Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01155/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01155-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Council on Labor Law Equality
Amicus Curiae for Petitioner
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent
Randell Warehouse of Arizona, Inc.
Petitioner
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local #359
Intervenor for 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 February 13, 2001 Decided June 12, 2001

No. 00-1155

Randell Warehouse of Arizona, Inc.,

Petitioner

v.

National Labor Relations Board,

Respondent

Sheet Metal Workers International Association,

Local #359, AFL-CIO,

Intervenor

On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for

Enforcement of an Order of the

National Labor Relations Board

Michelle L. Ray argued the cause for the petitioner. Gerard Morales was on brief.

USCA Case #00-1155 Document #602659 Filed: 06/12/2001 Page 1 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Harold P. Coxson, Jr. was on brief for amicus curiae

Council on Labor Law Equality. Michael J. Murphy entered

an appearance.

Jill A. Griffin, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board,

argued the cause for the respondent. Leonard R. Page,

General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel,

and Charles P. Donnelly, Attorney, National Labor Relations

Board, were on brief.

Craig Becker argued the cause for intervenor Sheet Metal

Workers International Association, Local #359, AFL-CIO.

James B. Coppess and Patrick J. Riley entered appearances.

Before: Henderson, Randolph and Garland, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge: Randell Warehouse of Arizona, Inc. (Randell) petitions for review of an

order of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or

Board) directing it to bargain with the Sheet Metal Workers

International Association, Local #359, AFL-CIO (Union).

The NLRB cross-petitions for enforcement. For the reasons

stated below, we grant the petition for review and remand to

the Board for further proceedings.

I.

The facts before us are straightforward. After the Union

won a representation election, Randell filed with the Board

several objections to the election. Randell contended inter

alia (1) that numerous acts of intimidation created an atmosphere of coercion that reasonably tended to interfere with

the free and uncoerced choice of the employees and (2) that

other acts of interference by Union adherents and agents

affected the result of the election. See Randell Warehouse of

Ariz., Inc., 328 N.L.R.B. No. 153 app. at 19-20, 1999 WL

554239, at *30 (July 27, 1999). The Regional Director ordered a hearing to consider Randell's objections. See id. at

19, 1999 WL 554239, at *29. Following a two-day hearing, an

USCA Case #00-1155 Document #602659 Filed: 06/12/2001 Page 2 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

NLRB Hearing Officer made several findings of fact and

recommendations regarding the relevant issues.

As to Randell's first objection, the Hearing Officer found

that a Randell employee and Union supporter, Ray Encinas,

made certain objectionable comments in two employee meetings held by Randell to discuss unionization. In the first

meeting, when one employee inquired what would happen to

someone who crossed the picket line during a strike, Encinas

commented in Spanish that " 'they would bring somebody

from down below to take care of those people.' " Id. at 21,

1999 WL 554239, at *33. In a second meeting, when another

employee asked what would happen to those who did not

want to become union members if the Union won the election,

Encinas volunteered, again in Spanish, " 'they would have the

Chico Mafia take care of those people.' " Id. Furthermore,

on another occasion, one employee who was wearing a "Vote

No" button was told by a lead worker "there is people here

that beat up people that wear that."1 Id., 1999 WL 554239, at

*34. Despite these fact findings, the Hearing Officer concluded that, when measured against the standard governing thirdparty conduct in representation elections, the three incidents

did not "form the basis for setting aside the election" or

create "an atmosphere of confusion of [sic] fear" that "a free

__________

1 At the hearing, a pro-company employee testified that, while he

was wearing a "Vote No" button, two Union supporters told him to

"take [it] off" unless he was "looking for trouble." Deferred

Appendix (D.A.) 320. The employee also testified that, later the

same day, when driving home, he was boxed in by the two Union

supporters and almost driven off the road. D.A. 321-25. The

Hearing Officer discredited this testimony, concluding that the two

pro-Union employees "both credibly denied the account of the

incident as testified to by [the pro-company employee]" and "two

other credible witnesses" corroborated the pro-Union employees'

account of the event. Randell, 328 N.L.R.B. No. 153 app. at 21,

1999 WL 554239, at *33. The Hearing Officer did note, however,

that rumors about the incident spread throughout the plant and

that a leadman told the pro-company employee to " 'be careful' "

because " 'they are crazy.' " Id. at 21, 1999 WL 554239, at *33

(quoting D.A. 328).

USCA Case #00-1155 Document #602659 Filed: 06/12/2001 Page 3 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

and fair election could not have been held." Id. at 22, 1999

WL 554239, at *34. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer recommended that the Board overrule Randell's objections on this

issue.

Regarding the second objection, the Hearing Officer found

that, before the election, as Union representatives distributed

Union literature in front of Randell's building, another Union

representative photographed the employees as they accepted

or rejected the literature. See id. Moreover, the photographer took pictures of some employees' vehicles as well.

When one employee asked about the purpose of the photographs, one of the Union representatives responded "It's for

the Union purpose, showing transactions that are taking

place. The Union could see us handing flyers and how the

Union is being run." Id., 1999 WL 554239, at *35.

The Hearing Officer concluded the Union's conduct was in

violation of Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 289

N.L.R.B. 736 (1988) (holding that, absent explanation or

justification, photographing employees while they engage in

protected activity violates National Labor Relations Act

(NLRA)). See id. He therefore recommended that Randell's

objection based on Union photographing be sustained and a

new election be held.

Randell filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer's recommendations. Of relevance here, Randell argued that threats

and intimidation by Union supporters destroyed the "laboratory conditions"2 required for a representation election. Randell supported the Hearing Officer's resolution of the photographing issue, however, arguing that a new election was

warranted on that basis and emphasizing that the photographing did not take place in an atmosphere otherwise free

of coercion.

__________

2 General Shoe Corp., 77 N.L.R.B. 124, 127 (1948) (holding that

representation election should be held in "laboratory . . . conditions

as nearly ideal as possible, to determine the uninhibited desires of

the employees").

USCA Case #00-1155 Document #602659 Filed: 06/12/2001 Page 4 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The Board adopted all but one of the Hearing Officer's

recommendations. It rejected the Hearing Officer's conclusion about the Pepsi-Cola Bottling violation, opting instead to

overrule Pepsi-Cola Bottling. See Randell, 328 N.L.R.B. No.

153, at 3, 1999 WL 554239, at *4. In light of its decision, the

Board certified the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the appropriate bargaining unit of Randell employees. See id. at 5, 1999 WL 554239, at *7.

Randell refused to bargain with the Union, prompting the

Union to file an unfair labor practice charge. The NLRB

General Counsel issued a complaint and Randell answered.

In its answer, Randell raised two defenses: the election was

tainted by an atmosphere of coercion and intimidation which

prevented the employees from exercising their rights freely

and the Board erroneously applied its new photographing

rule retroactively. The General Counsel, on the other hand,

sought summary judgment reasoning that Randell's objections could have been raised or had already been rejected in

the representation proceedings. The Board agreed with the

General Counsel, found Randell in violation of section 8(a)(5)

and (1) of the NLRA and ordered Randell to bargain with the

Union. See Randell Warehouse of Ariz., Inc., 330 N.L.R.B.

No. 135, at 2, 2000 WL 345407, at *2-3 (Mar. 20, 2000). This

appeal followed.

II.

"On questions regarding representation, we accord the

Board an especially 'wide degree of discretion.' NLRB v.

A.J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 330 (1946); see also C.J.

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

(citations omitted); Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers, 736 F.2d 1559, 1564 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ('the scope of our

review of the Board's decisions in cases involving certification

is extremely limited') (citing Amalgamated Clothing Workers

of America v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 818, 827 (D.C. Cir. 1970)).

We will affirm the Board's order to bargain unless the Board

abused its discretion in overruling [an employer's] objections

in the underlying election proceeding. See C.J. Krehbiel Co.,

USCA Case #00-1155 Document #602659 Filed: 06/12/2001 Page 5 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

844 F.2d at 881-82." Canadian Am. Oil Co. v. NLRB, 82

F.3d 469, 473 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Yet, "[a]lthough our review is

deferential, we are not merely 'the Board's enforcement arm.

It is our responsibility to examine carefully both the Board's

findings and its reasoning....' " General Elec. Co. v. NLRB,

117 F.3d 627, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Peoples Gas Sys.,

Inc. v. NLRB, 629 F.2d 35, 42 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). And,

especially significant here, "the Board cannot ignore its own

relevant precedent but must explain why it is not controlling."

B B & L, Inc. v. NLRB, 52 F.3d 366, 369 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (per

curiam) (citing Cleveland Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 44 F.3d 1010,

1016 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).

In Pepsi-Cola Bottling, the Board found objectionable a

union's videotaping of employees being handed union leaflets

as they left the employer's premises during a union rally.

289 N.L.R.B. 736. Because the employees received no legitimate explanation for the videotaping, the Board concluded

the employees could reasonably believe the Union was contemplating some future reprisals against them and set aside

the election as interfering with the employees' right to choose

their representatives freely. See id.

The Board set aside a representation election in Mike

Yurosek & Son, Inc. as well. 292 N.L.R.B. 1074 (1989).

There a union representative took photographs of campaign

activity by pro-union and anti-union employees. The representative also told an anti-union activist "We've got it on film;

we know who you guys are . . . after the Union wins the

election some of you may not be here." Id. Relying on

Pepsi-Cola Bottling, the Board again found interference with

the employees' rights under the NLRA and ordered a new

election.

Here the Board, in a volte face, determined that union

photographing of employees engaged in protected activities

during an election campaign, without more, does not necessarily interfere with employee free choice. See Randell, 328

N.L.R.B. No. 153, at 3, 1999 WL 554239, at *4. At the same

time the Board overruled Pepsi-Cola Bottling, it nonetheless

declined to overrule Mike Yurosek, reasoning that photoUSCA Case #00-1155 Document #602659 Filed: 06/12/2001 Page 6 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

graphing accompanied by threats or coercive conduct does

interfere with employee free choice. See id., 1999 WL

554239, at *5. Applying its newly announced rule to the facts

before it, the Board found no objectionable conduct. See id.

at 5, 1999 WL 554239, at *7.

Randell argues the Board erred by failing to consider the

applicability of Mike Yurosek here. We agree.3 We have

repeatedly told the Board that "silent departure from precedent" will not survive judicial scrutiny. Cleveland Constr. Co.

v. NLRB, 44 F.3d 1010, 1016 (D.C. Cir. 1995); accord Gilbert

v. NLRB, 56 F.3d 1438, 1445 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ("It is . . .

elementary that an agency must conform to its prior decisions

or explain the reason for its departure from such precedent."), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1171 (1996). Here, the Hearing

Officer found that Union supporters engaged in at least three

separate instances of potentially threatening conduct. See

supra at 3. Moreover, rumors about a fourth and graver

incident circulated throughout the plant. See supra note 1.

In view of these factual findings, the applicability of Mike

Yurosek is a critical issue the Board should have examined

carefully. Yet, having announced that Mike Yurosek would

continue to apply, the Board failed to explain why the threatening conduct catalogued by the Hearing Officer did not

amount to objectionable conduct under that case. As we have

stated before, "[w]ithout some explanation of how the Board

reached its conclusion, we have no basis in the record upon

which to evaluate whether the Board's application of[its]

rule is rational, based on substantial evidence, and consistent

with the Board's own precedents." Lima v. NLRB, 819

F.2d 300, 303 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we remand to

the Board "for further consideration and a reasoned opinion,

thereby providing a meaningful basis for judicial review under 5 U.S.C. s 706(2)." Id.; see also Darr v. NLRB, 801

__________

3 Randell also contends the Board erred in overruling the per se

rule of Pepsi-Cola Bottling and in retroactively applying the new

rule to this case. Because we remand to the Board on another

basis, we need not reach these objections.

USCA Case #00-1155 Document #602659 Filed: 06/12/2001 Page 7 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

F.2d 1404, 1408-09 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (remanding where Board

did not clearly explain basis for its decision).

For the reasons stated above, we grant Randell's petition

for review and remand to the Board for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

USCA Case #00-1155 Document #602659 Filed: 06/12/2001 Page 8 of 8