a number of eligible voters either did

not go to the polls or arrived after the polls were closed. Id.

at 459. "We will issue certifications," the Board held, "where

there is adequate notice and opportunity to vote and employees are not prevented from voting by the conduct of a party

or by unfairness in the scheduling or mechanics of the

election." Id. at 460.

Antelope Valley argues that Lemco is an inappropriate

precedent for this case, because it arose in the context of a

challenge to a manual rather than mail ballot and because the

challenge there did not involve nonreceipt of a ballot but

rather the claim that too few eligible voters had voted for

them to be considered "representative" of the entire unit.

But there is nothing that compels the Board to restrict the

Lemco test to the circumstances of that case. Nor is there

anything unreasonable about the Board equating a failure to

USCA Case #00-1405 Document #648567 Filed: 01/04/2002 Page 5 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

go to the polls with a failure to request a replacement mail

ballot, and concluding that neither is sufficient to invalidate

an election as long as the employee had adequate notice and

opportunity to vote.

Antelope Valley contends that the precedent the Board

should have applied is Star Baking Co., 119 N.L.R.B. 835

(1957), a case in which the Board set aside an election because

an employee whose vote could have been determinative did

not receive a mail ballot. Id. at 836.5 But the rule enunciated in Star Baking--that "it is the responsibility of the Board"

to establish a procedure ensuring "that all eligible voters ...

be given an opportunity to vote," id.--is not inconsistent with

the test enunciated in Lemco. The difference in the results

of the two cases is instead readily attributable to differences

in their facts. In Star Baking, the Board found that, having

not received a mail ballot, the employee at issue did not have

an adequate opportunity to vote; both parties agreed that it

"was not feasible for him to vote manually" because the

employee was stationed 45 miles from the polling place. Id.

In this case, by contrast, the Board found that the four

employees who failed to receive their mail ballots did have an

adequate opportunity to vote; the stipulated election agreement gave them the option of requesting a duplicate mail

ballot. In light of this clear distinction, the Board's refusal to

set aside the Antelope Valley election as it did the Star

Baking election was perfectly reasonable.6

__________

5 Antelope Valley does not dispute that a disenfranchised employee's vote must be potentially determinative to justify setting aside

an election, see, e.g., Acme Bus Corp., 316 N.L.R.B. 274, 275 (1995),

but argues that since the election at issue here was decided by

three votes, the votes of the four employees could have changed the

result. Pet'r Br. at 12 n.9.

6 The other cases cited more briefly by Antelope Valley, most

involving manual ballots, are also readily distinguishable as cases in

which the employees were deprived of an opportunity to vote. See,

e.g., Wolverine Dispatch, Inc., 321 N.L.R.B. 796 (1996) (ordering a

new election where no Board agent or ballot box was present at the

polling place during part of the election period); Whatcom Sec.

Agency, Inc., 258 N.L.R.B. 985 (1981) (same where the doors of the

USCA Case #00-1405 Document #648567 Filed: 01/04/2002 Page 6 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

III

Antelope Valley next argues that, even if the Lemco test

were proper in this case, the Board erred in finding that the

four employees had an adequate opportunity to vote. We

review such a finding to determine whether it is "supported

by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole."

29 U.S.C. s 160(e) (1994); see Universal Camera Corp. v.

NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477, 488 (1951). In making that determination, we ask only "whether on this record it would have

been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the Board's

conclusion," and in so doing we give "substantial deference to

the inferences drawn by the NLRB from the facts." Halle

Enters., Inc. v. NLRB, 247 F.3d 268, 271 (D.C. Cir. 2001)

(citations and internal quotations omitted).

The company contends that the four drivers who did not

receive mail ballots did not have an adequate opportunity to

vote because they did not have adequate notice of the availability of replacement ballots. This claim rings particularly

hollow since the notice procedure was contained in an election

agreement to which Antelope Valley stipulated, J.A. at 244,

and because the company concedes that "the Notices were

properly posted" pursuant to that agreement, Pet'r Br. at 5.

But even without the agreement, the company's claim is

meritless. The notices were large (251/2" by 14"), bold-blue

__________

polling place were locked for a substantial period of time and a

large number of eligible voters did not vote); Glenn McClendon

Trucking Co., 255 N.L.R.B. 1304, 1304 (1981) (same where employee truck drivers "were prevented from voting" because they were

on assignments "distant from the polling place" on the day of the

(manual) election); B & B Better Baked Foods, Inc., 208 N.L.R.B.

493, 493 (1974) (same where Board agent opened polls "so late as to

possibly disenfranchise" employees on an earlier shift); Yerges Van

Liners, Inc., 162 N.L.R.B. 1259, 1260-61 (1967) (same where potentially dispositive voter "had no opportunity to vote through no fault

of his own" because he was away from the polling place on

assignment); see also Davis & Newcomer Elevator Co., 315

N.L.R.B. 715 (1994) (remanding where the Board failed to follow its

rules and did not send a new ballot to an identifiable employee

whose original ballot arrived at the NLRB in two pieces).

USCA Case #00-1405 Document #648567 Filed: 01/04/2002 Page 7 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

posters, each with a banner reading "NOTICE OF ELECTION" running across the top. Antelope Valley does not

suggest that the notices were unclear or difficult to understand, and concedes that they were placed in three locations

frequented by the drivers: the window of the dispatcher's

inner office, the counter used by the drivers to complete their

paperwork in the dispatch office, and the door to the dispatch

office. Indeed, it would have been hard for anyone leaving

the dispatch office to have missed the latter notice, as it was

tacked to the side of the door that the exiting employee had

to push to leave the room. J.A. at 181-82.

Antelope Valley complains that placing the posters at the

Sylmar facility was not sufficiently likely to result in notice

because drivers were often away on road trips. But that

theoretical objection has no place here: according to their

own testimony, each of the employees was in the dispatch

office at least twice during the month in which the notices

were posted there. J.A. at 35, 54-56, 72-73, 107-08; see

Hearing Officer Op. at 9. Even in a manual election it is not

necessary to prove actual notice. Reasonable notice is sufficient, and the Board's conclusion that the notice here was

adequate is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.7

Indeed, Antelope Valley's insistence on this argument is

surprising because two of the four employees conceded that

they did see the notice. One of the two, Richard Guzman,

testified that he saw the notice in the dispatch office but did

not read it. Although he knew that there was a mail ballot

election in progress and realized (during the voting period)

that he had not received a ballot, Guzman did not try to get a

__________

7 See, e.g., Jowa Sec. Servs., Inc., 269 N.L.R.B. 297, 298 (1984)

("The Board has never required that employees receive actual

notice of an impending election. Rather, the standard has always

been that reasonable measures must be taken to assure that unit

employees are aware of their right to exercise freely their franchise.... This is traditionally accomplished through the posting of

the official notice of election in conspicuous places prior to the

election.").

USCA Case #00-1405 Document #648567 Filed: 01/04/2002 Page 8 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

replacement ballot because he was "too busy." J.A. at 37.

The other employee, Barbara Cameron, testified that she was

in the dispatch office on an almost daily basis during the

posting period, knew that there were "things" posted on the

walls concerning the election, but did not read them. J.A. at

81-82. Like Guzman, Cameron knew that an election was

being conducted by mail, and even called the company's

Human Resources Department (still within the voting period)

after she realized that she had not received a ballot. However, when Human Resources told her to call the NLRB, she

chose not to, she said, because "that's not my job." J.A. at

86.

The company contends that it would be wrong to rely on

such testimony to uphold the election, given Star Baking's

admonition that it is the Board's responsibility--not the employees'--to ensure that all eligible employees have the opportunity to vote. But the Board's responsibility is only to

ensure that employees have an opportunity to vote; it cannot

ensure that any individual employee takes advantage of that

opportunity. Even in manual elections, adequate notice of

the time and place of voting is all the Board can require; it

cannot force an employee to go to the polling place.8 In this

case, the Board provided those Antelope Valley employees

who failed to receive mail ballots with the opportunity to vote

by replacement ballot. It is true, as the company contends,

__________

8 See Lemco, 283 N.LR.B. at 460 ("The fundamental purpose of a

Board election is to provide employees with a meaningful opportunity to [vote].... The law does not compel any employee to vote,

and the law should not permit that right, to refrain from voting, to

defeat an otherwise valid election."); see also Waste Mgmt. of

Northwest Louisiana, Inc., 326 N.L.R.B. 1389, 1389 (1998) ("When

an employee does not vote for reasons that are beyond the control

of a party or the Board, ... the failure to vote is not a basis for

setting aside the election."); National Van Lines, 120 N.L.R.B.

1343, 1346 (1958) (finding that employees' failure to cast valid

ballots was not due to lack of "an adequate opportunity ... , but

rather was occasioned by their lack of diligence and interest in

mailing their ballots on a date which would have assured their

timely receipt").

USCA Case #00-1405 Document #648567 Filed: 01/04/2002 Page 9 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

that if such an employee failed to request a replacement

ballot, he or she could not vote. But neither can an employee

who, despite adequate notice, fails to go to a manual polling

location. As the old adage goes, you can lead a horse to

water ...

IV

Finally, Antelope Valley contends that the NLRB should

have utilized additional "procedures to ensure that all eligible

voters had received their election ballots." Pet'r Br. at 22.

One possible procedure suggested by the company is the use

of certified or registered mail. Antelope Valley argues that

the NLRB's failure to utilize such a procedure should invalidate the election, notwithstanding that the company--before

it knew how the election would turn out--stipulated to an

election agreement that did not contemplate the use of such a

device.

This court is without authority to impose upon the NLRB

the kind of election procedures that it may deem most

appropriate. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted,

"Congress has entrusted the Board with a wide degree of

discretion in establishing the procedure and safeguards necessary to insure the fair and free choice of bargaining representatives by employees." NLRB v. A.J. Tower Co., 329 U.S.

324, 330 (1946) (citing, e.g., Southern S.S. Co. v. NLRB, 316

U.S. 31, 37 (1942)).9 For the reasons stated above, we

conclude that the procedure employed in this case, a combination of mail ballots and notice of the opportunity to obtain

replacements, was a reasonable method of ensuring the employees' right to a fair and free choice. Accordingly, we have

__________

9 See also Kwik Care Ltd. v. NLRB, 82 F.3d 1122, 1126 (D.C. Cir.

1996) ("As a general matter, the Board enjoys broad discretion in

its administration of representation elections.... "); C.J. Krehbiel

Co. v. NLRB, 844 F.2d 880, 885 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ("The case for

[judicial] deference is stron[g], as Congress has charged the Board,

a special and expert body, with the duty of judging the tendency of

electoral flaws to distort the employees' ability to make a free

choice." (internal quotations omitted)).

USCA Case #00-1405 Document #648567 Filed: 01/04/2002 Page 10 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

no warrant for overturning it. See B B & L, 52 F.3d at 369

("We will uphold the Board's exercise of discretion unless its

action is unreasonable, arbitrary or unsupported by the evidence."); see also NLRB v. Wackenhut Corp., 471 F.2d 761,

762 (7th Cir. 1972) (holding that the Board has discretion in

adopting election procedures and refusing to require it to poll

all employees to determine whether each actually received a

mail ballot).10

Antelope Valley further contends that the Board erred in

not vacating the election on the ground that the General

Counsel failed to present testimony regarding the procedures

the NLRB followed in preparing and mailing the ballots in

this case--particularly testimony that the NLRB actually

mailed the ballots to all employees on the Excelsior list.11

But it is not the Board that bears the burden of demonstrating the validity of an election; rather, it is "the party challenging the results of a Board-certified election [that] carries

a heavy burden" of showing the election's invalidity. Kwik

Care Ltd. v. NLRB, 82 F.3d 1122, 1126 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see

C.J. Krehbiel Co. v. NLRB, 844 F.2d 880, 882 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

Petitioner cannot meet its burden of establishing that the

NLRB failed to mail out the ballots by showing that the Post

Office failed to deliver ballots to a small number of employ-

__________

10 In light of the replacement option provided in this case, we

need not decide whether such an option is required for an election

to be regarded as valid if a small but potentially dispositive number

of employees fail to receive their initial mail ballots. See J. Ray

McDermott & Co. v. NLRB, 571 F.2d 850, 855 (5th Cir. 1978)

(stating, in a case in which there apparently was no such option,

that "[i]t cannot be said that an election by mail is per se invalid

whenever a potentially decisive number of votes, no matter how

small, is lost through the vagaries of mail delivery").

11 The company also contends that the Hearing Officer improperly denied its request to see the NLRB's case file so that it could

challenge the mailing procedures followed by the agency. Pet'r Br.

at 25. Examination of the hearing transcript, however, reveals that

Antelope Valley merely requested production of a list of those

ballots actually received, and did not request access to the entire

file. See J.A. at 15-16.

USCA Case #00-1405 Document #648567 Filed: 01/04/2002 Page 11 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ees.12 It certainly cannot do so in a case in which the Board

received ballots back from two thirds of the eligible voters.

As the Hearing Officer correctly stated, "[w]ithout more than

a mere unsubstantiated or non-specific assertion of [NLRB]

Regional misconduct, lost mail ballots in and of themselves do

not rebut the presumption that the Region has performed as

it should." Hearing Officer Op. at 13-14. To the contrary, in

such circumstances, the few substantiated cases of nonreceipt

are readily explained as the product of the "vagaries of mail

delivery," rather than of a flaw in the NLRB's mailing

procedures. J. Ray McDermott & Co. v. NLRB, 571 F.2d

850, 855 (5th Cir. 1978).

Finally, we note that Antelope Valley's failure to satisfy its

burden of proof distinguishes this case from a Sixth Circuit

case repeatedly cited by the company. As Antelope Valley

notes, in NLRB v. Pinkerton's, Inc., 621 F.2d 1322 (6th Cir.

1980), the court did remand for an evidentiary hearing to

determine whether the NLRB actually sent ballots to all

employees. In that case, however, the petitioner had established an unusual pattern of nondelivery--those who failed to

receive ballots all lived in the same region--that made the

court "particularly skeptical of the regularity of the Board's

procedures." Id. at 1330. Antelope Valley established no

similar ground for skepticism here. See also id. at 1324

(acknowledging that "[t]he party objecting to the validity of

an election must bear the heavy burden of demonstrating by

specific evidence that the election was unfair").

V

We conclude that the Board's decision in this case was

consistent with precedent and supported by substantial evidence, and that the election procedure it utilized was a

reasonable method of ensuring the employees' right to a fair

and free choice of their bargaining representative. Accord-

__________

12 Even the testimony of non-delivery was less than overwhelming. Three of the four employees testified that they did not collect

their own mail, but rather let others pick it up for them while they

were on the road. See J.A. at 40, 53, 62-63, 111-12.

USCA Case #00-1405 Document #648567 Filed: 01/04/2002 Page 12 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ingly, we deny Antelope Valley's petition for review and grant

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

USCA Case #00-1405 Document #648567 Filed: 01/04/2002 Page 13 of 13