The H onorab le J oan H u m p h rey Lefkow ofthe N orther n  Dis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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 o. 10

- 3639 N ATI ONA L L ABO R R ELA TION S B O ARD , P etitio ner, v. E
. A. S WEE N C OMPAN Y, R es pond ent
.

On A pp lic ation fo r Enfo rc em entof an Ord er of the N ational L ab o r Relations B o ard.

No . 13- CA-45563
A RG UE D A PRI L 15, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AY 16, 2011

Befo re P O SNER an d M A NI ON, Cir cu i tJudges , a nd L E F K OW, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  L E F K OW, D i s t r i ctJudg e . T he Nat i o na lLabo rRe l at i o ns B o a r d s e e k s t o e n f o r c e i t s o r d e r h a l t i n gE
. A. S we e n C o mpany’s r efus al to bar gain w i th Team ste rs LocalU ni on N o. 75 4 a fteri t had be en ce rt i fi ed as the e x c lu sive co l l ec-2 N o. 10

- 3639 ti ve bar gaini ng r epres entat i ve ofE. A
. S w een’ s t ruck dr i ve r s. E. A. S wee n a r g ue s th atthe c o ur t sh o uld deny th e a p p lica ti on be c au se th e e lec tio n w as inv alid . Th is cour t has j uri sdic ti on t o re view the Boar d’s appli cati on f o r en f o r ce m en t pur su an t to 29 U. S
. C. § 16 0( e)
. W e g r an t th e Bo ar d’ s appl i ca ti o n.

I. E.A. S w een d istributes f oo d, pri m ar i l y t o 7- Ele ven st o r es i n the Chi ca g o a r ea . The Un i o n pe ti ti o ne d the B o a r d t o c o n d u c ta r e p r e s e n t a t i o n e l e c t i o n f o rth e c o mpan y’ s t ruck dri ver s, and an e l ecti on was schedul ed for A ug us t 2 9, 2008
. On the eve nin g of A ug us t 28, before the dr i ver s l eft forthei r eve ni ng shi fts, the U ni on di str ibut ed to the dr i ve r s a o ne - pag e fl y erb ea r i ngthe l etterhead of“Team ste rs Local75 4” i n l ar ge type al ong w i th the Uni o n’ s l o g o . T he fi r s tp a r a g r a ph s s t a t e d: TO AL L E . A. SWEE N DRI VERS :

’ THE U. S
. S UPR EME [ si c ] HAS HELD T HAT ALL EX I TI NG [ si c ] T E R MS A ND C O ND I T I O NSO F E MP L O Y ME NT B Y L AW MUS T REMA I N T HE S AME UNT I L AND D UR I NG C O NT R AC T NEG O T I AT IO N S O RA P P R O V E D B Y E M P L O Y E E S.’ TH A T S TATEM EN T M EA N S THA T I F YOU A RE DU E A S C HE DU L E D R AI S E AT ANY T I ME DU R I NG T HE C O NT R AC T NE GO T I AT I O N P E R I O D, B Y L AW THE COM PAN Y M UST G IV E Y O U T H A T R A ISE
. I T I S UN LA W F UL F OR ANYCOM PAN Y M AN AG ER, S UPE RV I S OR, OR HR RE PR ES ENTATIVE TO TEL LN o. 10

- 3639 3 AN EM PLOYEE THA T DUE T O U N I ON ACTI VI TY THA T EM PLOYE E W I LL NO T RECEI VE THEI R [ si c ] RAI S E. Aft ers ev er almor e se nt en ce s to ut i ngthe b en efi ts the U ni on w oul d c onfer, the fl yer provi ded conta ct info rm ati on s houl d any e m plo yee be sub j ec ted to vi ol ati on o f th e r ul e i t des cr ibe d

. Ofthe a ppr o xi m at ely thi r ty
- ei g ht elig ible em p loy ee s, tw en ty -se ve n vo te d for th e U n ion, six vot ed aga i nst, and one bal l ot w as chal l enged ( thus not m aterial to the outc om e). E. A. S wee n fi l ed ano bj ec ti o n wi ththe Bo ar d. I t co ntended th at the fl yer“use d fo rg ed and m i sr epres ented docum ents and quotes” thatwer e false l y a ttr ibuted to the S up re m e C ourt
. A ccor ding to the c om pany, thes e quotes w er e pr ese nted in s u c h a m anner that em plo yee s w oul d not hav e be en abl e t o re cogni ze them as uni on p ro paganda. E. A
. S w een a l so ar gued that i t had i ns u ffici ent t i m e t o reb ut the f al se i nfo rm ati on. I t co ntended that the flye r i m proper l y influenced the e m plo yee s t o vot e forthe U ni on. A t a hear i ng, E. A
. Sw een pr ese nted i ts human resou r ce s an d o per at i o ns mana g er s who tes ti fi ed that em plo yee s had b een parti cul ar l y focuse d on wh ethertheywould r ecei ve a wag e incre ase bec au se th eir las t c olle c tiv e b ar ga i n i n g a gr ee m en t, n eg ot iate d by the U ni on, had re sul ted i n a three

- yea r w age fre eze. T h e hum an r eso urces m anage r tes ti fi ed that “a t l ea st1 9 empl o y ee s” ha d s ta te d w ithin da y s o fthe el ec ti o n th at th ey i nt en ded to vo te ag ains t the U nion, an d a numbe ro fem pl o y ee s ha d a sk ed que st i o ns abo ut th e fl yer.4 N o. 10

- 3639 T h e h ea rin g off ice r fou n d th at th e flye r, alth ou gh it con ta i ne d a mis r epr es en ta ti o n o fthe l aw, di d no t i nt erfer e with the em p loy ees ’ abi l i ty to m ake a fre e cho i ce an d r ec o m m en ded th atthe Bo ar d c er ti fy the Uni o n. S he f ound that E. A
. S w ee n’s ev i dence w as i nsuffi ci ent t o est abl i sh thatthe docum ent was a f or gery “ as i t was cl ear l y i ssued by t he U ni on a nd ther e i s no ev i dence that the Union att em pted to deceiv e em plo yee s into b elie vin g th at t h e f l ye r w as iss u ed by th e g ov er n m en t.” Sh e di sco unted as “ unsubstanti ate d hears ay” the tes tim ony ofm anage rs abo ut em plo ye es’ pl ans t o vot e aga i nst the U ni on, st ating tha t i t was no t en ti tl ed to dispos i ti ve w ei ght. E. A. S wee n fi l ed ex ce pti o ns . On Au g us t 17, 2 00 9, the two s i ttingmem be r s o fthe Bo ar d a do pte d the he ar i ng o ffi ce r ’ s r ep or t an d c er ti fi ed th e Uni o n a s th e ex cl usi v e b a r g a i ningr e pr e s e nt a t i v e o fE. A. S we e n’ s dr i v e rs . St i l l, E. A
. S w een r efused to bar gain. On October7, 20 09, th e Uni o n fi l ed anunf ai rl ab o rpr ac ti ce c ha r g e, c l ai m i ng vi ol ati on o fse cti ons 8( a) ( 1) and ( 5) o fthe N ati onal L abor R elations A ct (N L R A ), 29 U
. S. C
. § 1 58(a)(1) a nd ( 5). The Board’ s g ener alco unseli ssued a com pla i nt, and on Decem ber 24, 2 00 9 th e two s i tt i ngmem be r s o fthe Board i ssued a deci si on co ncl ud i ng tha t the el ecti on was val i d and that E. A
. S w een had e ngage d i n u n fair l abor pract i ces by re fusi ng to bar gain. I t i ssued a ple naryo rder di r ec tingthe c o m pan y t o b ar g ain. T h e B oa rd filed an ap p lica tio n for e n for c em e n t i n th is cour t ( N LRB v. E. A. Swe e n Co. , N o. 10

- 1075 )
. W e r em anded after New Proc e ss Stee l, L
. P. v . NLRB , ___ U.S
. ___, 13 0N o. 10

- 3639 5 S. Ct. 26 35, 17 7 L. Ed. 2d 162 (2 01 0), f orfurtherpro c e e di ng s b e f o r e a thr e e - memb e rp a ne lo fthe Bo a r d. On N ov em b er 9, 20 10 , t h e B oa rd , by a th re e-m em b er p an el, i ssued a deci si on fi nd i ng tha t t h e co m pany’s r efusalto barga in viol ated se c t io ns 8(a)( 1) and ( 5). Th e B oard di d no t addr es s th e va l i di tyo fthe e l ec ti o n, no ting th at n o n ew ev id en c e o r sp ec ial c i r c u m st an c es w ou ld r e q u i r e th e B o a r d t o r e e x a mi n e th e d e c i s i o n ma d e i n t he fi r stpr o ce eding . Aga i n, the Board o r der ed th e co m pan y to ba rg ain w i t h th e U n ion . E .A . Sw ee n p er sis tin g in i ts re fusalto bar gain, the Board fi l ed thi s a pp li cati on for enf or cem ent.

II. W e m ay re vi ew the Boar d’s cer ti fi cati on deci si on o nce the B oa rd has deter m i ned that an unfa i r l aborprac ti ce has o ccurr ed

. S ee 29 U .S.C . § 15 9(d ); Boirev. Gr eyhou nd Corp
. , 37 6 U.S
. 47 3, 47 6- 79, 84 S. Ct. 89 4, 11 L. Ed. 2d 84 9 (1 96 4); N LR B v. Am er iCo ld Logis ti cs, Inc. , 21 4 F
. 3d 935, 937 ( 7th Cir
. 2000 )
. W e defe r to the Board’ s find i ngs o ff ac t i fthe y a r e su ppo r te d b y s ubs ta nt i al eviden ce a nd t o i t s lega l co n c lu sio n s if th ey h av e a “re as on ab le b as is i n l aw . ” S CA Ti s s u eN. Am er . L L C v
. NLRB , 37 1 F
. 3d 98 3, 98 7-8 8 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); N LRB v . C i ty Wi deIns ul at i on of M adison, Inc. , 370 F.3d 654 , 657 (7th C ir. 2004). The i ss ue i s whethe r th e Bo ar d was c o r r ec t i n c er ti fy i ng the e l ecti on. E. A
. Sw ee n argues ag ai n that the e l ecti on shoul d be s et asi de beca use the U ni on’ s ca m pai gn fl yer w as decepti ve an d m i sl eadi ng and bec ause the fl yerwas a forgery. U nd er M i dl and Nat i onal Li f eIns . Co. , 2 6 3 N. L. R. B.6 N o. 10

- 3639 127, 13 3 ( 1982 ) , the Boa rd wil lnot“probe into the t ruth orf al si ty ofthe parti es’ cam pai gn st ate m ents, [ or ] set el ecti ons asi de on the bas i s of m i sl eadi ng ca m pai gn state m en ts. [I t] w il l, how ever, interv en e in cases w he re a p a r t y h a s u s e d f o r g e d d o c u me n t s wh i c h r e n d e rt he vo te rs u n ab le t o re c og n i z e p ro p ag an d a fo r w h at it is.” T he r a t ionale f or the ru le i s tha t em p loyees are

“ ‘ m atur e i ndi vi dual s who ar e ca pab l e o fr ecogniz i ng cam pai gn pro paganda .

. . and dis counting i t. ’ ” Id. at13 0 ( quo ti ng Shop ping Ka rtFood M arket, Inc. , 2 2 8 N. L. R. B. 1311 , 1313 (1977)). E
. A
. Sw een urges focu s o n th e fi rst sen ten ce: “ ’TH E U
. S. S UPR EME [ si c ] HAS HEL D THAT ALL EX I TI NG [ si c ] T E R MS AND C O ND I T I O NS O F E MPL O Y MENT B Y L AW MUS T R E MAI N T HE S AME UNT I L AND D UR I NG C O NT R AC T N E GOT I AT I O NSO RA P P R O V E D B Y E MPLO YE ES. ’ ” I rr espect i ve ofwh etheri t i s d ecepti ve or m i sl eadi ng, the sente nce is c er tainl y no t a “for gery”

— a c ou n te rfe it

— o fa S upr eme Co ur t dec i si o n. I t i s no t ex pli ci tl y a ttr ibuted to the Suprem e C o urt ; n e i the rdo es the quot ed port i on r efl ect l anguage o r synta x a l earned j usti ce woul d possibl y use . Fai l i ng tha t, E. A
. S w een a rgues that the fi rs t s entence l ed empl o y ee s to b el i ev e th at th e quo te d t ex t was the hol ding of a S up re m e Cour t ca se, a decepti on that j usti fi es our adopti ng the S i xth Cir cui t’ s e xcepti on t o M i dl andi n ci rcum sta nc es “where no for ger y c an be prove d, but .

. . the m i sr epres entat i on i s s o pervasi ve and the decepti on s o ar tful that em plo yee s wil lbe unabl e to s epa r at e truth fro m unt r uth a nd .

. . the i rr i g htN o. 10

- 3639 7 to fre e a nd f ai r choi ce wil lbe affecte d.” N LRB v. H ub P last ics , 52 F. 3d 608, 61 2 ( 6th Ci r. 19 95) ( quoti ng V a n D o rn Plas t i c M ac h. Co. v. NLRB , 7 36 F.2d 34 3, 348 (6th Cir. 1984 ))
. A s this cou rt has prev iously r e c o gn ized , how ever, th ere is no need to d eterm ine th e li m its of M i dl and w here the “si tuati on . . . fal l [ s] squ ar el y i n the heart l and of the M i dl anddo ct r i ne

— sta tem en ts re gar ding a ca m pai gn issue that vot er s co uld e asi l y r eco gni ze as propaga n d a.” Un i r oyal Te c h. Co rp. , Ro ya l i t eDi v. v . NLRB , 98 F. 3d 993, 10 03 & n . 29 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( ci ti ng N LRB v. Af f i l i at e d M i dwes tHos p. , 789 F.2d 524 , 528-29 & n.3 ( 7th Cir. 1986); N LR B v. C hic ago M a rine C o nta iners , 74 5 F
. 2d 493, 49 8- 500 ( 7th Ci r. 19 84) )
. Fa r fro m ar tfully d eceptiv e, the fi rs t sente nce m ake s no se ns e. A pp ar entl y the autho r re cog ni ze d a s m uch b ecaus e th e se co nd s en te nc e ex pl ains the fi r stw i th a n e s s e n t i a l l y c o r r e c ts t a t e me n to fth e l a w: “T H AT STATEM EN T M EA N S THA T I F YOU A RE DU E A S C HE DU L E D R AI S E AT ANY TI ME DU R I NG T HE C O NT R AC T NE GO T I AT I O N P E R I O D, B Y L AW T H E C O M P A N Y M U ST G IV E Y O U T H A T R A ISE .” See A dvo Syst em Inc. , 297N .L .R .B . 926 , 940 (19 90 ); Arrow Ela stic Corp. , 23 0 N .L .R .B . 110 , 113 (19 77 ), enfo rced, 57 3 F.2 d 70 2 (1 stC ir. 19 78 ). W h et h e r th e firs t s en te n c e is m i sl eadi ng o r si m plym eani ngl ess , the seco nd se n te nce cl ear l y e xplains wh at the Union i ntended to conve y. The fi nd i ngs o fthe Board that the st ate m ent w as not a forgery and , althou gh m isl ead ing, d id n ot j us tify se tt i nga si de th e el ec ti o n, i s ne i th erwi th o uts ubs ta nti alev i denti ar y b asi s in the hear i ng rec or d nor base d o n a n i n c o r r e c ts t a t e me n to fth e l a w.8 N o. 10

- 3639 C ONC L US I ON A c c or d in gly , th e B oa rd ’s a p p lica tio n for a n ord er j u d ic i a l l y e nfo r c i ngi t s e nt i r e o r de ri s g r a nt e d.

5- 16- 11