FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T DECEMBER 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 25 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ N.L.R.B. Cas e 1 2- CA-2 52 99 TCB SYSTEMS , INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r,
ve rs us NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 77 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ N.L.R.B. Cas e 1 2- CA-2 52 99 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l Pet it io ne r, ve rs us TCB SYSTEMS , INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io ns for

Rev ie w andCro ss -Ap pl ic at io n fo r Enf or cem en t o f an Ord er o f th e Nat io na l Lab orRel at io ns Bo ard

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON an d M ARTIN, Cir cu it Ju dg es , and FULLER, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Pet it io ne r TCB Syste m s, In c. (“ TCB”) ap pe al s t he de ci si on an d o rd er o f th e Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ardfin di ng th atth e co m pa ny com m it te d t hr ee vi ol at io ns of S ect io n 8 (a) o f th e Nat io na l Lab orRel at io ns Act (“ th e Act ”) b y : refu si ng to reco gn iz e an d b arg ai n wi th th e in cu m be nt un io n; th reat en in g n ot to hi re i nd iv id ua ls ba se d o n t he ir u ni on in vo lv em en t; an d re fu si ng to hi re t hr ee in di vi du al s b ecau se of t he ir p ro te ct edun io n a ct iv it ie s. Afterth or ou gh 1

Honora ble Mark E . Fuller , United States District J udg e for the Middle District of * Alabama , sitti ngby

desig nation. Section 8(a) of the NLRA provides: “It shall be an unfa ir labor pr actice for a n 1 employ er— “(1) to interfer e with, re strain, or c oerc e employ ees in the e x erc ise of the r ights guara nteed in section 157 of this title;

. . . . “(3) by discrimination in reg ard to hire or tenure of employ ment or any

term or c ondition of employ ment to encour ag e or discour ag e member ship in any labor org anization . . . .;

. . . . “(5) to refuse to barg ain collec tively with the repr esenta

tives of his employ ees, subjec t to the provisions of section 159(a ) of this title.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a). 2co ns id erat io n o f th e o ral an d wri tt en su bm is si on s o f bo th pa rti es , we affi rm th e Bo ard ’s dec is io n a nd gra nt th e Bo ard ’s pet it io n fo r en fo rcem en t o f it s o rd er. I. Und er t he Act, t he Bo ard ’s factfin di ng s ar e co nc lu si ve so lo ng as t he y are
su pp orte d b y

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce o n t he reco rdco ns id ered as a who le . 29 U.S.C. § 1 60 (e); see NLRB v. M cCl ai n o f Ga., Inc ., 13 8 F .3d14 18 , 14 22 (11 th Cir

. 19 98 ). To b e co ns id ered “ su bs ta nt ia l,” t he ev id en ce n eedon ly “be su ch th atit

2

wou ldbe po ss ib le fora rev ie win g c ou rt t o re ach th e sa m e co nc lu si on s t ha t t he ad m in is tra ti ve fact -fi nd er d id .” Sch eri ng -Pl ou gh Co rp . v. FTC, 4 02 F.3d10 56 , 10 63 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (em ph as is ad de d) . This st an da rdof r ev ie w do es no t ch an ge whe n t he Bo ardreac he s a d iff eren t co nc lu si on fro m

th e ALJ b el ow. See NLRB v.

Section 7 of the Ac t provides: “Employ ees sha ll have the r ight to self- org anization, to form, join, or assist labor org anizations, to barg ain collec tively throug h repr esentatives of their own choosing , and to eng ag e in other c oncer ted ac tiviti es for

the purpose of

collective ba

rg aining or other mutual a id or protec tion . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 157. For the most part, this “substantial evidenc e” sta ndard a pplies to the three issues be fore 2 us here . See F all River Dyeing& F inishing Corp., v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27, 42–43, 107 S. Ct. 2225, 2235–36 (1987) ( applying the substantial evidence standard to a succe ssorship deter mination); NL RB v. Gimroc k Const., I nc., 247 F .3d 1307, 1310–11 (11th Cir. 2001) applying the standard to the B oard’ s drawing of “ove rar chinginfere nces” in interpreting testimony , id. at 1310); McClain, 138 F.3d at 1421 (applying the standard to de termination of an employ er’ s hiring motive) . And wher e it does not, the standar d is more def ere ntial stil l. See NL RB v. F oodway

of El Paso, 496 F.2d 117, 119 ( 5th Cir. 1974) (apply ing the “ar

bitrary and capr icious” standar d to the barg ainingunit determination in the succe ssorship context); I nt’l Bhd. of B oilermake rs, et al. v. NL RB, 127 F .3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 1997) (de fer ringto the Boa

rd’s cre dibilit y

deter mination “unless [i t is] inhere ntly unrea sonable or se lf-contr adictory”). 3Gimro ck

Co ns t., In c., 24 7 F .3d13 07 , 13 11 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Thu s, we m ay no t 3

“ di sp la ce t he Bo ard ’s cho ic e b etween two fai rly con fli ct in g v ie ws, ev enth ou gh [we m ay ] jus ti fia bl y

ha ve m ad e a d iff

eren t ch oi ce h adth e m at te r be en be fo re [u s] de no vo .” Uni ve rs al Cam era C or p. v . NLRB, 34 0 U.S. 4 74 , 48 8, 7 1 S . Ct. 4 56 , 46 5 (1 95 1) ; s ee NLRB v . U.S. Pos ta l Se rv ., 52 6 F .3d72 9, 7 32 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (aff irming th e Bo ard ’s det erm in at io n wh ere i t “ ha s m ad e a p la us ib le in fere nc e fro m th e rec or d” (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). II. TCB fi rs t ar gu es th atth e Bo arderred in fin di ng th atTCB fai le d t o
reco gn iz e an d b arg ai n wi th th e Uni on , in vi ol at io n o f Sec ti on s 8 (a)( 5) an d (1 ) of th e Act . See 2 9 U.S.C. § 15 8( a)(5 ). TCB ad m it s i ts refu sa l t o b arg ai n wi th th e Uni on , bu t d is pu te s t he Bo ard ’s det erm in at io ns th atitwas a “ su cces so r” t o UNICCO an d t ha t t he Uni on rem ai ne d re pr es en ta ti ve of t he Nov a em pl oyees fo r pu rp os es of c ol le ct iv e b arg ai ni ng . The Bo ardun an im ou sl y affi rm edth e ALJ, an d ad op te d h is fin di ng s an d c on cl us io ns , on th is qu es ti on . Thu s, we l oo k t o t he ALJ’s fi nd in gs .

Neve rtheless, be cause the cour t review s the rec ord “a s a whole,” the AL J ’s finding s do 3 become “one f

actor to be consider ed in deter mining whe ther [the substantial evidence ] st andar d has bee n satisfied.” Par

ker v. B owen, 788 F .2d 1512, 1517 (11th Cir. 1986).

4The ALJ li st edth e st ip ul at io ns on whi ch he rel ie d t o fi ndTCB a s uc ces so r. 4

He al so ob se rv edth atTCB “pr es en te d n o e vi de nc e th atwou ldren de r a u ni t o f it s . . . em pl oyees i napp ro pr ia te ” fo r co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng pu rp os es , reject in g TCB’s arg um en t t ha t i t h ada go od fai th do ub t t ha t t he Uni on st il l re pr es en te d i ts st aff’s i nt eres ts . As th e ALJ p ut it , TCB’s em pl oyees “ who ha d fo rm erl y be en
em pl oyed b y UNICCO are pe rfo rm in g t he same workin th e sa m e b ui ld in gs un de r th e sa m e su pe rv is io n a s t he y ha d b een for ” UNICCO. The se fact s co ns ti tu te
su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t ha t TCB was asu cces so r who fai le d t o re co gn iz e an d ba rg ai n wi th th e Uni on . W e th eref or e affi rm . Nex t, TCB a ss ert s t ha t t he Bo arderre d wh enitfou nd th atTCB th reat en ed

no t t o h ire in di vi du al s b ecau se of t he ir u ni on act iv it ie s an d s up po rt, i n v io la ti on of Sect io n 8 (a)( 1) of t he Act. 2 9 U.S.C. § 15 8( a)(1 ). W e m us t o nl y de ci de whet he r th e rec or d c on ta in edsu bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s uf fic ie nt to su pp or t t he Bo ard ’s de ci si on . See Gimro ckCo ns t., In c., 24 7 F .3dat 1 31 1. We con cl ud e th atitdo es .
The AL J descr ibed the stipulations as follows: 4 The parties stipulated that [TC B], as of Marc h 9, “employ ed a substanti al and repr esentative complement” of unit employ ees “as a majority ” of its workfor ce t h at had been “p reviously employ ed by UNI CCO,” did hire a majority o f fo rm er UNI CCO employ ees, and that “the [.
. .] work” former ly perf

ormed by UNI CCO “has been perf ormed

. . . in a substantially

simil ar ma

nner” by the [TCB].
5The Bo ardrel ie d p rimaril y on th e co nv ers at io n o f su pe rv is orMu no z an d

em pl oyee Co rrea , in whi ch Mu no z sa idth atth ree i nd iv id ua ls were “ fir ed ” b ecau se of th ei r “ st ro ng su pp ort fo r th e Uni on ” an d C orrea “ was lu cky forbe in g c ho se n t o
wor k” de sp it e h is un io n a ct iv it y . It e xp la in edit s b as is forrel y in g o n M un oz ’s st at em en ts , no ti ng hi s p os it io n a nd th e sp eci fic na tu re o f hi s s ta te m en ts , whi ch in cl ud edth e n am es of a ct iv e u ni on m em be rs who were n ot re-h ire d wh en TCB

su ccee de d UNIC CO. The Bo ardals o c on si de redth e co nv ers at io n’s co nt ex t i n fin di ng th atMu no z’s co m m en ts to Co rrea co nt ai ne d a th reat no t t o h ire

. The 5 Bo ardfur th er fo un d t ha t M un oz ’s st at em en t re pr es en te d m or e th anth e p ers on al op in io n o f a l ow- le ve l s up erv is or , saying :

Mu no z m ad e th e co m

m en t to Co rrea du r i ng an of fic ia l m eet in g in hi s of

fic e, ph ras ed hi s m es sa ge as a de fin it iv e st at em en t of fact , a nd ad de d th at th e
The B oard e x plained: 5 Correa ref

er ence d Fe bruar

y 2007, when [TC B] succe eded UNI CCO and made its hiring decisions. More importantly , Munoz’s response left no doubt that h e understood that C o rr ea was ref

erring to [TC B’ s] decision not to hire cer t ai n UNI CCO em p l o y ees. He answe red that Correa “wa s lucky for being chosen to work for [t he Respondent]” despite his union activity

. Fur

ther, b y s pecif

ically mentioning Amparo Correa , Pons, and L opez, who, in contra st, wer e not hired by [TC B], Munoz further demonstrated that he understood the inquiry was about [ T C B’s] decision not to hire cer tain UNI CCO employ ees.

6Res po nd en t kn ew ab ou t Co rrea ’s un io n act iv it y . His co m m en t di d no t in cl ud e an y su gg es ti on th at he was m erel y of

feri ng th e op in io n of an un in fo rm ed su pe rv is or .
Fro m th os e fac ts , itdre w th e in fere nc e th atMu no z “ di d kn ow wh y

th e d eci si on s
were m ad e, ev en if h e d idno t m ak e th em .” The Supr em e Co ur t h as in st ru ct edus to he ed“ th e Bo ard ’s com pe te nc e in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e to jud ge th e im pa ctof u tt eran ces m ad e in th e co nt ex t o f th e
em pl oyer-em

pl oyee rel at io ns hi p.” NLRB v. Gi ss el Pack in g C o., 3 95 U.S. 57 5, 62 0, 8 9 S . Ct. 1 91 8, 1 94 3 (1 96 9) . Giv en th atin st ru ct io n, an d i n l ig ht of t he

ev id en ti ary ba si s fo r th e Bo ard ’s in fere nc es an d fi nd in gs , we con cl ud e th atitis cert ai nl y “ po ss ib le fora rev ie win g c ou rt t o re ach th e sa m e co nc lu si on s” as t he Bo ardhe re. Sch eri ng -Pl ou gh Co rp ., 40 2 F .3dat 1 06 3. Be cau se su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce s up po rts th e Bo ard ’s fin di ng , we affi rm . Fi na ll y , TCB arg ue s t ha t t he Bo arderre d i n fi nd in g t ha t t he co m pa ny refu se d t o h ire th ree i nd iv idua ls be cau se of t he ir u ni on in vo lv em en t, i n v io la ti on of Sect io ns (8) (a)( 3) an d (1 ) of th e Act . Cou rts an d t he Bo ardus e th e Wrigh t Li ne te st to de te rm in e whe th er an ti -u ni on an im us was t he m ot iv at in g fa ct orbe hi nd an

7em

pl oyer's d eci si on no t t o h ire in di vi du al s. Our re vi ew is li m it edto “ de te rm in in g 6 whe th er t he Bo ard 's i nf

eren ce o f un la wfu l m ot iv e is su pp orte d b y su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce—no t wh et he r it is po ss ib le to dra w th e o pp os it e in fere nc e.” Mc Cl ai n, 13 8 F .3dat 1 42 4– 25 . W e co nc lu de th atth ere i s s ub st an ti al ev id en ce fo r th e Bo ard ’s in fere nc e, an d a ffi rm . The Bo ardrel ie d o n b ot h d ire ctan d i nd ire ctev id en ce t o re ach it s
co nc lu si on . It fo un d “ am pl e ev id en ce” o f an ti -u ni on an im us in su pe rv is or Mu no z’s st at em en t t ha t TCB di dn ’t hi re p eo pl e b ecau se of t he ir “ st ro ng su pp or t” fo r th e Uni on . The B oa rdals o i de nt ifi edin co ns is te nt hi rin g a s i nd ire ctev id en ce
This Court described the Wright L ine test as follows: 6 [ W r i g h t Li n e ] m a n d a t e s t h r e e p h a s e s o f p r o o f

. First, the [NL RB’s] Gene ral Counsel m u st show by a preponderanc e of the evidenc e that a protec ted activity was a motivating fac t o r i n the employ er' s decision to discharg e an employ ee. Such a showing est ablishes a s e c t i o n 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) v i o l a t i o n u n l e s s t h e e m p l o ye r ca n s h o w as an aff

irmative defe nse that it would have discharg ed the employ ee for a leg itimate rea son re gar d less of the protec ted ac t i v i t y . T h e Ge n er al Counsel may then o ff

er evidenc e that the employ er' s p r o f f e r e d “ l e g i t i m a t e ” e x p l a n a t i o n i s p r e t e x t u a l — that the rea son either did not exis t or was not in fac t reli ed up o n

— and there by conclusively restore t h e i n f e r e n c e o f u n l a w f u l m o t i v a t i o n . McClain, 138 F.3d at 1424 (quotation marks omitted); see N L RB v. Tra nsp. Mgmt. Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 114 S. C t. 2251 (1983) (a pprovingthe Wright L ine test) over ruled on other

g rounds by , Direc tor, OWCP v. Gre enwich Collieries, 512 U .S. 267, 114 S. C t. 2251 (2005); see also Wright L ine, a Div. of

Wright L ine, Inc., 251 N.L .R.B. 1083 (1980) ; Planned Bldg . Serv., 347 N.L .R.B. 670, 673–74 (2006) ( applying Wrig ht L ine to a succ essor). 8of

an im us , ob se rv in g t ha t TCB hi red“ al l of UNIC CO’s su pe rv is or s, i nc lu di ng th os e res po ns ib le forth e supp os ed ly dirt y workarea s,” wh il e n ot hi rin g a ll th e
em pl oyees fr om

th e sa m e are as . Add it io na ll y , beyon d re

jecti ng TCB’s affi rm at iv e d efen se un de r Wrig ht Lin e p ro ng two , th e Bo ardfou nd“ fu rth er s up po rt[ ]” for i ts an im us fin di ng in th e
co m pa ny’ s fa il ur e to su bs ta nt ia te it s cl ai m of a lawf ul rat io na le forit s h iri ng de ci si on s. Fro m

th is ev id en ce, t he Bo ardin ferr edth atTCB was aware, an d a ct ed 7

on it s k no wled ge , of t he th ree i nd iv id ua ls ’ un io n a ct iv it ie s. Mi nd fu l t ha t o urrol e is no t “ to re-wei gh th e ev id en ce o r m ak e cre di bi li ty ch oi ces ,” Mea d C or

p. v . NLRB, 69 7 F .2d10 13 , 10 22 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ), we

co nc lu de th atth e rec or d a s a wh ol e—a nd in pa rti cu la r th e co m bi na ti on of Mu no z’s st at em en ts an d re as on ab le in fere nc es dra wn fr om th e ci rcu m st an ti al

ev id en ce— co nt ai ns “ su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce” s up po rti ng th e Bo ard 's fi nd in g o f

an ti -u ni on an im

us . W e th eref

or e aff irm. III. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e Bo ard ’s fin di ng s an d g ran t t he Bo ard ’s

To do this, the Boa

rd made a cr edibility

deter mination with respect to Sierra ’s testimony 7 reg ardinghis hiring de cisions. The B oard ma y make suc h a cr edibility

deter mination and, unless it is “inherently

unrea sonable or se lf-contr adictory ,” we will affirm it. Int’l Bhd. of Boiler maker s, et al., 127 F .3d at 1306. The A L J , in contrast, made no cre dibilit y deter mination beca use he did not re ach this point in the analy sis. 9pe ti ti on foren fo rcem en t o f it s o rd er. AFFIRMED.

10