## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 09

- 1383 & 09

- 1656 S HEE HY E NTERPRI ZE S, I NC ., P etitio ner, Cros s - Res pond e nt, v.

N ATI ONA L L ABO R R ELA TION S B O ARD , R es pond ent, C ross-P etitio ner, an d L ABO RERS ’ I NTERNATI ONA L U NI ON OF N OR T H A MERI CA, S TATE OF I NDI ANA D IS TRICT C O UN CIL , Inte rve ning-Respondent.

Pe tition fo r Review and C ro ss- A pp lic ation fo r Enfo rc em ento f anOrd er of the National L ab o r Relations B o ard. No . 25- CA-30583
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 21, 2010

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 20, 20102 N os. 09

- 1383 & 09

- 1656 Befo re E AST ERB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd C UDAH Ya nd M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Ju dg e. W i th o utfi r str ea di ngthe do cum ent he w as si gni ng, J am es Shee hy, the presi dent of S he eh y Ent er pr i ze s, I nc . , en te r ed a co l l ec ti ve ba r g aini ng agr eem ent with the Labor er s’ Inter nati onalU ni on o f N or th A m er i ca, S tat e o fInd i ana Dist ric t Counci l

. U nd er th e t e r ms o fth a ta g r e e me n t, S h e e h y E n t e r p r i z e s b e c a me obl i ged to pay i ts em plo yee s uni on wages and m ake u n ion be n efitfu n d c o n t r i b u tio n s o n th eir be h alf fo r all wor ki t per f o r m ed i n I ndi an a an d f o urc o unt i es i n Ke ntucky

. I n 2007, w hen confro nted by a unio n rep resenta
ti v e , S h e e h y c l a i me d th a tth e c o mpa n y wa s n o tb o und b y t h e a gr ee m en t, p ro m p tin g t h e u n ion to file an u n fair l ab o r pr ac ti ce c ha r g e w i ththe Nat i o na l Labo r Re l at i o ns B o a r d

. T h e B o a r d ’ s g e n e r a l c o u n s e l th e n f i l e d a c o mpla in t a gainst the co m pany. A n adm i ni str ati ve l aw j ud ge hel d a hear i ng and f ound that S heehy E n te rpri zes had co m m i tt ed anunf airl ab o r pr ac ti ce b y r epu di at i ngthe col l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent, and the Board i ssued an o r deraffi r m i ngtha t dec i si o n. The c o m pan ype ti ti o ns f orr evi ew o fthe Board’ s o rder, a n d t he Boar d cro sspeti ti o ns f o r e nf o r ce m en t o fthe s ame. F o r the r ea so ns that f ol l ow, w e deny the c om p an y’ s peti ti on f orr evi ew and gra nt the Boar d’s cro ss- peti ti on f orenf or cem ent.

I. S he eh y Ent er pr i ze s, I nc . ( “Co m pan y ”) , i s an I nd i an a const ructi on business that speci al i zes i n concr ete i nstal l ati on. J am es Shee hy i s the Com pany’s presi dent an d co -N os. 09

- 1383 & 09

- 1656 3

own erand ove rs ees i ts day- to- day o perat i ons. U nti l 20 03, the Com pany’s busi ness w as l i m i ted to non- union j obs

. Bu t in Octobe r 2003 , the Com p an y b egan w or ki ng as a su bc o nt r ac to r o n a s tu den t ho us i ngproj ec t o n the Indi an a U ni ver si ty- Purdu e U n i ver si ty, Ind i anapol i s ( “I U PU I ”) c am p u s. T h e g e n er al c on tr ac to r for th e p roj ec t w as W ilhe l m Co ns truct i o n, a signat o r y t o a c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini ng agr eem en t ( “CB A ”) betw een a co nstr ucti on e m plo yer ass oci ati on a nd the Labor er s’ Inter nati onalU ni on o f N o r thAme r i c a , S t a t e o fIn d i a n a D i s t r i c tC o u n c i l ( “ Uni o n” )
. Underthe CB A , W i l he l m Co ns truct i o n was e ncour age d to use s u b c ontract or s that were si gnato ri es to the CBA a n d was re quir ed to not i fy the U ni on i fany of i t s s u b c on tr ac to rs w er e n ot . On O c to b er 15 , 200 3, D av id F r y e, the Uni o n’ s l o ca l b usiness m an ag er, v i si te d the I U PU Ico nstr uction s ite and noti ced thatthe non- unio n Com pany w as w or ki ng o n the proj ect. Fr ye ad vis ed W ilh e l m C on st ru c tio n ’s s u p er in te n d en t t h at th is w as in v i o l at i o n o fthe CB A. T he s up e r i nt e nd e nts e tu p a m eet i ng be tw een F ry e a nd J am es S h eehy the ne xt day. Du ring the m eet i ng, S heehy si gned an a gr eem ent that m ade the Co m pan y a pa r tyt o the CBA. S he ehy m i st ak en l y b el i ev ed th atthe CBA w as l i m i te d t o the I U PU Iproj ect w he n, i n fact, i t covered allconc rete w ork that the Com pany w oul d perf or m i n I nd i ana thro ugh M ar ch 31, 20 04. Fr ye tol d Sheehythatthe CB A would not ap p ly to w or k t h at th e C om p an y h ad p re vio u sly bid . In acco rdance w i th the CB A , the Com pany pai d union w age s a nd m ade u n ion bene fi t- fund co ntributi ons f or the durat i on o fthe I U PU Iproj ect.4 N os. 09

- 1383 & 09

- 1656 Fol l owing the e xpir ati on o fthe CB A o n M ar ch 31, 20 04, the Com p an y began w or k o n another unio n proj ect at I UPUIi nv o l v i ngthe c o ns t r uc t i o n o fa pa r k i ngga r a g e . On M ay2 1, 2 00 4, S he ehy s i g ne d a ne w ag r ee m en t bindi ng the Com pany to a new CB A ( “200 4 CBA ”)

— the o ne at i ssue i n thi s ca se

— th at ran from A p ril 1, 20 04 u n til Ma r c h 3 1 , 2 0 0 9
. T he n e w C B A wa s e s s e n t i a l l y th e s a me as the pr i o r CBA, c o ve r i nga l l wor kpe r f o rm ed bythe C o mpa n y i n I n d i a n a a n d f o u r c o u n t i e s i n Ke n t u c k y . But ag ain , w ith ou t re ad i n g th e C B A , Sh ee h y m ist ak en ly th ou gh t th at t h e C om p an y w ou ld be u n ion ize d for on ly the c urr ent I U PU Iproj ect ra therthan f or al l proj ects du ring the next fi ve yea rs . T h e C om pany m ade uni on benefit- fund co ntributi ons on be hal fo fi ts em plo yee s f o r the 2 0 0 4 I UPUIp r oj e c t, the l a s ts uc h c o nt r ibuti on occur ring o n A ugust 2 7, 20 04. Du rin g th e next thre e y ear s, the Com pany w or ked m ost l y fornon- unio n gene ra l co n tr acto rs and did not p ay u ni on wages orm ake bene fi t- fund co ntributi ons. The n, o n Nov ember 1 , 2 00 7, Uni o n b us i ne ss a g en t Dw i ght S m i th o bser ved se ver alCom pany em plo yee s w o r kin g a t a W alm ar t p roj ec t s ite in In d ian ap olis th at had b een bi d b y a gener al contr acto r that w as a si gnato ryto the CB A
. N ot r eco gni zi ng the worke rs o r th e Company, S m i th co nt ac te d F r y e an d r el ay ed the i nfo rm ati on. Fr ye tol d Sm i th thatthe Com pany w as i n d e e d a p a r t y t o th e C B A a n d t o s i g n u p a n y e mpl o y e e s wh o d i d no th a v e u ni o n c a r ds

. As S mi th a ppr o ac he d t he Com pan y wor k er s, S he ehy met hi m a nd told h im that the C om p an y w as no t a un ion con tracto r.N os. 09

- 1383 & 09

- 1656 5

The C om pany argues thatthe two-m em ber panel ofthe Board 1 la ck ed au th o ri ty to h ea r t h is d isp u te d u e t o t h e a b se n ce o f a thr ee - m em berquo ru m ofthe e ntire B oar d. The Com pany re c ogni ze s thatour dec i s i on i n Ne w P r o ce s s S t e e l, L
. P. v . NL RB , 5 6 4 F .3d 84 0 (7t h C ir .), cert
. gran te d , 1 3 0 S. C t
. 4 8 8 (20 0 9 ), (co n tin u ed ...) Shee hy the n spoke with F ry e by phone, wh o i nfo rm ed hi m t ha tthe 2 0 0 4 CB A wa s i n f o r c e b e t we e n the U ni on an d the C o mpa n y . S h e e h y d e n i e d b e i n gb o u n d b y the 20 04 CB A buti ndi ca te d he w as w i l l i ngt o wor ks o m ethi ng ou t for th at p articu lar p roj ect. Frye respon d ed that there w as n ot h i n g t o w or k ou t b ec au se th e 2 00 4 C B A w as in effe c t. O n Jan u ar y 24, 20 08 , th e U n ion file d a n u n fair l ab o r p r a c t i c e c h a r g e wi th th e Na t i o n a l L ab o r R e l a t i o ns B oard ( “B oard ”). Based on t he U ni on’ s char ge, the Board’ s g ener al counselfi l ed a c om pla i nt agai nst the Com pany on Ap ri l 30 , 2008
. Fo l l owing a hea ring, an a dm i nist ra ti ve l aw j ud ge ( “A LJ”) concl ud ed that the Com pany had vi ol ate d §§ 8 ( a) ( 1) and ( a) ( 5) o fthe N ati onalLaborRel ati ons A ct ( “A ct”) , 29 U
. S. C. §§ 151 ets eq . , byr epud i ating the 20 04 CB A
. The A LJ o rder ed the Com pany to cea se and desi st f ro m refus i ngt o a dh e r e t o the 2 0 0 4 CB A a nd t o ma ke i ts em plo yee s a nd the U n ion wh ol e forany w age s o r benefi ts i t ha d f ai l ed to pa y . The Co m pan y fi l ed i ts e xcepti ons to the AL J ’ s deci si on with t h e B oar d. A twom em be r pan el ofthe B oard affirm ed the A L J’ s d eterm i nati ons and adopted his r eco m m ended orderwith sli g htmodi fi ca ti o ns no t r el ev an t he r e. The Co m pan y 16 N os. 09

- 1383 & 09

- 1656

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 forec l oses th at ar g u m en t, b u t raises it so that th e issue is pr e s e r ve d. The U nion has inter v en ed in s up port ofthe Board and u rges 2 enf orcem ent ofi ts order. U nd er § 1 0(a) of the A ct, “[t] he B oa rd is em p ow ered

. . . to 3 prevent a n y p erson from engaging in any unf airl abor p ractic e . . . a ffec tin g co m m er ce .” 2 9 U .S.C . § 1 6 0 (a ). pet i ti o ns f o r r ev i ew o fthe Boa r d’ s o r der, a nd the Board cr oss - peti ti ons f orenf or cem ent. 2

II. I ni ti al l y, the Com pany ar gues thatthe Board l acke d author i ty to deci de the d ispute be cause i t di d not i nvol ve an u n fai r l aborprac ti ce. U nd er§ 7 o fthe A ct, 3 em plo yee s hav e the r i ght to bar gain col l ecti vel y thro ugh represe ntati ves ofthei r own choo si ng. 29 U
. S. C. § 1 57. Se cti on 9 (a) p rovi des thatthe bar gaini ng ag ent for the e mpl o y e e s i n a n a pp r o pr i a t e u ni t mus tb e the r e pre sentati ve “desi gnate d orse l ecte d fo r the purpos es of col l ecti ve bar gaini ng bythe m aj or i ty ofthe em plo yee s. ” Id. § 159( a)
. I t i s an unfai r l abor pract i ce und er §§ 8(a ) ( 1) and (b ) ( 1) ( A ) f oran e m plo yero r u n ion, r espect i vel y, to i nt er fer e wi th, r es tr ain, o rcoerce e m pl o y ee s i n the ex er c ise of t h eir righ ts u n d er § 7. Id. § § 15 8( a) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( A). S ucha v i o l at i on occurs whena uni o n a nd empl o y ere nt era CBA r ec o g ni zingthe uni o n a s th e ex cl us i ve b ar g aini nga g en t when it do es no t enj o y theN os. 09

- 1383 & 09

- 1656 7

Se c t i on 8( a) ( 5) ofthe Actm ake s itan unf ai r l aborp ra c t i c e f or 4 a n e m pl oy e r “ t o r e fus e t o bargain c ol l e c t i ve l y wi th the r e pre s en t at i v es ofhi s e m pl oye es , s ubj ec tt o the pr ovi s i ons of s e c t i on1 5 9 ( a) o fthi s t i t l e . ” 2 9 U. S
. C. § 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 5 )
. W he r e a CBA i s i n pl ac e, the dut y t o ba rg ai n c ol l ec t i vel y “ m ea n[ s] tha t no par t y to such c ont ra c ts hal l t er m i nat e or m odi fy s uc h c ontr act
. ” Id. § 1 5 8 (d ). su p p or t o f a m ajorit y of e m p loy ee s. Int ’ l La di e s Gar m e nt Worker s ’Uni on v . NLRB , 3 66 U. S
. 7 31 , 7 37

- 38 ( 19 61 )
. But i n § 8 ( f ) , Congr ess has car ved out an exceptio n to thi s g ener alr ule f orem plo yer s in the c onstructi on ind ustr y. U nd ertha t provi si on, co nstr ucti on e m plo yer s ca n l aw fully e nt er into so

- cal l ed “pre-hi re ag re em ents” with un i o ns tha tdo n o th a v e maj o r i t y s up po rt
. 2 9 U. S
. C. § 158(f). Th e pa rties agree that th e 2004 C B A w as a § 8(f ) agr eem ent. I n John D e kl e wa & So ns , 282 N
. L
. R
. B . 1 3 7 5 , 1 387 (1987 ), enf orce d sub nom . Inte rnati ona l Ass ociati o n of Bridge, Str uct u r a l & Or n a me n t a l Wo rk e rs , L o c a l 3 v . NLRB , 843 F. 2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988) (“ De k l e wa ” ), th e B oard held that a § 8( f) ag r ee m en t co nfer s a l i m i te d § 9 ( a) r epr es en ta ti ve s ta tu s on a u n io n signa tory and that an em p loyer si gn atory co m m i ts anunf ai r l ab o r pr ac ti ce unde r § § 8( a) ( 1) a nd (a) (5) b y u n ilat er ally rep u d iat in g t h e a gr ee m en t w h ile it i s i n fo r ce . A few years lateri n N LRB v. Buf co Corp. , 89 9 4 F
. 2d 60 8, 6 11 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 0) , thi s c our t appr o ve d the D e kl e wa rul e in enf or ci ng an or der o fthe Board that, applying Dek l e wa , f ound an em plo yerhad com m i tte d an u n fair l aborprac ti ce under §§ 8( a) ( 1) and ( a) ( 5) by r epu di at i ngi ts § 8 ( f ) pr e- hi re ag r ee m en ts wi tha uni o n.8 N os. 09

- 1383 & 09

- 1656

T he C om p an y a l so claim s that th e B oa rd lack ed au tho rity 5 ove r thi s unf ai r l aborpr ac t i c e di s put e b eca u se § 30 1 o fthe L ab or M an ag em e n t R elatio ns A ct, 29 U .S. C
. § 18 5(a), crea tes a cau se of action f or un ion s to sue f or v i o l a t i on s of a CB A in fed era l cou rt. T he re is no m erit to th at a r g u m e nt. A ltho u g h it is t r ue tha t the e ffe c t of § 3 0 1 i s tha t the Bo a r d’ s a utho ri ty over an u nfai r l aborpr ac t i c e “i s no te xc l us i ve” whenthe ac t i vity al s o c on sti t ut es a bre ac h o fa CBA , “[ t ] he author i t y ofthe Bo ard to deal with an unf airl abor p ract ic e wh ich a lso violat es a co ll ect ive bargaining contrac t is not displac ed by § 301
. . . .” S m ith v . E v en in g New s A ss ’n , 37 1 U .S . 19 5, 197 ( 19 62 ). T hu s, in s uc h c as es , the di s t ri c tc our t s an d the B oar d have c onc ur re nt ju ri sd ic tio n . Wi l l i am E
. A rnol d C o. C arpent ers D i st
. C ounci l of Jac ks on v il le & Vicin ity, 41 7U .S
. 1 2 , 18 (19 7 4 ); M cN ealy v. C ater

pi l l ar, Inc. , 139 F. 3d 1113, 11 2 3 (7th Cir. 1998)
. The choic e betw een these f ora w as the U nion’ s prerogati ve. C learl y the n, un d er the la w o f th is ci rcu it, the B oard has the a u thor i ty to hearan unf ai r l aborprac ti ce di spu te tha t, l i k e this o ne , c o nc erns the uni l at er alr epu diat i on o fa § 8 ( f ) ag re em ent. 5 W e tu r n, the n, t o the mer i ts o fthe pe ti ti o ns. Our r e v i e w o fa Bo a r d rul i ngi s de fe r e nt i a l

. We wi l l a c c e pt the Boa rd’ s f actualfi nd i ngs i ftheyar e s up port ed by substa nti alev i dence i n the re cor d consi dered as a w h ole

. F e dEx F r e igh tE. , In c . v . NLRB , 4 3 1 F
. 3 d 1019, 1025 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05 ) (ci tat i on o m i tte d). W e g i ve speci al defe re nce t o i ts cre dibi l i ty deter m in atio ns and w i l l not d ist u rb th em ab se n t e x tr ao rd in ar y c irc u m st an c es . Id. at 10 26
. W e wi l l upho l d the Bo ar d’ s l ega l de te r m i na ti o ns as l o nga s th eya r e no t i rrati o na l o r i nc o ns i st en t wi ththeN os. 09

- 1383 & 09

- 1656 9

I n its b ri ef s , the Com pany c ont en ds thatour r evi ew ofthe 6 B o a rd ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f th e 2 0 0 4 C B A is d e n o v o . N L R B v . In t’l Bhd. o f El ec . Worke rs, Loca l Un i on 16 , 42 5 F .3d 103 5, 103 9 (7th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ). Y e t t h e C o m p a n y d o e s n o tc h a l l e n g e th e B o a r d ’s i nt er pre t at i on of the agr ee m en t and does not advan ce any speci fic argum ent abou t how the Board ’ s int erpret ati on w as i nc or re ct. The re f or e, we ha ve no oc c as i on t o r evi ew the Bo a r d’ s i nt e r pr e t a t i ono fthe 2 0 0 4 CBA
. There i s no e vidence i n the rec ord that the Union m is repre- 7 sente d the term s of the C B A to Sh eeh y or k ne w of his alleg ed m isun d erstan d ing of the n atu re o f the ag reem en t. A ct. Id. W he re, as here, t h e Boa rd ad op ted the A L J’ s 6 fi nd i ng s o ff ac t an d c o nc l us i o ns o fl aw, i t i s th e AL J’ s d et er m in at ion s t h at w e re vie w . Id. Shee hy adm i tte d that he si gned the 2004 CB A o n M ay 21, 2004, o n behal fo fthe Com pany, witho ut r eadi ng i t. 7 Tha t ag r ee m en t was e ffec ti ve unt i l M ar ch3 1, 2 00 9. But both Fr ye and Sheehyte sti fi ed that on N ove m ber1, 20 07, th e Company, thr o ug h S he ehy, de ni ed th ati t was b o und b y th e C B A
. T h u s, su b st an tia l an d u n c on tr ov er te d e viden ce i n the r ec o r d s uppo r ts the A L J’ s fi ndi ngtha t th e C o mpa n y v i o l a t e d th e Ac tb y r e p u d i a t i n gth e 2 0 0 4 C B A. I n r es po ns e, the Com pan y ar gue s tha t th e g en er alc o unsel ’ s co m pla i nt w as bar re d because the U ni on’ s J anuary24, 200 8, charg e ( up on wh i ch the com pla i nt was bas ed) w as filed m or e t h an six m on th s a fte r th e U n ion alleg ed ly l ear ned (in 200 4 a nd 20 05) o fthe Com pany’s r epud i ati on o fthe 2 0 0 4 CB A. S e c t i o n 1 0 ( b ) o fthe Ac tp r o v i de s that “no com pla i nt shal l i ssue base d up on a ny u n fair l abor10 N os. 09

- 1383 & 09

- 1656 pr ac ti ce o cc ur r i ngmor e t ha n s i x months pr i o r t o the fi l i ngo fthe c ha r g e wi th th e Bo ar d. ” 29 U. S
. C. § 1 60 ( b)

. The Com pany, howe ver, di d not a sse rtthi s s tatute o fl i m i tati ons affi rm ati ve defe nse unti l i t fil ed i ts excepti ons to the AL J ’ s deci si on w ith the Board. The Boar d did not consi der the defense because i t was unti m el y, having not been ra i se d i n the Co m pan y ’ s an swe r o r a t th e he ar i ng wi th th e A L J
. T h e B o a r d ’ s r e fu s a l t o a d d r e s s th e C o mpan y’ s § 10 ( b) defense conf or m ed w i th i ts usual prac ti ce ( not chal l enged byth e C om pany) o fdeem i ng waiv ed affi rm ati ve defe nses that ar e no t r aise d in an answ erto th e gen eral coun sel’s com p lai nt or at th e hea ring befo re th e A L J. Ge s ke& So n s v . NLRB , 1 03 F. 3d 1366 , 13 71 n .8 (7t h C ir. 19 97 ); N LR B v. Wizard M ethod, Inc. , 897 F
. 2d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 3 6 ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ( c i t i ng Fed . M gm t
. Co. , 26 4 N
. L.R. B. 107, 10 7 ( 1982 )). S i m i l ar l y, we w i l l notco nsi der th i s ar g um en t t ha t w as no t pr o per l y pr es en te d i n the ad m in ist ra tiv e p ro c ee d in g. Id

. Th e Co mpa nydi d a r g ue t o the ALJ

—b as ed on w h at it ter m ed a “ com m on l aw waive r theo ry ”

— th atb y wai ting un tilseveral years after i t fi rst learned of th e Com p an y’s re pu diat i on o fthe CB A to br i ng an unfai r l aborprac t i c e c h a r g e , th e U n i o n i mp l i e d l y wai v e d i t s r i g h tt o c o mpl ain o fthe Co m pan y ’ s ac ti o ns . In r ej ec tingtha t ar g um en t, the ALJ c ho se no t to c r edi t S he ehy ’ s te st i m o ny that he to l d F ry e on two oc casi ons i n 200 4 a nd 20 05 that the Com pany w oul d no t f ol l ow the CB A f orn on-unio n proj ects
. I nstea d, the A LJ cre dit ed Fr ye’ s tes ti m on y t hat he di d not s pe ak with S heehy between M ay 2004 an d Nov embe r 2 00 7 an d di d n ot l ea r n tha t th e Company w as not com ply i ng with the C B A unti l N ove m ber20 07.N os. 09

- 1383 & 09

- 1656 11 I n chal l engi ng tha t fi nd in g, th e Com pany does not sugge st th at ex tr ao rd in ar y c irc u m st an c es ex istth a t w ou ld j usti fy o ur di sr ega rdi ng the A LJ’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nat i o n. A nd w h e r e , a s h e r e , th e AL J c h o s e b e t we e n t wo confl i cti ng vi ew s of the evi dence, the substa nti al evid en c e s ta n d ar d of re vie w r e q u i re s u s t o u p h old h is f a c t u a l fi n d i n gth a tth e U ni o n d i d n o tl e a r n o fth e C o mp an y’s rep u d i a t i on u n til N ov em b er 20 07
. New P roc ess Steel , 56 4 F
. 3d at 844 ( ci tat i on o m i tted ). T he A LJ’ s r ej ect i o n o fth e C o mpa n y ’ s “ c o mmo n l a w w a i v e r ” a r g um en t w as thus appropr i ate
. Last, the Com pany clai m s that the Boar d shoul d have defe rr ed fro m h ea ring thi s unf ai r l aborprac ti ce di spute i n f av o r o fthe a rbi tr at i o n pr o ce dur es pr o vi d ed f o r i n the CB A , w hi ch i s i ts usual pol i cy w hen suc h gri evance r e me d i e s a r e a v a i l ab l e u n d e r a C B A. C o lly er Insula ted Wire, 192 N .L .R .B . 837, 839 (19 71 ); see also Chic ago Tri b une Co. v . NLRB , 9 74 F
. 2d 93 3, 9 38 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 2)
. Butthe Company f ai l ed to m ak e th i s no n-j ur i sdi ct i o na l a r g um en t to the Boa rd , w hich m ean s tha t absen t ext raord inary ci rcum sta nces

— a n d n o n e a r e c l a i me d b y th e C o mpan y

— w e m ay not cons ider it. 29 U
. S. C
. § 160(e).

III
. Based on the f or ego i ng r eas ons, we concl ud e that su bsta nt ialev id en ce in the record sup p orts the A L J’ s fi nd i ng that the Com pany com m i tte d a n unfair l abor pr ac ti ce b y uni l at er al l y r epu di at i ngthe 2 00 4 C B A
. The C om p an y wai ved i ts affi rm ati ve defe nse that the § 10(b) statut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns b ar s th e Bo ar d’ s co m pl aint, a nd the12 N os. 09

- 1383 & 09

- 1656 A LJ’ s r ej ecti on o fthe Com pan y’s com m on l aw waive r argu m en t is su p p orted by sub stan tial evid en ce. Fu rthe rm ore, bec au se th e C om p an y fai led to p resen t to the B oard i ts ar gum ent that the Boar d shoul d have d efer re d fr om hear i ng thi s di spute i n f avo r ofarbi tr ati on, we c an not c o ns i de r i t
. We ha v e e xa mi ne d a l l othe r a r g ume nt s a dv a n c e d b y th e p a r t i e s a n d s e e n o th i n gth a tr e q u i r e s c o mm en t. A ccor dingl y, the Com pany’s peti ti on f or re vi ew is D ENI ED a nd the Bo ar d’ s cr o ss - pet i ti o n fo r e nf o r cement ofi ts or der i s G RANTE D .

4- 20- 10