N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

NATIONAL LAB OR R ELATIONS B OARD, Pe t i tione r, GAR Y ELIAS, Inte rve nor, v. INTER NATIONAL ALLIANC E OF THEATRIC AL STAGE EM PLOYEES, M OVING PIC TURE TEC HNIC IANS, AR TISTS AND ALLIED C R AFTS OF THE UNITED STATES, ITS TER R ITORIES AND C ANADA, LOC A L 720, AFL-C IO, C LC ,

R e sponde nt. No. 16-72174
B oa rd No. 28-C B -131044 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the Nationa l La

bor R e lations B oa

rd Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 17, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
DEC 18 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : C LIFTON a n d FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s, a nd GLEASON, * * Distric t Judge
. The Nationa l La

b or R e lations B oa

rd (the “ B o ard” ) pe titione d this c o urt for
e nforc e m e nt of a

n orde r, re quiring Loc a l 720 (the “ Union” ) to provide re fe rra l inform at ion to Union m

e m be r Ga ry Elia s. Pursua

nt to 29 U.S.C . § 160(e ), this
c ourt ha s jurisdic tion to re v ie w a fina l orde r of the B oa

rd. “ W e will uphold de c isions of the

B oa rd if its findings of fa

c t a re supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e
and if it c orre c t ly

a pplie d the la

w.” N .L.R.B. v . Unbe lie v able

, Inc
. , 71 F.3d 1434, 1438 (9th C ir. 1995). TheB oa rd’ s c h ose n re m e dy

will “ only [be ] se t a side by this
c ourt for ‘ c le ar a

buse of disc re tion.’ ” Int’l Bhd. of Ele c . W ork e rs, Loc al 21 AFLC IO v . N .L.R.B. , 563 F.3d 418, 423 (9th C i r. 2009) (quoting C al. Pac . Me d

. C tr. v
. N .L.R.B. , 87 F.3d 304, 311 (9th C ir. 1996)). The Union first a sse rts tha t the B o ard did not ha

v e jurisdic tion to he ar this dispute be c a

use it wa s re quire d to ha

ve , but did not e sta

b lish, jurisdic tion ove r e a c h
e m ploy e r to whic h the Union re fe rs worke rs. Howe ve r, the B oa rd wa s not re quire d to ha ve jurisdic tion ove r e a c h individual e m ploy e r be c a

use the sole re m e dy

sought by M r. Elia s wa s an orde r re q uiring theUnion to provide its own re fe rra l

* * The Honora

ble Sharon L. Gle a son, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ala ska , sitting by de signa tion. 2inform at ion. 1 It is undispute d tha t the Nationa l La

b or R e lations Ac t (the “ Ac t” )
a pplie s to the Union. Ac c ordingly , the B oa rd ha d jurisdic t ion. The Union ne xt obje c ts to theB oa rd’ s finding tha

t it ope ra te s a

n e xc lusive hiring ha ll. The re c ord inc lude s a gre e m e nts tha t the Union ha d with va

rious
e m ploy e rs tha

t re quire the e m

ploy e rs to first usethe Union’ s re fe rra l se rvic e . The re fore , substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B oa rd’ s finding tha

t the Union ope ra t e d a

n e xc lusive hiring ha ll. The Union ne xt m a i nta ins tha t M r. Elia s’ s c la im

is ba rre d by the a pplic a ble sta tute of lim ita

tions. Unde r Se c tion 10(b) of the Ac t, c o m p la ints c annot be file d
m ore tha n six m onths a fte r the “ unfa ir la b or pra c tic e .” 29 U.S.C
. § 160(b). In this
c a se , the unfa ir la

bor pra c tic e oc c urre d whe n the Union did not provide a ll of the
re que s te d re fe rra l inform at i on to M r. Elia s in e arly 2014. It is undispute d tha t M r. Elia s file d

his c om pla int within six m

onths of those

e v e nts. The re fore , the sta tute of lim ita tions doe s not ba

r M r. Elia s’ s c om

pla int. The Union ne xt a s se rts tha t it should not be

re quire d to turn ove r a d dre sse s
and phone num

be rs be c a use Union m e m

b e rs ha ve a First Am e ndm e nt right to

1 The Union re lie s on Fishe r The atre to support its c la i m . Howe ve r, in Fishe r The atre the re m e dy

sought a nd obta ine d by

the union m e m

be r re quire d both the e m ploy e r the at e r a s we ll a s the union to stop disc rim inating in re fe rring union m e m b e rs for e m

ploy m e nt. 240 NLR

B 678, 696 (1979). Here , the re m e dy is dire c te d sole ly at the Union. 3priva c y

and the Union ha s a

duty to fa irly prote c t the priva c y

rights of its
m e m b e rs. 2 The Union is m

ista ke n. In N .L.R.B. v . Loc al Union 497, Inte rnational Brothe rhood of Ele c tric al W ork e rs, AFL-C

IO , 795 F.2d 836, 839 (9th C ir. 1986), this c ourt he ld tha

t “ disc losure of the nam e s a nd a ddre sse s of a ll m e m

b e rs using the h iring ha ll doe s not thre at e n the union or thea ssoc iat iona l rights of union
m e m b e rs.” 3 M o re ove r, substa

ntia l e v ide nc e in the re c ord supports the B oa rd’ s finding tha

t the Union did not ha

ve a c onfide ntia l ity

polic y tha t wa s m e a nt to prote c t the priva c y

of its m e m

be rs. The re fore , the Union is not pre c lude d from providing the

re que ste d inform ation to Mr. Elia s. Tina Elia s wa s not a

pa rty to the c om

pla int; none the le ss, the B oa rd did not
e rr in re q uiring theUnion to provide the re fe rra l inform ation a s re le va nt to he r. In Inte rnational Brothe

rhood of Ele c tric al W

ork e rs, Loc al 24 (Mona Ele c tric ) , 356 NLR B 581, 581–82 (2011), the B oa rd found tha

t a non-pa rty to a c om p la int who
wa s a witne ss in support of the a lle gations in the c om pla int a nd who wa s c rosse xam ine d at the B oa

rd he aring wa s a c tive e nough in the c a se to a l low him

to
re vie w the hiring ha ll re c ords. In this c a se , M s . Elia s wa s sim ila rly a c tive in M r.

2 The Union doe s not a sse rt tha t the re are First Am e ndm e nt or othe r priva c y inte re s ts a t sta ke with Union me m

be rs’ priority

ra ting for re fe rra ls. 3 This re a soning logic a lly e xte nds to phone

num b e rs; a s the Union a c knowle dge s, “ te le phone num be rs . . . a re ana logous to a ddre sse s.” 4Elia s’ s c a se . She wa s na m e d in the se c ond le tte r se nt by M r. Elia s; she te stifie d a s a witne s s at the a dm inistra

tive he aring; a

n d she wa s c ross-e xam ine d by the Union. The re fore , the B oa

rd a c te d w i thin its a

uthority to a c c ord the re lie f re que ste d a s to M s. Elia s. Fina lly , the Union a sse rts tha t it is unc le ar from

the B oa rd’ s de c ision wha

t
re fe rra l inform ation m

u st be provide d. 4 The B oa rd orde re d the Union to provide the re fe rra l inform ation re que ste d in M r. Elia s ’ s two le tte rs. Eve n if the April 24th le tte r wa s not e ntire l y

c le ar a s to wha

t M r. Elia s wa s re que sting, theB oa rd a dopte d the findings of the

a dm inistra

tive la w judge , whic h provide d de ta ile d c la rific ation of what ne e de d to be disc lose d . Ac c o rdingly , the B o ard’ s orde r is suffic ie ntly c le ar
and will bee nforc e d. E NFO RCE M E N T G RANT E D.

4 The Union a lso a sse rts tha t M r. Elia s wa s not re giste re d a nd e ligiblefor re fe rra ls during the

pe riods in que stion. B ut the Union ignore s M r. Elia s’ s c re dite d te stim ony . C re dibility

findings a

re e ntitle d to spe c ia l de fe re nc e an d m ay only be re je c te d whe n a

c le ar pre ponde ranc e of the e v ide nc e shows tha t the y are inc orre c t. Se e He althc areEmps. Union, Loc al 399, Affiliate d W ith Se rv . Emps. Int’l Union, AFL-C IO v . N .L.R.B. , 463 F.3d 909, 914 n.8 (9th C ir. 2006). TheUnion points to nothing tha

t re buts M r. Elia s ’ s te stim ony . Thus, substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B oa rd’ s de c ision. 5