2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-11-2005 

# NL RB v . S muck e r C o P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2406

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " NLR B v . S mucke r C o " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1210. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1210H on. L oui s H . Pol l ak, Seni orJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe * E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 04- 2406

NAT I ONAL L AB OR RE L AT I ONS BO AR D, Pet i t i oner v. S M UC KE R C OM P ANY, R es pondent O n A ppl i cat i on forE nfor cement o f a n O rde r of

the N ati o n al L ab o r R elati o n s B o ard ( 4- C A - 28672) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay9, 2005 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges , and

PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: M ay11, 2005)

OP I NI ON2

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. T he N at i onal L aborR el at i ons B oar d ( “B oar d”) pet i t i ons thi s cour tforenfor cement of i t s or derent er ed J anuary30, 2004, r epor t ed atSm uckerC o. , 341 N . L . R . B . N o. 10 ( 2004) , r equi r i ng t he Sm uckerC om pany( her ei naft er“Sm ucker ” or“R es pondent ”) , i nt er al i a, t o r emi tl i m i t ed bac kpayt o Fr ed C os enza , T i m othyB r ow ne, and W ayne M i l l er , al l of w hom ar e s el f- admi t t ed uni on “s al t s . ” I n r es pons e t o t he B oar d’ s pet i t i on, Sm uckerfi l ed a c ross -pe ti ti o n fo r rev iew an d ask s this co u rtto ref u se e n fo rce m en t of

the B o ard ’s ord er. T he B oar d exer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on overthi s pr ocee di ng under29 U . S. C . §§ 160( a) and (b) . T he B oard’s decis i on and order w as a fi nal or der w i t h respectt o all the p art i es. 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 6 0 (c ). B e c a u se th e a lleg e d u n f a ir lab o r p ra c tice o c c u rre d w ith in th is C i r cui t , w e mayexer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 29 U . S. C . §§ 160( e) and ( f) . Forthe r eas ons expl ai ned bel ow , w e w i l l gr antthe B oar d’ s pet i t i on and or derenfor cementof the Jan u ary3 0 , 2 0 0 4 o rde r. I. Sm ucker , a Penns y l vani a corpor at i on, i s a contr act orthatper form s w or k s uch as dr yw al l i ns t al l at i on, dr yw al l fi ni s hi ng, and met al fr ami ng. Som et i m e i n t he s pr i ng of 1999, Sm uckerl earned thati tw as t he s ucce s s ful bi dderfori nt er i or - cons t ruct i on w or k on a bui l di ng pr oj ectatV i l l anova U ni ver s i t yi n s uburban Phi l adel phi a. O n A p ril 1 9 , 1 9 9 9 , thr e e u n io n o rg a n ize rs, B ro w n e , C o se n z a , an d a n o th e r, w e n t to Sm ucker ’ s offi ce. B r ow ne i s an or gani zerw i t h the I nt ernat i onal B r otherhood of“ S a lti n g ” is a u n io n o rg a n izin g tec h n iq u e w h e re b ya u n io n se n d s o n e o r m o re o f its 1 m e m b e rs in to a b u sin e ss se e k in g e m p lo ym e n t; o n c e e m p lo y e d , the m e m b e rs a ttem p t to u n i o n i z e t h e wo r k p l a c e f r o m th e i n s i d e . S e e g e n e r a l l yNa t ’ l L a b o rRe l a t i o n s Bd . v . T o wn & C ount r yE l ec. , I nc. , 516 U . S. 85, 96 ( 1995) ; N at ’ l L aborR el at i ons B d. v. FE S, a D i v. o f T h erm o P o w er, 30 1 F . 3 d 8 3 , 9 0 n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 3 E l ectr i cal W or ker s , L ocal U ni on 98 ( “I B E W ”) ; C os enza i s an or gani zerw i t h t he P h ilad e lp h ia B u ild in g T ra d e s C o u n c il. T h e re c o rd re f lec ts th a t th e m e n w e n t to S m u c k e r’ s o f

f ic e w ith th e in te n t to e n g a g e in “ s a ltin g .” 1 W hen B r ow ne and Cosenz a arr i ved atSm ucker ’ s offi ce, the r ece pt i oni s tpr ovi ded t hem w i t h j ob appl i cat i on form s . T he r ece pt i oni s tt ol d t he men t hatther e w as no need f or t hem t o fi l l outt he form s att he off i ce; s he furt hers t at ed thattheyw er e fr ee t o phot ocopy t he fo rm s for di spers al t o thei r fr i end s. O n A pr i l 26, 1999, B r ow ne and Cosenz a r eturned t o Sm ucker ’ s offi ce a c c o m p a n ied b yM ill e r, an o rg a n ize r w ith th e S p rin k ler F itt e rs L o c a l U n io n 6 9 2 . A ll t hr ee men w er e w ear i ng uni on s hi r t s and i ns i gni a. T he thr ee men pr ovi ded the rec ep ti o n istw ith their co m p let ed ap p li ca ti o n s. T h ere af ter, T o d d M o n tgo m ery , S m u ck er’s H um an R es our ces M anage r , ent er ed the r ece pt i on ar ea a nd as ked B r ow ne, C os enza , and M ill e r if th e yw e re w ill in g to tak e a b rie f w ritten tes t. T h e ya g re e d a n d p ro c e e d e d to co m p let e the fo u r-pa g e test. A fter the yco m p let ed the e x am ination s, M o n tgo m ery r etur ned t o t he r ece pt i on ar ea. W hathappene d nexti s the s ubj ectof s om e di s put e. A tt he admi ni s t r at i ve hea r i ng, the uni on or gani zer s m ai nt ai ned thatw hen M ont gom eryr eent er ed the r ece pt i on ar ea, “B r ow ne as ked [M ont gom ery ] how w e di d [onI n t he admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs , Sm uckerm ai nt ai ned thati thad a pol i cyw her eby 2 i tonl ycons i der ed an a ppl i cat i on “ac t i ve” f orthe thi r t yday s fol l ow i ng i t s s ubm i s s i on and th a t, af ter th is th irty -d a yp e rio d , an a p p lica n t w o u ld n e e d to su b m it a n e w a p p lica tio n in or dert o be cons i der ed forempl oym ent . A pp. at4. T he A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge, how ever , ul t i m at el yfound thatSm uckeronl yadopt ed thi s thi r t y - dayexpi r at i on pol i cy aft erB r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l er ’ s vi s i t ; i ndeed, he found thatSm ucker ’ s adopt i on and p o s tin g o f

th e th ir ty-d a yp o lic y“ w a s a d ir e c t a n d im m e d ia te re a c tio n c a u s e d b yth e . . . appl i cat i ons byt he uni on r epr es ent at i ves . . . t o pr eventthem from bei ng hi r ed. ” A pp. at 6 . T h e S h o em ak er C o m p an yis a g en era l con tr ac ti n g firm w h ich, ac co rdin g to M il ler, 3 had “gone bad on” the uni ons . A pp. at236. A ppar ent l y , Shoem akerw as the gene r al 4 t he t es t s ] . . . . T he ans w erw as , ‘ y ou’ s e di d r eal good, everyt hi ng l ooks good. ’ ” A pp. at 75. B r ow ne furt heri nqui r ed “how l ong t he appl i cat i ons w er e good for ”; t o w hi ch M ont gom eryr es ponded, “‘ [t ] hey ’ r e good for ever . ’ ” A pp. at75. Fi nal l y , B r ow ne as ked M ont gom eryi f Sm uckerw as t hen hi r i ng; M ont gom eryr epl i ed thatthe companyw as not hi r i ng att hatt i m e, butexpec t ed t o do s o s oon and thatB r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l er “w oul d be hea r i ng fr om hi m . ” A pp. at75. A ccor di ng t o the uni on or gani zer s , aft er h a v in g th is e x c h a n g e w ith M o n tg o m e ry, th e yle f t S m u c k e r’ s o f

f ic e . M ont gom ery , i n contr as t , deni ed thatei t herB r ow ne, C os enza , orM i l l erhad as ked hi m how l ong t he appl i cat i ons r emai ned curr ent ; he deni ed havi ng vol unt eer ed s uch i nform at i on. H e t es t i fi ed thataft err eturni ng t o t he r ece pt i on ar ea he t ol d t he men t hat

2 t hey“had done pr et t yw el l ” on the exa m i nat i ons and thatSm ucker ’ s w or k out l ook w as “okay . ” A pp. at263. M ont gom erys t at ed thatB r ow ne then r ai s ed the s ubj ectof the V i l l anova j ob. H e t es t i fi ed, “B r ow ne . . . s ai d t o m e that[Sm uckeri s ] w or ki ng for Shoem akerdow n t her e [a tV i l l anova] and w e don’ tw antt o do that . ” A pp. at263. 3contr act oron t he V i l l anova j ob.

T he A L J s t at ed thati tw as “cl earthatatl eas tB r ow ne and M i l l ernotonl yhel ped one 4 another[on the exa m i nat i on] butal s o m ayhave w r i t t en the s ame pages forthe other . T he 5 M ont gom eryt es t i fi ed thatt hi s comm entconfus ed hi m , buthe t ol d B r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l ert hat“w e’ r e notcurr ent l yhi r i ng. . . . [B ut ] [i ] f w e nee d y ou w e w i l l gi ve y ou a ca ll . ” A p p . at 26 3 . M o n tgo m erytest ifi ed : “B row n e [ then ] ca m e o v er a n d h e p u t his arm ar ound m e and he s ai d ‘ y ou’ r e w r es t l i ng w i t h t he uni on now ’ and I s ai d ‘ w hat ’ s that su p p o sed to m ea n [? ]’” A p p . at 26 3 . B row n e re sp o n d ed , “‘y o u ’re a sm art gu yy o u fig u re i tout , ’ ” and then l eftt he off i ce w i t h hi s comra des . A pp. at264. T her eaf t er , Sm ucker nei t herhi r ed B r ow ne, C os enza , orM i l l ernorcons i der ed them for e m pl oym ent . Sm ucker di d, how ever , cont actand hi r e otherw or ker s i n J une and J ul y1999. O n O ct ob er 15, 19 99 , t he IB E W fi l ed an un fai r l abo r char ge w i t h the B oard. A s a r es ul t , on D ece m ber21, 1999, t he B oar d’ s G ener al C ouns el i s s ued a c om pl ai ntal l egi ng t hatSm uckerhad unl aw ful l yr efus ed t o hi r e orcons i derhi r i ng B r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l erbeca us e of thei runi on aff i l i at i on and had ther ebyvi ol at ed s ect i ons 8( a) ( 3) and ( 1) of the N at i onal L aborR el at i ons A ct( “A ct ”) . St art i ng on N ovember15, 2000, an A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) s i t t i ng i n Phi l adel phi a pr es i ded overa tw o- day h e a rin g o n th is c o m p lain t. T he A L J ul t i m at el yi s s ued a r ecomm ended de ci s i on fi ndi ng Sm uckerl i abl e but al s o fi ndi ng t hatt he uni on or gani zer s had che at ed on the exa m i nat i on admi ni s t er ed by M ont gom eryon A pr i l 26, 1999. A s r emedy , the A L J r ecomm ended thatbackpa ybe 4a n sw e rs [ to se v e ra l q u e stio n s], e v e n th e b lan k s, a re th e sa m e . T h e b a d sp e lli n g is

i dent i cal . ” A pp. at4. 6 aw ar ded, butopi ned thatdue t o t he che at i ng, B r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l er ’ s backpa y ca lculati o n sh o u ld n o t exten d p ast N o v em b er 1 6 , 2 0 0 0 – the d ate tha t M o n tgo m ery te s tif ie d a b o u t th e te s ts a n d S m u c k e r “ d is c o v e r[ e d ]” th a t th e d is c ri m in a te e s h a d c h e a te d . A pp. at7. T he A L J fur therr ecomm ended a gai ns ti ns t at ementforB r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l er , fi ndi ng t hat“thei rfl agr antconduct[i n chea t i ng on t he exa m i nat i on] demonstr at es t hatt heyar e unfi tt o be R es pondent ’ s empl oy ees . ” A pp. at7. In a D ec isi o n an d O rde r en tered o n Jan u ary3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , the B o ard ad o p ted th e A L J’s r ecomm ended de ci s i on i n al l per t i nentr es pect s . O n M ay17, 2004, the B oar d pet i t i oned t hi s cour tforenfor cement . I n r es pons e, Sm uckerfi l ed a c r os s - pet i t i on forr evi ew as ki ng this co u rtto ref

u se e n fo rce m en t of

the B o ard ’s ord er.

II. T hi s cour tr evi ew s t he B oar d’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctundera def er ent i al s t andar d and t hus “ac cept [s ] t he B oar d’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons and r eas onabl e i nfer ence s der i ved [ther efr om ] . . . i f theyar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” C i t i zens Publ ’ g & Pr i nt i ng C o. v. N at ’ l L aborR el at i ons B d. , 263 F. 3d 224, 232 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on and quot at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o 29 U . S. C . § 160( e) ( “The fi ndi ngs of the B oar d w i t h r es pect t o q uest i on s of fact i f supp ort ed b ysubst anti al evidence o n the r ecord co nsi dered as a w h o le s h a ll b e c o n c lu siv e .”). T h e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s e x p lain e d th a t a f in d in g o f f a c t is su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e o n th e re c o rd a s a w h o le if “ it w o u ld7

h a v e b e e n p o s s i b l e f

o ra r e a s o n a b l e j u r yt o r e a c h th e Bo a r d ’ s c o n c l u s i o n . ” Al l e n t o wn M a c k S a le s & S e rv ., In c . v . N a t’ l L a b o r R e la tio n s B d ., 5 2 2 U .S . 3 5 9 , 3 6 6 -6 7 (1 9 9 8 ). T hus , w e have been di r ect ed thatw e s houl d notdi s turb t he B oar d’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs or o th e rw ise “ d isp lac e th e B o a rd ’s c h o ice b e tw e e n tw o f a irlyc o n f

lictin g v iew s” m e re ly becau se w e w ou l d h ave m ade a c on t rarydeterm i nati on “had the m at t er been b efore [us] de novo. ” U ni ver s al C amer a C orp. v. N at ’ l L aborR el at i ons B d. , 340 U . S. 474, 488 (19 5 1 ). F u r t h e r , a l t h o u g h t h i s c o u r t ’ s r e v i e w o v e rth e B o a r d ’ s l e g a l a n a l ys i s i s p l e n a r y,

“ [ b ]e c a u se o f

th e B o a rd ’s ‘ sp e c ial c o m p e ten c e ’ in th e f ield o f lab o r re latio n s, its i nt erpr et at i on of the A cti s acc or ded s ubs t ant i al defe r ence . ” Patt ern M aker s ’ L eague of N . A m . v. N at ’l L abo r R el at i on s B d. , 47 3 U . S . 95 , 10 0 (198 5). T hu s, this cou rtm ust uphol d t he B oar d’ s i nt erpr et at i ons of the A cti f theyar e r eas onabl e. For d M ot orC o. v. N at ’ l L aborR el at i ons B d. , 441 U . S. 488, 497 ( 1979) . I n acc or dance w i t h t hi s defe r ence , “[w ] e w i l l notdi s turb a bac kpayor derunl es s i tcan be s how n t hatthe or deri s a pat ent at t empt t o achi eve e nds ot hert han thos e w hi ch ca n be fa i r l ys ai d t o eff ectuat e the pol i ci es o f th e A ct. ” A tl . L im o . , Inc . v . N at’l L ab o r R elati o n s B d . , 2 4 3 F . 3 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion o m itted). U ndert he A ct , i ti s unl aw ful foran empl oy ert o r efus e t o hi r e orcons i derforhi r e a job ap p li ca n t bec au se o f su ch ap p li ca n t’ s u n ion ac ti v ity , sym p athy , o r af fil iat ion . N at’l La b o rRe l a t i o n s Bd. v . Al a n M o t o rLi n e s , I n c . , 9 3 7 F. 2 d 8 8 7 , 8 9 0 - 9 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 1 ) . To8

e s t a b l i s h a d i s c r i mi n a t o r yr e f u s a l - t o - h i r e c a s e , th e Ge n e r a l Co u n s e l mu s ts h o w: ( 1 ) t h a tt h e r e s p o n d e n twa s h i r i n g , o rh a d c o n c r e t e p l a n s t o h i r e a tth e t i me of the al l eged unl aw ful conduct ; ( 2) thatthe appl i cant s had expe r i ence or t r ai ni ng r el evantt o t he announc ed orgener al l yknow n r equi r ement s of the pos i t i ons forhi r e, ori n the al t ernat i ve, thatthe empl oy erhas notadher ed uni form l yt o s uch r equi r ement s , orthatthe r equi r ement s w er e themsel ves pr et extual orw er e appl i ed as a pr et extfordi s cr i m i nat i on; and ( 3) that a n tiu n io n a n im u s c o n tr ib u te d to th e d e c is io n n o t to h ir e th e a p p lic a n ts . O nce thi s i s es t abl i s hed, t he bur den w i l l s hi ftt o t he r es pondentt o s how that i tw oul d nothave hi r ed the appl i cant s even i n t he abs ence of thei runi on act i vi t yoraff

i l i at i on. F E S , a D iv. of

T h erm o P o w er, 33 1 N . L . R . B . 9 , 1 2 (20 0 0 ) (i n terna l fo o tno tes o m itted), enfor ced, 301 F. 3d 83 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . A s r ecount ed above , the B oar d found thatthe G ener al C ouns el had ca r r i ed i t s bur den underFE S, a D i v. of Ther m o Pow erand that Sm uckerhad nots how n t hati tw oul d have r efus ed t o hi r e B r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l er even i n t he abs ence of thei runi on aff i l i at i ons . D ue, how ever , t o t he fa ctthati tfound that B r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l erhad al l chea t ed on thei rappl i cat i ons , the B oar d l i m i t ed the a w a r d o f b a c k p a y. S m u ck er raises thre e p ri n cipa l argu m en ts i n su p p o rto f it s p o sit ion that this co u rt sh o u ld rejec t th e B o ard ’s de cisi o n an d d ec li n e e n fo rce m en t of the re su lt ing o rde r. S ee B r. of R es p’ tat16. Fi r s t , Sm uckerar gues thatB r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l erw er e notbona fi de appl i cant s forempl oym entand thus s houl d notbe af for ded anypr ot ect i on undert he A ct . Second, Sm uckerm ai nt ai ns t hatthe B oar d err oneous l yi nt erpr et ed i t s hi r i ng needs d u rin g th e re lev a n t p e rio d a n d th e re f o re e rre d in a d o p tin g th e A L J’s f in d in g th a t it unl aw ful l yr efus ed t o hi r e orcons i derhi r i ng B r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l er . T hi r d and9

fi nal l y , Sm uckerar gues t hat , even i f thi s cour tdecl i nes t o di s turb t he B oar d’ s fi ndi ng of l i abil i t y , t he fa ctt hat B row ne, C osenza , and M i l l er cheat ed d uri ng the ap pli cat i on process and furt herl i ed dur i ng t he admi ni s t r at i ve hea r i ng s houl d di s qual i fythem from r ece i vi ng even t he trun cat ed d am ages aw ard ordered bythe B oard. W e w i l l add res s these c o n t e n t i o n s s e r i a t i m. III . I ti s Sm ucker ’ s pos i t i on t hatB r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l erw er e notbona fi de appl i cant s butr atherappl i ed fort he j obs as partof a “ campai gn of har as s m entdi r ect ed at Sm ucker ” and t o l ayt he gr oundw or k forthe fi l i ng of unfa i rl abor - pr act i ce c har ges . B r . of R es p’ tat17. A s a r es ul t , Sm uckercont ends thatB r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l erar e not ent i t l ed t o t he A ct ’ s pr ot ect i on. A s an i ni t i al m at t er , w e not e thatthe Supr eme C our thas s peci fi cal l yhel d t hat ind ividu als o n a u n ion ’s pa yroll w h o are sen t bythe u n ion to u n ion ize a n em p loy er a re e n title d to p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e A c t. N a t’ l L a b o r R e la tio n s B d . v . T o w n & C o u n tr yE le c ., I nc. , 516 U . S. 85 ( 1995) . T hus , al t hough i n appl y i ng forthe j ob, B r ow ne, C os enza , and M il ler w ere w o rkin g as sa lt s w ith the “ u lt erior m o ti v e o f try ing to o rga n ize [ S m u ck er] f ro m th e in sid e ,” A p p . at 6 , su c h a f a c t, i n -a n d -o f

-itse lf , is o f n o m o m e n t. Fur t herm or e, t he B oar d aff i r m ed the A L J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ng thatB r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l er“‘ t rul yw ant ed t o w or k forthe R es pondent . . . . ’ ” A pp. at1 ( quot i ng deci s i on of A L J) . T his factual fi nd i ng i s suppo rt ed b ysubst anti al evidence o n the r ecord as a10

w hol e. A l l ent ow n M ack Sal es & Ser v. , I nc. , 522 U . S. at366- 67; C i t i zens Publ ’ g & Pr i nt i ng C o. , 263 F. 3d at232. T her efor e, w e dec l i ne t o di s turb t he B oar d’ s concl us i on t hatB r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l erw er e bona f i de appl i cant s ent i t l ed t o pr ot ect i on under th e A c t. N ext , Sm uckerar gues t hatt he B oar d’ s fi ndi ng of unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on w as g ro u n d e d in u n w a rr a n te d s p e c u la tio n re g a rd in g th e c o m p a n y ’s h ir in g n e e d s a n d p ro to c o l. S e e g e n e ra llyF E S , a D iv . o f T h e rm o P o w e r, 3 3 1 N .L .R .B . at 1 2 (h o ld in g th a t, i n re f u sa lt o- hi r e ca s es , G ener al C ouns el m us ts how , i nt eral i a, “thatthe r es pondentw as hi r i ng, or had conc r et e pl ans t o hi r e . . . att he t i m e of the al l eged unl aw ful conduct ”) . Sm ucker a r g u e s t h a tt h e r e l e v a n tt i m e f r a m e f o rth e “ a l l e g e d u n l a w f

u l c o n d u c t , ” i d . , i s th e th i r tydayper i od aft erB r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l ers ubm i t t ed thei rappl i cat i ons , i . e. , A pr i l 26 t o M ay26, 1999. A l t hough t he r ecor d i s cl earthatSm uckerhi r ed s ever al w or ker s i n J une a n d J u ly 1 9 9 9 , it is u n d is p u te d th a t S m u c k e r d id n o t h ir e a n y o n e in M a y1 9 9 9 . R efe r enci ng t hi s hi r i ng chr onol ogyand poi nt i ng t o i t s s uppos ed thi r t y - dayappl i cat i on rul e, s ee s upr a, not e 2, Sm uckerm ai nt ai ns thati tdi d nothave “ concr et e pl ans t o hi r e” d u rin g th e p e n d e n c yo f

B ro w n e , C o se n z a , o r M ill e r’s a p p lica tio n s a n d th a t, by th e tim e it di d conducti t s hi r i ng, t he appl i cat i ons w er e s t al e. A pp. at5. T h e A L J, h o w e v e r, f

o u n d th a t S m u c k e r d id n o t ad o p t th e th irty -d a yp o licyu n til a f t e rBr o wne , Cos e n z a , a n d M i l l e rv i s i t e d i t s o f f i c e o n Apr i l 2 6 , 1 9 9 9 . I n d e e d , th e ALJ f o u n d th a t S m u c k e r a d o p ted a n d p o ste d th e th irty -d a yru le a s “ a d ire c t an d im m e d iateT h e R esp o n d en t al so co n tend s tha t neither B row n e, C o sen za , n o r M il ler w ere 5 qual i fi ed fort he s ought - aft erpos i t i ons and thatthe G ener al C ouns el fai l ed t o s how that an ant i uni on ani m us ani m at ed i t s r efus al t o hi r e orcons i derhi r i ng B r ow ne, C os enza , and M il ler. T h e B o ard , o f c o u rse, fo u n d to the co n tr ary ; and , af ter co n side ri n g the re co rd evi dence as a w hol e, w e conc l ude thatthe B oar d’ s concl us i ons ar e s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence . 11 r eac t i on” t o t he uni on or gani zer s ’ vi s i tand t o “pr eventthem from bei ng hi r ed. ” A pp. at 6. H e furt herfound thatSm ucker ’ s fai l ur e t o hi r e any one dur i ng the mont h of M ayw as i n al l l i kel i hood a “rus e” i nt ended t o avoi d hi r i ng the uni on m ember s . A pp. at5. T h e B o a rd , in a d o p tin g th e se f in d in g s, re

jec ted S m u c k e r’s a rg u m e n t th a t it s purpor t ed thi r t y - dayappl i cat i on rul e r ender ed the appl i cat i on of B r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l ers t al e, as w el l as Sm ucker ’ s at t endantcont ent i on thatthe r el evantt i m e fr ame for co n side rati o n sh o u ld b e li m it ed to A p ri l 26 thro u g h M ay2 6 , 1 9 9 9 . In a d o p ti n g the A L J’s fi ndi ngs , t he B oar d concl uded thatSm ucker ’ s hi r i ng deci s i ons i n J une and J ul yof 1999 w e re in f a c t re lev a n t. C o n sid e rin g th e re c o rd a s a w h o le, th e B o a rd ’s c o n c lu sio n is s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . A lle n to w n M a c k S a le s & S e rv ., 5 2 2 U .S . a t 3 6 6 -6 7 . W e thus decl i ne t o di s turb t he B oar d’ s fi ndi ng thatSm uckerhad conc r et e pl ans t o hi r e at th e tim e o f

th e a lleg e d u n law f

u l co n d u c t. 5 F inally , S m u ck er a rgu es th at, ev en if th is co u rtch o o ses n o t t o d istu rb th e B o ard ’s s u b s ta n tiv e f

in d in g s , it s h o u ld n o n e th e le s s d e c lin e to e n f o rc e th e B o a rd ’s o rd e re d re m e d y . T he B oar d’ s us ual r emedyfora r efus al - t o- hi r e vi ol at i on underthe A cti s i ns t at ementand ful l backpa y . See FE S, a D i v. of Ther m o Pow er , 331 N . L . R . B . at17. N onethel es s , i f an empl oy ers how s t hatt he di s cr i m i nat ee e ngaged i n m i s conductforw hi ch the empl oy erD ur i ng t hei rr es pect i ve t es t i m onyatthe admi ni s t r at i ve hea r i ng, B r ow ne, C os enza , 6 and M i l l eral l deni ed thatt her e w as anychea t i ng on t he exa m i nat i on. C ons i der i ng that t he B oar d found t o t he contr ary , i tal s o i m pl i ci t l yfound thatal l thr ee di s cr i m i nat ees l i ed underoath. Fur t herm or e, t he fi ndi ng of the A L J w as expl i ci t : “I tm aybe thatC os enza d id les s c h e a tin g th a n th e o th e rs, b u t [ S m u c k e r’s ] re c e p tio n a re a w a s a sm a ll ro o m in w hich C osenza cou l d easi l ysee and hear w hat w as going o n; and he , as w el l as the o thers, lie d a t th e [ h e a ri n g ] w h e n a n s w e ri n g th a t th e yd id n o t c h e a t.” A p p . a t 7 . 12 w o u ld h a v e d isq u a lifie d a n ya p p lica n t, th e u su a l re m e d yis n o t w a rra n ted . S e e M a rsh a ll D urbi n Poul t r yC o. , 310 N . L . R . B . 68, 69- 70 ( 1993) ; J ohn C uneo, I nc. , 298 N . L . R . B . 856, 857 n. 7 ( 1990) . R ather , “i f an e m pl oy ers at i s fi es i t s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thatthe di s cr i m i nat ee e ngaged i n unpr ot ect ed conduc tforw hi ch the empl oy erw oul d have di s char ged anyempl oy ee, [ ] i ns t at ementi s notor der ed and ba ckpayi s t erm i nat ed on the d a te th a t th e e m p lo y e r f irst a c q u ire d k n o w led g e o f th e m isc o n d u c t.” M a rsh a ll D u rb in Poul t r yC o. , 310 N . L . R . B . at70. T he B oar d acc ept ed the A L J ’ s fi ndi ng thatB r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l erchea t ed on t he hi r i ng exami nat i on. T he B oar d fur t heragr eed w i t h t he A L J ’ s concl us i on thats uch 6 chea t i ng w oul d have pr ovi ded Sm uckerw i t h l aw ful gr ounds forr efus i ng t o hi r e B r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l er . T hus , fol l ow i ng the pr ece dentof M ar s hal l D urbi n Poul t r yC o. and J ohn C uneo, I nc. , t he B oar d concl uded thatB r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l ers houl d notbe aw ar ded i ns t at ement ; i tfur t herfound thattheyw er e notent i t l ed t o anybackpa ybey ond N ovember16, 2000 – t he dayof the admi ni s t r at i ve hea r i ng atw hi ch the t es t i m ony r egar di ng t he t es t s w as pr es ent ed. S m u c k e r, h o w e v e r, p o in tin g to th e d isc rim in a tee s’ d e c e itfu l an d a p p a re n tlyT hi s cour t , of cour s e, does notcondone c heat i ng. M or eover , nothi ng i n t hi s opi ni on 7 sh o u ld b e p e rc e iv e d a s e ith e r a p p ro v in g o f o r tu rn in g a b lin d e y e to p e rju ry . S u f f ice it t o s ayt hatt he B oar d, i n i t s m eas ur ed i nt erpr et at i on of the A ct , det erm i ned thats uch m al fea s ance di d notw arr anta w hol es al e deni al of r el i ef; thi s cour t , upon appl i cat i on of its d e f e re n tial sta n d a rd o f

re v iew , fin d s th e B o a rd ’s in ter p re tatio n n o t in c o m m e n su ra te w ith th e p o licie s e x p re ss e d in th e A c t. T h e d isc rim in a tee s’ c o n d u c t, ho w e v e r, m a yw e ll i m pli cat e otherst atutoryprovis i on s. S ee, e. g. , 18 U . S . C . §§ 10 01 , 16 21 ; 18 P a. C on s. S ta t. § 4 9 0 2 . 

### T h e B o ardm ay reaso n ab ly

b e o f th e v iewth at th is is a m atter b est lef t to 13 per j ur i ous conduct , ar gues t hatB r ow ne, C os enza , and M i l l ers houl d noteven r ece i ve the l i m i t ed bac kpayaw ar d or der ed byt he B oar d. T hi s cour t , how ever , m us tuphol d t he B o a rd ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f th e A c t if

th e in te rp re ta tio n is re a s o n a b le , s e e F o rd M o to r C o ., 441 U . S. at497, and thus w i l l notdi s turb a bac kpayor derunl es s i ti s “s how n t hatthe o rd e r is a p a ten t atte m p t to a c h iev e e n d s o th e r th a n th o se w h ich c a n b e f a irlysa id to e f f e c tu a te th e p o licie s o f

th e A c t.” A tl. L im o ., In c ., 2 4 3 F .3 d a t 7 1 8 . H e re , the B o a rd , in conform ance w i t h i t s pr i ordeci s i ons i nt erpr et i ng the A ct , r efus ed i ns t at ementand aw ar ded bac kpaybutl i m i t ed the bac kpayaw ar d t o t he per i od begi nni ng on the dat e of S m u c k e r’ s u n la w f

u l c o n d u c t a n d e n d in g o n th e d a te th a t th e c h e a tin g w a s d is c o v e re d . T hi s det erm i nat i on i s r eas onabl e, cons onantw i t h t he pol i ci es under gi r di ng the A ct , and w e s ee no r eas on t o di s turb i t . C om par e w i t h A B F Fre i ghtSy s . , I nc. v. N at ’ l L abor R el at i ons B d. , 510 U . S. 317, 325 ( 1994) ( “N otw i t hs t andi ng ourconce r n aboutthe s er i ous nes s of M ans o’ s i l l - advi s ed dec i s i on t o r epea tunderoath hi s fal s e exc us e for tar d in e ss , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t th e B o a rd ’s r e m e d ial o rd e r in th is c a se w a s a n a b u se o f its b ro a d d isc re tio n o r th a t itw a s o b lig a ted to a d o p t a r ig id ru le th a t w o u ld f o re c lo se re lief

in all co m p ara b le ca ses.”). 7

### the e xecuti ve branch in the firs t instance. See A B F Fre i ghtSy s . , 510 U . S. at325; cf. i d.

at 32 6 -31 (S ca li a, J. , co n cu rri n g ). I V. 

### As we have s ugge s t e d thr oughout , the de c i s i onm ake r i n c a s e s s uc h a s thi s i s the B o ard . Were w e d ecid in g th is m atter d e n o v o , o ur f in d in g s an dco n clu sio n s m ay w ell have be e n di ffe r e nt

than thos e i t

m a de . But

we ar e not

the de c i s i onm ake r , and we c annot say th at its d ecisio n , wh end ef erredto inlig ht o f

its resp o n sib ility

an dexp erien ce, f

ails the s ub st anti alevidence inqu ir y that we ar e obliged to m ake. F o r th e re a so n s s e t f

o rth a b o v e , w e w ill g ra n t th e B o a rd ’s p e tit io n f o r e n f o rc e m e n t.