14-3978-ag National Labor Relations Board v. Newspaper and Mail Delivers’ Union of New York and Vicinity

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED
BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY
MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRON IC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY
OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the

22 nd day of March, two thousand sixteen.

Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges

. RICHARD K. EATON, 1
Judge.

_____________________________________________________

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Petitioner

,

v. 14-3978-ag

NEWSPAPER AND MAIL DELIVERERS’ UN ION OF NEW YORK AND VICINITY,

Respondent

.

_____________________________________________________

Appearing for Petitioner: Barbara A. Sheehy (Ric hard F. Griffin, Jr., Jill A. Griffin, Jennifer Abruzzo, John H. Ferguson, and Linda Dreeben, on the brief ), National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.

1 The Honorable Judge Richard K. Eaton, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.2 Appearing for Respondent: Da niel A. Silverman, Brooklyn, NY.

Application for Enforcement of an Orde r of the National Labor Relations Board.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the application of the National La bor Relations Board to enforce its order

is GRANTED.

Petitioner National Labor Relations Boar d (“NLRB”) seeks enforcement of its order requiring Respondent Newspaper and Mail Deliver ers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (“NMDU”) to, among other things, cease and desist from engaging in unfair labor practices in its dealings with the New York Post (the “Post”), the New York Times (the “Times”), and City and Suburban Delivery Systems, Inc., (“C&S”), a former wholly-owned subsidiary of the Times that is now defunct. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

Our review of an NLRB orde r is “highly deferential.” Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace, & Agric. Implem ent Workers of Am. v. NLRB, 520 F.3d 192, 196 (2d Cir. 2008). We “must enforce the Board’s order where its legal conclusions are reasonably based, and its factual findings are supported by substantial ev idence on the record as a whole.” NLRB v. Katz’s Delicatessen of Houston St., Inc. , 80 F.3d 755, 763 (2d Cir. 1996). Thus, we may not “displace the Board’s choice between two fairly conflicting views, even [if we] would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before [us] de novo. ” Universal Camera Corp. v.

NLRB , 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951).

On application to this Court, NMDU did not contest the Board’s finding that NMDU violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A), by threatening to interfere with the employment of Daniel Altieri, a former employee of C&S. The Board found that NMDU expelled Altieri from the union because it alleged he was six months or more in arrears in union dues and warned Altier i that, as a result of his expulsion, he was at risk of losing employment with a ny employer governed by a collectivebargaining agreement with NMDU. The NLRB found this notice was improper because “the fact

that he was in arrears at his former employer cannot, under Board law, be used to preclude his employment at another employer covered by a cont ract in a separate bargaining unit.” Special App’x at 23. Because NMDU did not contest this conclusion, “[t]he Board is entitled to summary affirmance of portions of its orde r identifying or remedyi ng” this violation. NLRB v. Consol. Bus Transit, Inc., 577 F.3d 467, 474 n.2 (2d Cir. 2009).

Substantial evidence in the record as a w hole also supports the Bo ard’s conclusion that NMDU violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of th e Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A) and (2), by causing or attempting to cause the Post, the Times, and C&S to discriminate against certain unit employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of th e Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), by giving priority hiring preference to nonunit individuals based on their union membership or prior employment with a union-signatory employer. It is well-established law that priority hiring preferences based on union membership violates Sectio n 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. See, e.g.

, Seafarers’ Int’l

Union , 244 NLRB 641, 642 (1979). While “a bargaining re presentative for the employees of a3 particular unit has the right to give an inferior seniority ranking to employees transferred from another unit,” Gen. Drivers & Helpers Local 229 (Associated Transt., Inc.) , 185 NLRB 631, 631 (1970), a union may not cause or attempt to cause discrimination against an employee solely on the basis that the employee was not a member of the union or “had not been previously represented by the Union,” Interstate Bakeries Corp. , 357 NLRB No. 4, at *5 (June 30, 2011), enforced sub nom. NLRB v. Teamsters Local Union No. 523 , 488 F. App’x 280 (10th Cir. 2012).

The Board’s decision in Teamsters Local Union 896 (“Anheuser-Busch”), 296 NLRB 1025 (1989), is not to the contrary. In that case , the employment preferences found permissible were “arguably skill based” and the preference s could not be secured “merely by joining the Union or by working for employers w ho have contracts with the Union.” Id. at 1028. Additionally, among other things, “i ndividuals claiming the [the hiri ng preference at issue] must also have worked a specific length of time to attain permanent employee status and thereafter have been laid off by a signatory employer.” Id. By contrast, the contractual provisions at issue in this case are discriminatory on their face, unlawfully favoring individuals who were union members or who had worked for union-signatory employers for a longer period of time over

non-union members or individual s who had not worked for a union-signatory employer.

NMDU argues that because the seniority list at issue was established more than six months prior to the filing of a charge, the compla ints are time barred under Section 10(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). But the statute of limita tions does not run from the date the seniority system was established; instead, it runs from the date that the charging employees were adversely affected by that system. See Whiting Milk Corp. , 145 NLRB 1035, 1037-38 (1964), enforcement denied on other grounds, 342 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1965). Th e issue is “not whether the [union] committed an unfair labor practice by inaugurating the policy, but whether it violated the law by continuing to maintain it; more specificall y applying and giving effect to it in the layoffs.” Potlatch Forests, Inc. , 87 NLRB 1193, 1211 (1949), enforcement denied on other grounds, 189 F.2d 82 (9th Cir. 1951). Therefore, the charges at issue in this case ar e not barred by Section 10(b) of the Act.

Finally, substantial eviden ce in the record taken as a whole supports the Board’s conclusion that the union breached its duty of fa ir representation by failing to provide notice to employees of their rights to not be full members of the union under NLRB v. General Motors Corp. , 373 U.S. 734 (1963), and failing to give noti ce that employees who are not full members do not have to pay the entire amount of dues that full members pay under Communications Workers of America v. Beck , 487 U.S. 735, 762-63 (1988). NMDU co ncedes that it did not provide any General Motors or Beck notices to Post employees in bulletins other than a 2003 bulletin that was posted at the facility, and in response to a subpoena by the NLRB’s General Counsel, NMDU did not provide any evidence of a ny notices provided to C&S employees before those employees became bound by the contractual union- security provisions. Given this lack of evidence, the Board was entitled to draw an a dverse inference that NMDU failed to properly inform Post and C&S employ ees of their rights under General Motors and Beck. See Cal. Saw & Knife Works , 320 NLRB 224, 231 (1995), enforced sub nom. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. NLRB , 133 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 1998).4 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no me rit in NMDU’s other arguments, we hereby
GRANT the NLRB’s application for enforcement of its order.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk