## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### F e b r u ar y 13, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT NAT I ONAL L AB OR RE L AT I ONS BO AR D, P eti ti o n er, v. K IN G S O O P E R S , IN C .,

R e sp o n d e n t. N os . 06- 9514, 06- 9518

ON APP LI CATI ON FOR ENFOR CEM ENT OF AN O RDER OF THE NAT I ONAL LA BOR R EL AT I ONS BOAR D

( A gency N o. 27- C A - 16902- 1) ( A gency N o. 27- C A - 16934) Patr i ck R . Scul l y( W i l l i am A . W r i ght , Sherm an & H ow ar d, L . L . C . , D enver , C ol or ado, a n d R a ym o n d M . D e e n y , S h e rm a n & H o w a rd , L .L .C ., C o lo ra d o S p rin g s, C o lo ra d o , w ith hi m on the br i efs ) , Sherm an & H ow ar d L . L . C . , D enver , C ol or ado, appea r i ng for R e sp o n d e n t. A m yG i nn, A tt orney( J i l l A . G r i ffi n, Supervi s oryA tt orney , R onal d M ei s bur g, G ener al C o u n se l, Jo h n E . H ig g in s, Jr ., D e p u tyG e n e ra l C o u n se l, Jo h n H . F e rg u so n , A ss o c iate G ener al C ouns el , and A i l een A . A rm s tr ong, D eputyA s s oci at e G ener al C ouns el , w i th her on the br i ef) , N at i onal L aborR el at i ons B oar d, W as hi ngt on, D . C . , appea r i ng for P eti ti o n er. B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , TY M KOVI CH , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge.- 2-

T he N at i onal L aborR el at i ons B oar d ( “N L R B ” or“B oar d”) pet i t i ons for e n f o r c e me n to f

two J u n e 2 0 0 5 Or d e r s , 3 4 4 N. L. R. B. No . 1 0 3 ( 2 0 0 5 ) a n d 3 4 4 N. L. R. B. N o. 104 ( 2005) , i s s ued aga i ns tR es pondentK i ng Sooper s , I nc. ( “K i ng Sooper s ”) . T he B oar d concl uded K i ng Sooper s vi ol at ed the N at i onal L aborR el at i ons A ct( “N L R A ”) by f a ili n g to p ro v id e d o c u m e n ts a n d in f o rm a tio n in re sp o n se to re q u e sts f ro m tw o se p a ra te uni ons — the U ni t ed Food and C om m er ci al W orker s , L ocal N o. 7 ( “U FC W ” or“Local 7 ”), C ase N o . 0 6 -95 1 4 , an d the P ap er A ll ied In d u str ial C h em ical E n erg yW o rke rs I nt ernat i onal U ni on, L ocal 5- 920 ( “PA C E ”) , C as e N o. 06- 9518. K i ng Sooper s does not c o n te s t th e c o n te n t o f

th e B o a rd ’s O rd e rs b u t d o e s o p p o s e e n f o rc e m e n t b yth is C o u rt . E x erc isi n g juri sd ict ion u n d er 2 9 U . S . C . § 1 6 0 (e), w e o rde r en fo rce m en t of the N L R B ’s O rder s. I . BA CKGROUND O n J ul y26 and D ece m ber29, 2000, the G ener al C ouns el forthe N L R B i s s ued u n f a i rl a b o rp r a c t i c e c o mp l a i n t s a g a i n s tKi n g S o o p e r s b a s e d o n c h a r g e s f i l e d b yUFC W and PA C E , r es pect i vel y . T he compl ai nt s al l eged K i ng Sooper s vi ol at ed s ubs ect i ons 8( a) ( 1) and ( 5) of the N L R A , 29 U . S. C . § 158( a) ( 1) , ( 5) , byfai l i ng t o pr ovi de t o the uni ons r eques t ed i nform at i on r el evantt o the pr oces s i ng of s ever al gr i evanc es and nece s s aryt o the uni ons ’ r ol es as the col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r epr es ent at i ves of ce rt ai n K i ng S o o p e rs e m p lo y e e s . O n M ay22, 2001, the B oar d’ s A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) i s s ued a- 3-

re c o m m e n d e d D e c isio n a n d O rd e r in e a c h c a se , co n c lu d in g K in g S o o p e rs u n law f u lly f a ile d to p ro v id e c e rt a in re q u e s te d in f o rm a tio n to th e u n io n s in v io la tio n o f th e N L R A . See 3 4 4 N. L. R. B. No . 1 0 3 , a t4 ; 3 4 4 N. L. R. B. No . 1 0 4 , a t8 . I n b o th c a s e s , th e NLRB G ener al C ouns el r eques t ed a “ br oad, companyw i de r emedy ” bas ed on i t s as s ert i on that K i ng Sooper s had a hi s t oryof r epea t ed vi ol at i ons of i t s dutyt o furni s h i nform at i on; the A L J , how ever , r ej ect ed thes e r eques t s and r ecomm ended “ narr ow ” or der s addr es s i ng o n l yth e s p e c i f

i c c o mp l a i n t s r e g a r d i n g Ki n g S o o p e r s ’ o b l i g a t i o n s wi th r e s p e c tt o th e two u n io n s . T h e A L J’s re c o m m e n d e d o rd e rs r e q u ire d K in g S o o p e rs to “ [ c ]e a se a n d d e sis t” f ro m (a ) re f

u sin g to b a rg a in w ith th e u n io n s a s th e d u lyd e sig n a ted re p re se n tativ e s o f its empl oy ees byr efus i ng t o pr ovi de nec es s aryand r el evanti nform at i on conce rni ng uni on empl oy ees , and “( b) [i ] n anyl i ke orr el at ed manner , i nt er fer i ng w i th, r es tr ai ni ng, or coer ci ng empl oy ees i n the exe r ci s e of the r i ght s guar ant eed them bySect i on 7 of the [N L R A ] . ” See 344 N . L . R . B . N o. 103, at4; 344 N . L . R . B . N o. 104, at8. B oth the G e n e ra l C o u n s e l a n d K in g S o o p e rs f ile d e x c e p tio n s to th e A L J ’s re c o m m e n d a tio n s . T he B oar d l ar gel yaff

i rm ed the A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs i n the fi nal O r der s i s s ued June 17, 2 0 0 5 , w h ic h a d o p te d th e re c o m m e n d e d c e a s e a n d d e s is t o rd e rs a s p ro v id e d b yth e A L J . See 344 N . L . R . B . N o. 103, at1; 344 N . L . R . B . N o. 104, at1. T he N L R B appl i ed for enfor cementof i t s O r der s i n thi s C ourton February7 and 8, 2006. I I . DI S CU S S I ON T hi s C ourthas author i tyt o enfor ce N L R B or der s unders ect i on 10( e) of the- 4-

N L R A , 29 U . S. C . §160( e) . “W e w i l l gr antenfor cementof an N L R B or derw hen the agenc yhas corr ect l yappl i ed the l aw and i t s fi ndi ngs ar e s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d as a w hol e. ” N LR B v. V eloci t y Expres s , I

nc. , 434 F. 3d 1198, 1201 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). If th e B o a rd ’s o rd e r is ju stif ied , itis “ e n tit led to have i tenfor ced” as a means of ens ur i ng thatthe conduc tw i l l notbe r epea t ed i n the f u tu re . N LR B v. R aytheon C o. , 3 9 8 U .S . 2 5 , 2 8 (1 9 7 0 ). C o u rt e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

a B o a rd o rd e r is n o t a f o re g o n e c o n c lu sio n , h o w e v e r, m e re ly becaus e, as her e, the empl oy erdoes notcont es tthe B oar d’ s l egal concl us i ons orfac tual fi ndi ngs . W e maydecl i ne t o enfor ce a n or derof the B oar d i f w e det erm i ne i tw oul d be in e q u ita b le to d o s o . Se e Con t i n e n ta lWeb Pr e s s , I n c . v . NLRB , 7 4 2 F .2 d 1 0 8 7 , 1 0 9 5 (7 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 ). A s s u c h , en f o rc e m e n t is su b

jec t to so m e o f

th e tra d iti o n a l d e f

e n se s to re q u e s ts f

o r e q u ita b le re lie f. See i d. F o r ex am p le, co u rt s m ayd ec li n e to e n fo rce a B o ard o rd e r i f th e re is u n re a s o n a b le d e la yin s e e k in g e n f o rc e m e n t ( la c h e s ), s ee i d. ; N LR B v. N or f olk Shi pbui ldi ng & D r

ydock C or p. , 1 7 2 F . 2 d 8 1 3 , 8 1 5 (4th C ir . 1 9 4 9 ); o r i f th e c o u rt det erm i nes thatenfor cementi s “both unnece s s aryand obs ol et e, ” s ee N LR B v. G r eens bor o N

ew s & Record, I

nc. , 8 4 3 F . 2 d 7 9 5 , 7 9 8 (4th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). I n addi t i on, court s m us tnot“rubber s t amp t hei raff i rm ance of admi ni s tr at i ve deci s i ons thattheydeem i ncons i s t entw i th a s t atut orym andat e orthatfrus tr at e the congr es s i onal pol i cyunder l y i ng the s t atut e. ” NL RB v . Br o wn , 3 8 0 U .S . 2 7 8 , 2 9 1 (1 9 6 5 ). In o th e r w o rd s, th is C o u rt w ill n o t en f o rc e th e o rd e r if

“ th e o rd e r is a p a ten t atte m p t to achi eve e nds otherthan thos e w hi ch ca n fai r l ybe s ai d t o eff ectuat e the pol i ci es of the- 5-

[N L R A ] . ” N

LR B v. Seve n- U

p B ot t l i ng C o. , 344 U . S. 344, 347 ( 1953) ( quot at i on o m itt e d ); s ee al

s o N LR B v. B ar t let t- C ol l i ns C o. , 639 F. 2d 652, 655 ( 10th C i r . 1981) (e x p lain in g th is C o u rt w ill d e n ye n f o rc e m e n t w h e n o rd e rs a re “ ‘f u n d a m e n tally i ncons i s t entw i th the s tructur e of the ac t , ’ or‘ att emptt o us urp m aj orpol i cydeci s i ons p ro p e rlym a d e b yC o n g re ss ’” ). O n th e o th e r h a n d , if th e B o a rd ’s a c tio n is “ re a so n a b ly defe ns i bl e, i ts houl d notbe r ej ect ed mer el ybecaus e the court s m i ghtpr efe ranothervi ew of the s t atut e. ” B ar t let t- C ol l i ns , 639 F. 2d at655. Itis n o t in e q u ita b le h e re to e n f o rc e th e B o a rd ’s O rd e rs a g a in s t K in g S o o p e rs . K i ng Sooper s does notar gue thatthe N L R B has unr eas onabl ydel ay ed s eeki ng enfor cement . N ori s thi s a ca s e i n w hi ch enf or cementof the B oar d’ s O r der s w i l l be poi nt l es s orobs ol et e. C ourt s have he l d enfor cementi s unnece s s aryorfut i l e w her e, for e x a m p le , th e e m p lo y e r h a s g o n e o u t o f b u s in e s s , s e e Br o c kwayMo to rTr u c k s v . NLRB , 582 F. 2d 720, 740 ( 3d C i r . 1978) ; the empl oy erhas s ol d the bus i nes s t o a s ucce s s or companyw ho has i ndepende nt l yt aken a ct i on t o corr ecteac h of the pr edec es s or c o m p a n y ’s v io la tio n s , s ee NL R B v. Mayw ood P lantof G r ede Plas t i cs , 6 2 8 F .2 d 1 , 7 ( D . C . C i r . 1980) ; s i gni fi cantt i m e has pas s ed betw een the vi ol at i on and enf or cements uch th a t th e f a c ts o n w h ic h th e o rd e r i s b a s e d a re q u e s tio n a b le o r o f n o u s e , s ee C-B B ui ck, I n c . v . NLRB , 5 0 6 F .2 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 0 9 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 4 ); N LR B v. E anet , 1 7 9 F . 2 d 1 5 , 2 1 ( D. C. C ir . 1 9 4 9 ); o r p e rs o n n e l c h a n g e s h a v e e lim in a te d a n yth re a t o f a re c u rr e n t v io la tio n , s ee Gr e e n s b o r o Ne ws , 843 F. 2d at799. U nl i ke thes e ca s es , the fa ctual ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the or i gi nal di s put e betw een K i ng Sooper s and the uni ons have notchange d- 6-

in an ym aterial fa sh ion su ch that en fo rce m en t i s o b so let e. Instead , K ing S o o p ers s u g g e s ts th a t its c o m p lia n c e w ith th e B o a rd ’s O rd e rs re n d e rs e n f o rc e m e n t u n n e c e s s a ry. M e re c o m p lian c e w ith a B o a rd o rd e r, h o w e v e r, d o e s n o t “d e p riv [ e ] th e B o a rd o f its opportuni tyt o s ecur e enf or cement . ” N

L R B v . Mex ia T

ex tile Mill

s , 339 U . S. 563, 567 ( 1950) ( di s cus s i ng m ootnes s ) . “A B oar d or deri m pos es a cont i nui ng obl i gat i on; and the B oar d i s ent i t l ed t o have the r es um pt i on of the unfa i rpr act i ce ba rr ed byan enf or cement decr ee. ” Id . K i ng Sooper s ’ r emai ni ng ar gum ent s thatenfor cementw oul d contr avene the p o licie s a n d p u rp o se o f th e N L R A a re u n p e rsu a siv e . T h e c e a se a n d d e sis t O rd e rs in ques t i on her e pr eventK i ng Sooper s fr om w i thhol di ng nece s s aryand r el evanti nform at i on fr om the s peci fi c uni ons and pr ohi bi t s K i ng Sooper s i n “anyl i ke orr el at ed manner ” fr om

“ in ter f e rin g w ith , res tra in in g , o r c o e rc in g e m p lo y e e s in th e e x e rc ise o f th e rig h ts guar ant eed them” bythe A ct . K i ng Sooper s ar gues thatthe B oar d’ s enfor cementact i on her e s eeks t o expand the s cope of the O r der s and ther ebycontr avene s the purpos es of the A ctbyenabl i ng the R egi onal D i r ect ort o thr eat en cont emptpr ocee di ngs i n the eve ntof an ysu b seq u en t al lega ti o n that K ing S o o p ers f ail ed to p rov ide re leva n t and n ec essa ry i nfo rm at i on t o the unions and bybypassi ng the ad m i nis trat i ve p rocess . I ti s cl ear , how ever , thats eeki ng cont emptpr ocee di ngs fors ubs equents i m i l ar vi ol at i ons i s an ac t i on l egal l yw i thi n the s cope of the O r deras defi ned i n N LR B v. E xpr es s P ubl ’

g C o. , 312 U . S. 426 ( 1941) . T he Supr eme C ourthel d i n E xpress P ubl is hi ng C o. th a tth e me r e f a c tth a ta c o u rtf

i n d s a n e mp l o y e rh a s v i o l a t e d th e NLRA- 7-

does notj us t i fyan i nj unct i on “br oadl yt o obeythe s t atut e. ” See i d. a t 4 3 5 . C o n g re ss d id n o t con tem p lat e tha t th e B o ard w o u ld o b tai n b roa d o rde rs so itco u ld the rea fter try d is s im ila r o r u n re la te d v io la tio n s o f th e A c t th ro u g h c o n te m p t p ro c e e d in g s . I d. H avi ng fo u n d the e m p loy er’s ac ts w h ich c o n sti tute an u n fa irlabo r pra cti ce , h o w ev er, th e B o ard is “fre e to re str ain th e p rac ti ce an d o ther l i ke orr elated unl aw ful act s . ” I d. at436 (em ph asi s added ). Iti s a “sal utarypri ncipl e” that w e m ayenjoi n the “sam e type o r cl ass” o f u n la w f u l a c ts a s th o s e th e p a rtyh a s u n la w f u lly c o m m itte d . I

d. at435–36. T her efor e, the N L R B m ayr es tr ai n empl oy eract s s i m i l art o thos e found t o be unfa i rl aborpr act i ces an d co n tem p t i s an ap p rop ri ate rem ed y ; placing this C o u rt ’s au tho ri tyb eh ind the O rde rs is n o t c o n tr a ry to th e A c t. See Mex ia T ex tile Mill

s , 3 3 9 U .S . at 5 6 7

– 6 8 (“ [ N ]o m o re is i nvol ved than w hetherw hatthe l aw al r eadycondemned, the courts hal l forbi d; and the f a c t th a t it s ju d g m e n t ad d s to e x istin g sa n c tio n s th a t o f p u n ish m e n t f

o r c o n tem p t, i s n o t a c ir c u m s ta n c e to w h ic h a c o u rtw ill o rd in a ri ly le n d a f ri e n d ly ea r.” (q u o ta tio n o m itte d )) . K in g S o o p e rs a lso su g g e sts th a t in th e f u tu re th e B o a rd m a yim p ro p e rlyse e kto avoi d the admi ni s tr at i ve pr oces s byus i ng the thr eatof cont emptt o di s s uade K i ng Sooper s fr om defe ndi ng other , unr el at ed cha r ges . N otonl yi s the ar gum ents pecul at i ve, con t em pt forsuch an un rel at ed act w ou l d b e cl earl you t si de the l aw and a charge ag ai nst w hi ch K i ng Sooper s w oul d have the opportuni tyt o defe nd agai ns ti n cont empt proceed i ng s. I n a l l o th e rr e s p e c t s f

o rwh i c h Ki n g S o o p e r s a r g u e s e n f o r c e me n ti s i n e q u i t a b l e , we fi nd thatthe B oar d’ s concl us i ons and ac t i ons ar e r eas onabl ydefe ns i bl e and w e w i l l not- 8-

l ook behi nd thei rm ot i vat i ons i n thi s cas e. I I I . CO NC L US I ON Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e EN F ORCE the B oar d’ s O r der s . W e GRANT K i ng Sooper s ’ m ot i on t o s uppl ementthe r ecor d.