# Unite d States Court of Appe als

F O R T H E D I S T R

I C T O F C O L U M B I A

C I R C U I T

Arg ued January

8, 2021 Dec ided J une 1, 2021

No. 20-1014

T R I N I TY S E R

V I C E S G R

O U P , I N C ., P E TI TI O N E R

v.

N A TI O N A L L A B O R R E L

A TI O N S B O A R

D , R E S P O N D E

N T

Consolidated with 20-1055

On Petition for Review a

nd Cross-Application for Enforc ement of a

n Orde r of the National L abor Rela tions Boar d

Frederic k C. Miner arg ued the cause for petitioner. Wit h him on the briefs wa s S. Libby Henninger

.
Kellie Isbell
, Senior Attorney
, National L abor Relations Boa rd, arg ued the cause for resp ondent. Wit h her on the brief

wer e Peter B. Robb
, Gene ral Counsel, Ruth E. Burdick , Acting Deputy Associate Gene ral Counsel, David Habenstreit
, Assistant General Counsel, and Usha Dhee nan , Supervisory Attorney

.2

Be fore : G A R

L A N D and R A O , Circuit Ju dges
, and * R A N D O L P H , Senior Circuit Judge

. Opinion for the Co u rt fi led by Senior Circuit Judge R A N D O L P H

.

R A N D O L P H , Senior Circuit Judge : Trinity Service s Group asks us to revie w an order of the National L abor Relations Bo ard. The Boa

rd cross-pe titions for enfor ceme nt. We m u s t decide whether employ ers are entitled to express o p inions that the B oard c onsiders base less.

I

.

T h i s case beg an with a mix -up. I n Dec ember 2017, t h e timecar d of Trinity employ ee Marisol Victoria indicated that she had ear ned three day s of paid l ea v e. The company ’s rec ords indicated otherwise. The truth? L ess than clea r. But Victoria’ s boss, Serg io Rivera, thought he knew the source of the problem.

Victoria belong ed to United F o o d a n d Commercial Workers L ocal 99. Thank s t o t he union, she and her cowor kers had a unique paid-lea

ve plan — differ ent from the plan at Trinity ’s other, non u n i o nized fac iliti es. Yet that meant heada ches for Rivera, since the para llel scheme s wer e too much for Trinity ’s bookkeeping softwar e. So when Vic toria’s timeca rd disag ree d with his recor ds, Rivera pinned the blame on L ocal 99:

• “[T] hat is a p robl em that the Union cre ated reg arding [paid leave].”

• “You ne ed to fix t hat with the Union.”

Then- Jud ge Gar la

nd w as a m em

ber of th e p ane l but did not *
par ti ci pate at or al ar gum ent o r in t

he dis pos it io n of

this ca se

.3

• “[T] hat’s the pr oblem with the Union.” J.A. 7.

A s plit panel of

the National L abor Rela tions Boar d found that these rema

rks “had a rea sonable tendenc y to interfe re with” employ ees’ labor rig hts — a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1). 1 Id

. I n the m aj o ri ty ’s view, there was “no objective basis for blaming the Union, rathe r than [Trinit y ]” f or the mix -up. Id. at 8. An d beca

use the rema

rks came amidst “ong oing contra ct neg otiations and g rieva

nce proce eding s” over pai d leave
, they “would undermine the Union’s status” and “ca use an employ ee to lose faith” in L ocal 99. Id.

Chairman Ring dissented. Whil e he found it “unfa ir to lay t h e blame entirely at the Union’s fee t,” id. at 10, he rea s o n ed that R ivera ’s rema

rks wer e a “lawf

ul expression” of “per sonal opinion,” protec ted under 29 U.S.C. § 158(c). Id. at 9. 2

These petitions followed. We revie w the Boa rd ’s fac tual finding s for substantial evidenc e. See Da vi dson Hotel Co. v. NLRB , 977 F.3d 1289, 1292 ( D.C. Cir. 2020).

“I t sha ll be an unfai r la

bor pract ic e fo r an em

plo y er

. . . to 1 inte rf er e w it h, re st ra in, or co er ce em

plo y ee s in the exe rc is e of th e ri ght s gua ra ntee d in se ct io n 157 of this ti tl e[ .]” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)( 1).

“The expre ss ing of any vi ew s, ar gum ent, or opinio n, or the 2 diss em inat io n ther eo f, w hether in w ri tt en, print ed, gr aphic
, or vi sua l fo rm , sha ll not con st itute or be ev idenc e of an unfai r la bor pra ct ic e unde r an y of the pro vi si ons of this subcha pter , if suc h expre ss io n
co ntai ns n o th re at of re pris al or fo rc e or pro m is e of benef it .” 29 U.S.C. § 158(c).4

I I

.
Section 8(c) of the National L abor Relations Act protec ts an employ er’ s rig ht t o “e x press[]

. . . any views, arg ument, or opinion[ .]” 2 9 U.S.C. § 158(c) ; see also Chamber of Com. of U.S. v. Brown , 554 U.S. 60, 67 (2008). Unless the employ er threa tens “re prisal or forc e” or promises “bene fit[s ],” such expressions “ca

nnot be used as evidenc e of an unfair labor p ra ctice.” Sasol N. Am. Inc. v. NLRB , 275 F.3d 1106, 111 2 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (inter

nal quotation marks omitted).

The Boa rd’s order here is based solely on Rivera’ s rema rks. These rema

rks are “opinion[s] ” under § 8(c)

. And they contain

no threa ts or promises. True, threa ts and promises “may be subtle or veiled.” Int’l Union of Elec., Radio, & Mach. W

orkers, AFL-CIO v. NLRB , 289 F.2d 75 7 , 762 (D.C. Cir. 1960). But R i vera ’s rema

rks — assig ning blame, offe ring advice
, an d

ex p o u n d ing “the problem with” L ocal 99 — evoke no future

cons equenc es. See generally Robert Nozick, Coercion
, in Philosophy, Scienc e and Method 440 (Sidney Morg enbesse r et al. eds., 1 9 69). So no rea sonable employ ee would have spied threa ts or promises lurking behind them. See Advanc ed Life Sys. Inc. v. NLRB , 898 F.3d 38, 44–45 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (“The inquiry is objective.”)

.

The Boa rd conce des as much, but it urg es us to rec og nize

an exception under § 8(c) for misstatements involving no threa t

or promise. Respondent’s Br ief 8. I n its view, § 8(c) “provide s
n o safe harbor ” for “mater ially false statements” that an employ er “has rea son to believe will mis l ea d his employ ees.” Id. at 8, 15 (cle aned up). And beca use (s ay s t h e Boa

rd) it was “pate ntly false” to blame L ocal 99 for “adminis t ra t i o n of the [paid-leave pla

n],” § 8(c) doe s not apply here . J .A. 8.5

Where does the Boa

rd find this misstat em ent rule? Certainly not in the statute. “Section 8(c ) d o es not require fairne ss or acc urac y ,” N

. Star Steel Co.
, 347 N.L .R.B. 1364, 1367 n.13 (2006) (citation omitted), and i t say s nothing about materia lity or knowledg e. Neither did Congr ess hedg e. Absent threa ts or promises, § 8(c) unambig uously protec ts “ any views, arg ument , or opinion” — even those that the ag ency finds misguided, flimsy
, or daft. 29 U.S.C. § 158(c) (empha sis added)

. 3

No prec edent holds otherwise. The Boa rd relies chief

ly on National Labor Relations Board v. Ingredion Inc. , 930 F.3d 509, 516 (D.C. Cir. 2019), wher e we ag ree d that an employ er’ s misstatements violated § 8(a) (1) of the Ac t

. But the misstatements in Ingredion wer e implied promises — a “better contra ct,” a retire ment packa g e that employ ees “would like”

— unprotec ted by § 8(c)

. Id. And Ingredion did not claim to f ind any new exceptions in the statutory text

. W es t mi nster Community Hospital

, In c. , 221 N.L .R.B. 185, 185 (1975), enforce d mem. , 566 F. 2 d 1186 (9th Cir. 1977), is no differ ent. There
, the employ er implied that “bene fits would be incre ased in the future if t h e employ ees voted ag ainst the Union”

— another unprotec ted promise. Id.

So her e i s the short of it. Rivera expressed “opinions” containing “no threa t of repr isal or forc e or promise of benef it.” 29 U.S.C. §158(c ). Sound or unsound, such expressions “ shall not constitute or be e vidence of an unf air labor prac tice[.] ” Id.

Of co urse , this doe s not m ea n that any

thing go es

. Supp os e a 3

men d acio us m ana ge r te ll s w or ke rs that the union has ca nce ll ed to n igh t’ s elec ti on — duping them into m is si ng the vo te

. Eve n if the

m ana ge r av oi ds thre at s and pro m is es , the Boa rd m ust st il l as k w hethe r his chica ner y “repr es ent[ s] the expre ss io n of ‘vie w s, ar gum ent, or opi nio n’ that se ct io n 8(c ) co ve rs .” Mic roim age Dis play Div

. of

Xidex Corp. v. NLRB , 924 F.2d 245 , 251 n.2 (D.C. Cir . 199 1).6

And since the Boa

rd found a violation based solely on Rivera’ s
rema rks, substantial evidenc e does not support its order

.

*
Perhaps a no-misstatement rule would be g ood labor policy

. Or perha ps no t

. Bu t it is not the policy ref lected in § 8(c)

. “Cong ress, when it enacte d § 8(c) , deter mined the dang ers that fre e ex pression m ight e n t ai l

. . . wer e a lesser risk than t o have the Boa rd p o l i ce employ er or union speec h.” NLRB v. Gen. Elec. Co
., 418 F.2d 736, 773 (2d Cir. 1969) (F riendly
, J ., concur ring and dissenting)

. “If policy considerations sug g est that [t his] scheme sh o u ld be altered, Congre ss must be the one to do it.” In t el C orp. Inv. Pol’y Comm. v. Sulyma
, 140 S. Ct. 768, 778 (2020). We g ra n t Trinity ’s petition for revie w and deny the B oard’ s cross-a

pplication for e nforc ement.

So ordered.