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

E ! LOC AL 878, AFL-C IO, Pe t i tione r, v. NATIONAL LAB OR R ELATIONS B OARD, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71924 NLR B No. 19-C A-032148
M EM O R ANDUM *

R EM INGTON LODGING & HOSPITALITY, LLC , DB A She ra ton Anc hora ge , Pe t i tione r, v. NATIONAL LAB OR R ELATIONS B OARD, R e sponde nt. No. 15-72563 NLR B No. 19-C A-032148

# FIL ED DEC 28 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.NATIONAL LAB OR R ELATIONS

B OARD, Pe t i tione r, v. R EM INGTON LODGING & HOSPITALITY, LLC , DB A She ra ton Anc hora ge , R e sponde nt. No. 15-73259 NLR B No. 19-C A-032148

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

bor R e lations B oa

rd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 4, 2017 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS an d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a n d KOB AYASHI, * ** Distric t Judge
. The Nationa l La

b or R e lations B oa

rd a pplie s for e nforc e m e nt of its orde r finding tha

t R e m ington Lodging a

nd Hospita lity , LLC , c om m itte d sundry

unfa ir la bor pra c tic e s. R e m ington a nd Unite He re ! Loc a l 878 (the Union) pe tition for
re vie w of the B oa

rd’ s orde r. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 29 U.S.C
. § 160(e ) and

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Le slie E. Koba

y a shi, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ha

w a ii, sitting by

de signa tion. 2(f). W e de ny the pe titions for re vie w a nd gra nt the B oa

rd’ s a pplic a tion for
e nforc e m e nt. W e e nforc e the B oa

rd’ s orde r if the B oa

rd c orre c tly

a pplie d the la

w a nd its fa c t ua l findings a

re supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . Loc al J

oint Ex e c . Bd. of Las Ve gas v . N LRB , 515 F.3d 942, 945 (9th C i r. 2008). W e de fe r to the B oa rd’ s inte rpre tation of theNationa l La bor R e lations Ac t (NLR

A ) if it is “rationa l a

nd
c onsiste n t with thesta

tute ,” and we m ay not displa c e the B oa rd’ s c hoic e be t

we e n two fa irly c onflic ting vie ws of the fa c ts. Id. (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d). W e e nforc e the unc ha lle n g e d portions of the B oa rd’ s orde r. Se e Diamond W alnut Grow e rs, Inc
. v . N

LRB , 53 F.3d 1085, 1087 (9th C ir. 1995). 1. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B oa rd’ s de t e rm i nat ion tha

t the Fe de ra l M e diat ion a

nd C onc ilia

tion Se rvic e (FM C S) did not re c e ive tim e ly notic e of the pa rtie s ’ dispute be fore R e m ington unila te ra lly im ple m e nte d c ha

nge s in Oc tobe r 2009. Although R e m ington c ould ha

ve re lie d on the Union’ s notic e to FM C S, se e N

LRB v
. Mar-Le n C

abine t s, Inc
. , 659 F.2d 995, 998 (9th C ir. 1981) (pe r c uriam ), the re c ord doe s not indic a te whe n suc h notic e wa s file d, a n d R e m i ngton’ s infe re nc e -ba s e d a rgum e nts do not e sta

blish othe rwise
. 2. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B oa rd’ s finding tha

t the pa rtie s broke the ir im

pa sse in M arc h 2010, a

nd the B oa

rd did not misa

pply the la

w whe n it
3re a c he d tha

t c onc lusion. The B oa

rd “ e va luate [s] im

p a s se issue s with a

spe c ia l
e xpe rtise ga ine d by

long e xpe rie nc e .” W

alnut C re e k Honda Assoc

s. 2, Inc . v . N LRB , 89 F.3d 645, 649 (9th C ir. 1996). He re , the B oa rd found tha

t the pa rtie s’ M arc h 2010 proposal s c re a t e d a possibility

of fruitful future disc ussions in pa rt be c a use e a c h pa

rty c am e to the ta

b le with a proposa l on he a lth c are
— the c ritic a l issue

— that diffe re d m e aningfully from its position in the

fa ll of 2009. Re m ington pre s e nts a n a lte rna tive vie wof the fa c ts, but wede fe r to the B oa rd in light of its spe c ia l e xpe rtise in this a

re na . Se e id. The B oa rd did not mi sa

pply the la w by c iting to W

hite se ll C orp. , 352 N.L.R .B . 1196 (2008), a

nd C J C Holdings, Inc
. , 320 N.L.R .B . 1041 (1996). The B oa rd c orre c t ly

c o nside re d whe the r the pa rtie s ’ M a rc h 2010 proposals we re

“ signific ant e nough to wa rra nt furthe r ne gotia

tion,” and its c ita

t ion to two c a se s a bout whe n im

pa sse is re a c h e d (ra the r tha n broke n) doe s not unde rc ut its a na ly sis. Fina lly , R e m ington’ s sugge stion tha t the Union a

voide d ba rga ining in M arc h 2010 is una va iling. TheB oa

rd found tha

t the Union did not inte

nd to e nd ne gotia

tions in M arc h 2010, a

nd substa ntia l e vide nc e supports tha t finding de spite R e m ington’ s c ontra ry inte rpre tation of thefa c ts. 3. The B oa

rd’ s c onc lusion tha

t the are a s unde r the porte c oc he re s at the hote l we re “ non-work a

re a s” ba se d on Santa Fe

Hote l, Inc
. , 331 N.L.R .B . 723
4(2000), is ra tiona l a nd c onsiste nt with the

NLR A . The B oa

rd is the e ntity

ta ske d with striking a

n a p p ropriate ba l anc e be t

we e n the dic tate s of the NLR A a nd the unique c h ara c te ristic of spe c ific industrie s. Se e Be th Israe l Hosp. v . N LRB , 437 U.S. 483, 500–01 (1978). We c annot sa y the ba la nc e it struc k he re wa s im pe rm issible
. 4. The c onc l usive pre sum ption from SFO Good–N

i te Inn , 357 N.LR .B
. 79 (2011), is a lso ra

tiona l a nd c onsiste nt with the NLR A. Although a

c onc lusive pre s um ption m ay have a dram a tic e ffe c t on a

give n c a se , it prote c ts e m ploy e e fre e c hoic e by se rving a de te rre nt purpose and re c ogniz i ng the inhe re nt unre lia bility of
a fte r-the -fa c t e m

ploy e e te stim o ny . Se e id. a t 82–83. 5. Se c tion 10(e ) of the NLR A pre c lude s us from

re vie wing the Union’ s sole argum e nt. Se e 29 U.S.C . § 160(e ). Whe n, a s he re , the B oa rd sua sponte am e nds a n ALJ’ s re c om

m e n de d re m e dy , the pa

rty se e king judic ia l re vie w m ust
m ove for re c onside ra t i on be fore the B oa rd to pre s e rve the issue
. N LRB v
. Le gac y He alth Sy s. , 662 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th C ir. 2011). The Union did not m o ve for
re c o nside ra tion. And unlike the pa rty in N LRB v
. Be

st Prods. C

o . , 765 F.2d 903, 910 (9th C i r. 1985), the Union ne ve r put the m e rits of its a rgum e nt squa

re ly be fore the B oa rd e ve n though it c ould ha v e . Se e 29 C .F.R . § 102.48(c ) (pe rm itting
m otions for re c onside ra tion). Se c tion 10(e ) bars re vie w. 5The pe titions for re vie ware DE NIE D and the B o ard’ s a pplic at ion for
e nforc e m e nt is G R

ANT E D
.

6