0 8
- 4 0 0 3
- a g , 0 8
- 4 4 5 6
- a g , 0 8
- 4 6 8 9
- a g ; 0 8
- 4 8 4 9
- a g ( t a n d e m) In te rn a tio n a l B ro th e rh o o d o f B o ile rm a k e rs , Ir o n S h ip B u ild e rs , B la c k s m ith s , F o rg e rs & H e lp e rs , A F L -C IO v . N atio n al L ab o r R ela ti o n s B o ard 1 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 4 AM ENDED SUM M ARY OR DER 5 6 RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RE CE DE NTI AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A 7 S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY 8 FE DERA L RULE OF AP PE LLATE PROCED URE 3 2 . 1 AND TH I S COU RT’ S LOCA L RULE 3 2 . 1 . W HEN 9 CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE 10 E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR AN EL E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON 11 “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY 12 P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . 13 1 4 A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C ourtof A ppeal s forthe Second Ci r cui t , hel d at 1 5 the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew 1 6 Y ork, on the 20 day of M ay, tw o thous and t en. th 17 1 8 P RES ENT : ROGER J
. M I NER, 1 9 J O H N M . W A L K E R J R .,

GE RA RD E
. L YNC H, 20 21 C i r cui tJudges
. 22

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 23 2 4 I N TER N A TI O N A L B RO TH ER H O O D O F 2 5 B O IL E R M A K E R S , IR O N S H IP B U IL D E R S , 2 6 B L A C K S M IT H S , F O R G E R S & H E L P E R S , A F L -C IO 27 P et i t i oner , 28 2 9 v. 30 3 1 N A T I O N A L L A B O R R E L A T I O N S B O A R D , 08- 4003- ag 32 R e sp o n de n t, 33 34 and 35 3 6 M CB URNE Y C OR P OR AT I ON, 37 Interveno r. 38
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - 3 9 M CB URNE Y C OR P OR AT I ON 40 P et i t i oner / Cr os s -R es

pondent , 41 4 2 v. 43 4 4 N A T I O N A L L A B O R R E L A T I O N S B O A R D , 08- 4456- ag 45 R espon den t / Cross-P et i t i on er, 08- 4689- ag 462 1 and 2 3 I N TER N A TI O N A L B RO TH ER H O O D O F 4 B O IL E R M A K E R S , IR O N S H IP B U IL D E R S , 5 BL AC KS M I T HS , F OR GE RS & HE L P E RS , AF L
- CI O, 6 Interveno r. 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - 8 co ns olida ted for dis positionwi th 9
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - 1 0 I N TER N A TI O N A L B RO TH ER H O O D O F 1 1 B O IL E R M A K E R S , IR O N S H IP B U IL D E R S , 1 2 B L A C K S M IT H S , F O R G E R S & H E L P E R S , A F L -C IO P et i t i oner , 13 14 v. 15 16 N A T I O N A L L A B O R R E L A T I O N S B O A R D , 08- 4849- ag 17 R e sp o n de n t, 18 19 and 20 21 2 2 BR OW N & RO OT P OW E R MANUF AC T UR ING, 23 Interveno r. 24
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - 25 26 M I CHAEL J. S TA PP , (A n g e la M . A tk in s o n , on the br i ef ) , B l ake & U hl i g, P. A
. , K ans as 2 7 C ity , K a n s a s , f

orP et i t i oner

/ I ntervenorI

nternat i onalB r otherhood of B oi lerm aker

s , I r on 28 Sh ip B u ilders, B lack sm ith s, Fo rg ers & Helpe rs, A F L -C IO 29 30 J EF F REY A. S CHWARTZ , E SQ ., (D io n Y . K o h le r, E s q ., on the br i ef ) , J a c ks onLewi s LLP, 3 1 A tla n ta , G e o rg ia , f orP et i t i oner

/ Cr os s -R es

pondent/ I ntervenorMcBurneyC or porat i on 32 33 H OWARD S. L INZY , (T h o m a s J . W o o d fo rd , on the br i ef ) , T he K ul l m an Fi rm , PL C , N ew 3 4 O rl e a n s , L o u is ia n a , f orI ntervenorB r ow n & R ootP ow erManuf actur i ng, I

nc. 35 36 D ANI EL B LI TZ and A MY G INN , (J ill A . G ri ff in , R o n a ldM e is b u rg , J o h n E . H ig g in s , J r., 3 7 J o h n H . F e rg u s o n a n dL in d aD re e b e n , on the br i ef ) f orR es pondent / Cr os s P et i t i oner 38 N

ati on al Lab or R elati on s B oa rd 39 4 0 Pet i t i ons t o r evi ew , and cr os s - pet i t i on t o enf or ce, Sept ember29, 2007 or der , and 4 1 pet i t i on t o r evi ew Sept ember28, 2007 or der , of the N at i onal L aborR el at i ons B oar d. 4 2 UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJUDGE D, 4 3 A N D D E C R E E D th a t th e p e tit io n s fo r re v iew a re D E N IE D in p a rt a n dD IS M IS S E D in3 1 p a rt , a n dN L R B ’s c ro s s -p e titio n fo r e n fo rc e m e n t is G R A N T E D
. 2 P et i t i on er I nternati on al B rotherhoo d o f B oil erm akers, Ir on S hip B uil ders, 3 B l acks m i ths , For ger s & H elper s , A FL
- C I O ( the “U ni on”) s eeks r evi ew of the Sept ember 4 28, 2007 and Sept ember29, 2007 deci s i ons and or der s of r es pondentthe N at i onal L abor 5 R elati o n s B o ard (th e “ N L R B ” o r th e “ B o ard ”) w h ich fo u n dp ri n cipa ll y that interve n o rs 6 B r ow n & R ootM anuf actur i ng, I nc. and M cB urney C orpor at i on ( “M cB urney”) had 7 r ef

us ed t o hi r e j ob appl i cant s on acc ountof thei runi on af

f i l i at i on i n vi ol at i on of

§ 8( a) ( 1) 8 an d(3) o f th e N ati o n al L ab o r R elati o n s A ct (“N L R A ”), 29 U
. S
. C
. § 1 5 8 (a)(1), ( 3 ), 9 in so fa r a s th e se o rd e r a m e n d e dth e re m e d ial o rd e rs o f th e A L Js a n dm a d e c e rta in 1 0 d ir e c tio n s w ith re s p e c t to th e c o n du c t o f th e c o m p lia n c e p o rt io n s o f th e p ro c e e d in g s . See 11 B r o w n & R o o t M fg ., In c ., 3 5 1 N .L .R .B . 1 6 8 (2 0 0 7 ); McB u rn e y C o r p ., 351 N
. L
. R
. B
. 799 1 2 ( 2007)
. M cB urney al s o pet i t i ons f orr evi ew of

one of the B oar d’ s f

i ndi ngs agai ns ti t , and 1 3 th e B o a rd se e k s e n fo rc e m e n t o f its o rd e r a g a in st M c B u rn e y . T h e se ap p e a ls w e re h e a rd in 1 4 t andem, and w e now cons ol i dat e them fordi s pos i t i on. 1 5 In its p e tit io n s, th e U n io n a ttac k s th e e v id e n tiary ru le a n n o u n c e db y th e N L R B in 16 O i lC api tolSheet Metal , I nc. , 3 4 9 N .L .R .B . 1 3 4 8 (2 0 0 7 ), as k in g th is C o u rt to in v a lid a te 1 7 the ru le or, i n the a lt ern ati v e, t o en join the B o ard from ap p lying the ru le i n futu re 1 8 c o m p lian c e p ro c e e d in g s in th e se a c tio n s, w h ich c o m m e n c e db e fo re th e ru le c a m e in to 1 9 ef

f ect . I n O i lC api tol , the N L R B change d i t s pr ocedur e f ordet erm i ni ng i n compl i ance 2 0 p ro c e e d in g s th e b a c kp a y liab ili ty o f c o m p a n ies fo u n dto h a v e d isc rim in a to rily fa iled to 2 1 hi r e uni on appl i cant s . W her eas pr evi ous l y the B oar d appl i ed a pr es um pt i on thatbackpay4 1 sh o u ldb e p a idto a ll w ro n g fu lly u n h ire dap p lica n ts fo r th e p e rio dru n n in g fro m th e d a te 2 of di s cr i m i nat i on unt i l they r ece i ved a va l i d of f erof empl oym ent , the B oar d i n O il 3 C api toldet erm i ned thats uch a pr es um pt i on w as notw arr ant ed i n the ca s e of “s al t s ” – 4 uni on m ember s ( s om et i m es pai d by the uni on) w ho appl y f orj obs w i th non- uni on 5 empl oyer s as partof a s tr at egy t o or gani ze the empl oyer ’ s w orkf or ce. T he B oar d rul ed 6 thati n f

utur e compl i ance pr ocee di ngs , the G ener alC ouns el“as partof hi s exi s t i ng bur den 7 of pr ovi ng a r eas onabl e gr os s backpay amountdue, [ w oul d have] t o pr es entaf f i rm at i ve 8 evi dence thatthe s al t [ ] , i f hi r ed, w oul d have w orked f orthe empl oyerf

orthe bac kpay 9 per i od cl ai m ed. ” I d. a t 1 3 4 9
. 1 0 W e d o n o t r ea ch the m erit s o f th e U n ion ’s arg u m en ts ei ther tha t th e B o ard ’s 1 1 enac tm entof

the O i lC api tolrul e w as an i m perm i s s i bl e i nt erpr et at i on of the N L R A or 1 2 thatthe appl i cat i on of the rul e i n thes e ac t i ons w oul d be “mani f es t l y unj us t . ” See Ew i ng 13 v . NLRB , 861 F. 2d 353, 362 ( 2d C i r . 1988)
. A s the U ni t ed St at es C ourtof A ppeal s f

orthe 1 4 D i s tr i ctof

C ol um bi a has r ece nt l y r ecogni zed i n the di r ectappea l of the O i lC api tol 1 5 deci s i on, chal l enges t o the O i lC api tolru le b e fo re its ap p lic a tio n a re u n ri p e . See She et 16 Me ta lW

o rke rs I n t ’ lAs s ’ n , Lo c a l2 7 0, AFL- CIO v. NLRB , 5 6 1 F .3 d4 9 7 (D .C . C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 1 7 T o det erm i ne w hethera cha l l enge t o an admi ni s tr at i ve ac t i on i s r i pe f orj udi ci al 1 8 re v iew , w e e v a lu a te b o th th e fitn e ss o f th e iss u e s fo r ju d icia l d e c isio n a n dth e h a rd sh ip to 1 9 th e p a rt ie s o f w ith h o ld in g c o u rtc o n s id e ra tio n . N
. Y. C i vi lLi ber t i es U

ni on v. G r andeau , 2 0 52 8 F
. 3d 12 2, 13 1-32 (2d C i r. 20 08 ). In this case, bo th o f these fact ors w ei gh against 2 1 f i ndi ng the B oar d’ s announce d i nt ent i on t o appl y the O i lC api tolrul e i n thes e ca s es r i pe5 1 f orr evi ew . Fi r s t , w hetherthe O i lC api tolrul e i s a perm i s s i bl e i nt erpr et at i on of the 2 N L R A by the B oar d, and eve n m or e s o w hetherthe appl i cat i on of the rul e i n thes e ca s es 3 w oul d be mani f

es t l y unj us t , ar e notyets ui t abl e f oradj udi cat i on. T her e have been no 4 compl i ance pr ocee di ngs i n ei theract i on, and, as the D
. C
. C i r cui tnot ed, “w e do notknow 5 w hetherthe new rul e w i l l have any i m pacton the ul t i m at e r emedy. ” Sheet Metal 6 W orkers , 561 F. 3d at501. Furtherm or e, s i nce w e do notknow w hats ortof evi dence the 7 B oard w i l l seek co ncerni ng the u nh i red w orkers or how i t s i nq uir i es w i l l dif ferfr om tho se 8 conduct ed underthe pr e- O il Ca p ito l r egi m e, w e cannotdet erm i ne w hetherthe appl i cat i on 9 of the rul e i n thes e ca s es w i l l be mani f es t l y unj us t . N ordo w e s ee undue har ds hi p t o the 1 0 p a rties in w ith h o ld in g c o n sid e ra tio n a t th is ju n c tu re . T h e U n io n w illstill b e ab le to 1 1 chal l enge the O i lC api tolru le a ft e r th e c o m p lia n c e p ro c e e d in g s h a v e ta k e n p la c e . See 12 N LR B v. Kat

z ’s D el i cates s en of

H ous ton Str eet

, I nc. , 80 F. 3d 755, 771 ( 2d C i r . 1996) 1 3 ( f

i ndi ng thata party can c hal l enge the B oar d’ s r emedi alor deraf t erthe compl i ance 1 4 p ro c e e d in g ). A c c o rd in g ly , the U n io n ’s p e tit io n s w illb e d ism iss e d , w ith o u t p re ju d ice to 1 5 any pet i t i on thatm ay be f i l ed af t ercompl i ance pr ocee di ngs ar e compl et ed. 1 6 In it s p eti ti o n , M cB u rne y ch all en g es th e B o ard ’s fi n d ing that itv iolated § 8 (a)(3), 1 7 ( 1) of

the N L R A by f

ai l i ng and r ef

us i ng t o hi r e thi rty- ei ghtuni on- af f i l i at ed appl i cant s at 1 8 f ourj obs i t es . M cB urney does notchal l enge the B oar d’ s f i ndi ngs thati tvi ol at ed § 8( a) ( 1) 1 9 by s urvei l l i ng the uni on or gani zi ng act i vi t i es of i t s empl oyees and § 8( a) ( 3) , ( 1) by 2 0 changi ng the w ork as s i gnm entof an empl oyee i n r et al i at i on f orhi s uni on or gani zi ng 2 1 ac ti v it ies. T h e B o ard h as c ross -pe ti ti o n ed for e n forc em en t of i ts ord er.6 1 A s a f

i ndi ng of f act , the B oar d’ s det erm i nat i on thatM cB urney f ai l ed t o hi r e the 2 j ob appl i cant s on acc ountof ant i
- uni on ani m us i s conclus i ve, s o l ong as i ti s “s upport ed 3 b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e o n th e re c o rd c o n s id e re da s aw h o le .” 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 6 0 (e ). W e 4 w il l r ev erse a fa ctua l f ind ing “o n ly . .
. if

, after l o o k ing at th e re co rd a s a w h o le, w e a re 5 l ef tw i th the i m pr es s i on thatno r at i onal tr i erof f actcoul d r eac h the conc l us i on dr aw n by 6 the B oar d. ” Ka tz ’s D e lic a te s s e n , 8 0 F
. 3 dat 76 3 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 7 M cB urney cont ends thati templ oyed a ne utr alhi r i ng pol i cy and that , s i nce the 8 B oar d di d notques t i on the val i di ty of the pol i cy and di d nothave e vi dence thatthe 9 unhi r ed uni on appl i cant s w er e more qual i f i ed than the hi r ed non- uni on appl i cant s under 1 0 the p o li cy , the B o ard ’s co n clus ion that an ti -un ion an im u s co n tr ibu ted to the c o m p an y ’s 1 1 fa ilu re to h ir e th e u n io n ap p lic a n ts is n o t s up p o rt e db y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . 1 2 T h is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. U n d e r th e ap p lica b le le g a l sta n d a rd , as se t o u t in 13 F ES, a D i vis i on of

Therm o P ow er , 331 N
. L
. R
. B
. 9, 12 ( 2000) , the B oar d w as notr equi r ed 1 4 t o s how thatthe unhi r ed uni on appl i cant s w er e more qual i f i ed than the hi r ed non- uni on 1 5 ap p li ca n ts i n o rde r t o co n clud e tha t anti- u n ion an im u s co n tr ibu ted to the e m p loy er’s 1 6 deci s i on. M cB urney’ s r el i ance on i t s neutr alhi r i ng pol i cy w as a def ens e, w hi ch w as 1 7 s ever el y under cutby the f act s thatM cB urney di s r egar ded the pol i cy on numer ous 1 8 o c c a sio n s a n dth a t m o st o f th e u n h ire du n io n ap p lica n ts ra ted e q u a lly o r h ig h e r in 1 9 M c B u rn e y ’s p u rp o rt e dp re fe re n c e s y s te m th a n th e n o n -u n io n ap p lic a n ts w h o w e re h ir e d
. 2 0 Subst ant i aladdi t i onalevi dence s upport s the B oar d’ s conclus i on, i ncl udi ng the f actthat 2 1 M cB urney’ s m anage m ent“f r equent l y m i s r epr es ent ed and mi s l ed uni on appl i cant s about7 1 [its ] h ir in g p la n s a n dre p e a te d ly lie dto th e ap p lic a n ts ab o u t [its ] in te n tio n s to h ir e ,” 2 McBurney , 351 N
. L
. R
. B
. at814, a f i ndi ng thatM cB urney does notdi s put e. E xami ni ng 3 the r ecor d as a w hol e, i ncl udi ng the B oar d’ s uncont es t ed f i ndi ngs thatM cB urney w as 4 gui l ty of

otherant i
- uni on unf

ai rl aborpr act i ces by s urvei l l i ng i t s empl oyees ’ or gani zi ng 5 act i vi t i es and r et al i at i ng agai ns tone of i t s empl oyees f

orhi s or gani zi ng ef

f ort s , w e cannot 6 c o n c lu d e th a t “ n o ra tio n a l tr ie r o f f a c t c o u ldre a c h th e c o n c lu s io n d ra w n b y th e B o a rd .” 7 F o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e dab o v e , th e Un i o n ’ s p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w a r e DI S M I S S E D, 8 w i thoutpr ej udi ce t o the U ni on r enew i ng i t s ar gum ent s conce rni ng O i lC api tolaf t erthe 9 c o m p lian c e p ro c e e d in g s h a v e b e e n c o n du c ted . M c B u rn e y ’s p e tit io n fo r re v iew is 1 0 D E N I E D , and the N L R B ’ s cr os s - pet i t i on f orenf or cementof

i t s or derf

i ndi ng M cB urney 1 1 g u i l ty o f

u n f a i rl ab o rp r a c t i c e s i s GR ANT E D. 12 1 3 FOR TH E CO UR T: 1 4 C athe ri n e O ’H ag an W o lf e, C lerk o f C o u rt 15 16