FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 2, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 68 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. 1 2- CA-2 58 42

PALM BEACH METRO TRANSPOR TATION, L LC, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r - Cro ss Res po nd en t, 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 - C ro ss Pet it io ne r.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io ns forRev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 2, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, W ILSON, andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pet it io ne r Pal m

Beac h M etro Tran sp orta ti on , LLC (“ Pal m Beac h M etro ”)pe ti ti on s t ha t we re vi ew, an d t he Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard(“NLRB”) c ro ss pe ti ti on s t ha t we en fo rce, the NLRB’s Deci si on an d Ord er o f Ju ly 26, 2 01 1 fi nd in g th atPal m Beac h M etro en ga ge d i n u nf ai r labo r pr act ic es invi ol at io n o f 29 U.S.C. § 1 58 (a)( 1) ,(5) . W e h ol d tha t the NLRB’s or de r ha s anad equa te ev id en ti ary fo un da ti on an d t ha t i t wi ll be en fo rced . The Am al ga m at edTran si t Un it , Loca l 1 57 7 (“ th e Uni on ”) was cert ifi edin Feb ru ary 20 08 as t he co ll ect iv e-b arg ai ni ng rep res en ta ti ve of aun itof P al m Beac h Met ro dri ve rs . Fol lo win g t he Uni on ’s cert ifi cat io n, Pa lm Beac h M etro refu se d t o reco gn iz e an d b arg ai n wi thth e Uni on . In M ay 20 08 , th e NLRB i ss ue d ade ci si on fin di ng th atPal m

Beac h M etro ha d v io la te d S ect io n 8 (a)( 1) an d (5 ) of th e Nat io na l Lab or Rel at io ns Act, 2 9 U.S.C. § 15 1, b y refu si ng to reco gn iz e an d b arg ai n wi th th e Uni on . The cu rren t ca se in vo lv es anall eg at io n t ha t Pa lm Beac h M etro co m m it te d a n a dd it io na l v io la ti on of t he Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Act b y reduc in g em pl oyee worksch edul es inApri l 2 00 8 wi th ou t p rio r no ti ce t o o r ba rg ai ni ng with th e Uni on . Thi s p ro ceed in g was in st ig at edwhen th e Uni on fil edanun fai r labo r pr act ic e ch arg e cl ai m in g t ha t Pa lm Beac h M etro ha d uni la te ral ly redu cedth e h ou rs an d d ay s tha t i ts em

pl oyees wer e p erm it te d t o wo rk . The NLRB’s Gen eral Co un se l the n i ss ue d aco m pl ai ntst at in g the same. An ad m in is tra ti ve law ju dg e

2he ardth e co m pl ai nt , fou ndth atPal m

Beac h M etro co m

m it te d t he all eg ed vi ol at io ns , andreco m

m en de d t ha t the co m

pl ai ntbe fou ndva li d. Th e NLRB ad op te d t he adm in is tra ti ve jud ge ’s fin di ng s an d o rd eredPal m Beac h M etro to ceas e an d d es is t fr om

it s u nf ai r labo r pr act ic es an d c om pe ns at e it s emplo y ees for da m ag es th atres ul te d fr om th e reduc ti on inth ei r work s ch edul es . Ourrol e in rev ie win g t he NLRB’s or de rs is a na rro w on e. Ga. Pow er Co . v. N.L.R.B. , 42 7 F .3d13 54 , 13 58 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e are bo un d b y th e NLRB’s factua l fi nd in gs if t he y

are s up po rte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce o n t he reco rdas a who le . In t’l

Bhd . of Boi le rma ker

s v. N .L.R.B. , 12 7 F .3d13 00 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Sub st an ti al ev id en ce ex is ts if areas on ab le jury co ul d h av e rea ch edth e sa m e co nc lu si on as t he NLRB. All en to wn Mac k S al es &Se rv ., Inc . v. N.L.R.B. , 52 2 U.S. 3 59 , 36 6– 67 (19 98 ). If the NLRB ha s m ad e a p laus ib le in fere nc e fro m th e ev id en ce, we m ay

no t o ve rtu rnit s fi nd in gs . In t’l Bhd . of Boi le rma ker

s , 12 7 F.3 d a t 1 30 6. Pal m Beac h M etro ch al le ng es th e NLRB’s o rd er o n t wo g ro un ds . Firs t, i t arg ue s t ha t the reduc ti on s i n e m pl oyees’ ho ur s wer e co ns is te ntwith t he st atus qu o an d t hu s s ho ul d n otha ve tri gg eredco ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng requi rem en ts . Seco nd , Pal m Beac h M etro co nt en ds th atth e sc he du li ng ch an ge s wer e due to ex te rn al fact or s n otun de r it s co nt ro l, an d t hu s t he ch an ge s wer e n otsubjec t t o m an da to ry 3co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng .

An em pl oyer th atrefu se s t o b arg ai n c ol le ct iv el y with aUni on co m

m it s an un fai r labo r pr act ic e. 29 U.S.C. § 1 58 (a)( 5) . Em pl oyer act io ns an d d eci si on s co nc ern in g t erm s o f em

pl oym en t s uc h a s wag es an d h ou rs are s ub ject t o m an da to ry

co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng . N.L.R.B. v. Kat z , 36 9 U.S. 7 36 , 74 2– 43 , 82 S. Ct . 11 07 , 11 11 (19 62 ). Howev er, a co nt in ua ti on of t he st atus qu o d oe s n ot fru st rat e th e b arg ai ni ng pro ces s; th ere m us t b e anactua l ch an ge inco nd it io ns to tri gg er the co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng requi rem en t. Se e id. at 7 46 , 82 S. Ct. at11 13 . The refo re, a co m

pa ny tha t can d em on st rat e th atitha s an est ab li sh ed“pa st pr act ic e” o f certa in act io ns reg ard in g wag es an d h ou rs , su chas apo li cy of “ la y in g of f an d re -cal li ng em

pl oyees a t wi ll ,” can esc ap e m an da to ry ba rg ai ni ng reg ard in g th os e act io ns . N.L.R.B. v. S. Co ac h & Bod y Co . , 33 6 F .2d21 4, 2 16 –1 7. In su cha si tu at io n, the em

pl oyer’s act io ns wou ldsi m pl y be pre se rv in g t he st atus qu o. Pal m Beac h M etro arg ue s t ha t i ts act s h ere qua li fy as s uc h aco nt in ua ti on of th e st atus qu o. In supp ort o f it s ar gu m en t, Pa lm Beac h M etro ex pl ai ns th e fac tu al pr ed ic at e o f it s ac ti on s: itis a pr ov id er o f tr an sp orta ti on servi ces an d i ts ex cl us iv e cu st om er i s an d h as be enPal m Tran , Inc . (“ Pal m

Tran ”). The co nt ractbe twee n Pal m Tranan d P al m

Beac h M etro st ip ul at edth atPal m Tranwou ldsetth e tra ns po rta ti on sch edul e an d P al m Beac h M etro wou ldpro vi de trans po rta ti on 4se rv ic es , eig ht y pe rcen t o f whi chwou ldbe by bus . In 2 00 8, Pa lm Tranreduc edit s de m an d fo r Pal m

Beac h M etro servi ces . Add it io na ll y , Pal m Beac h M etro rep la ced so m e o f it s faul ty bus es in20 07 an d 2 00 8, re su lt in g i n driv ers sp en di ng fewer ho ur s wai ti ng with t he bu se s wh il e th e b us es were re pa ire d. Pa lm Beac h M etro al le ge s t ha t b ecau se th es e two fact or s—th e ex cl us iv e se rv ic in g o f Pal m Tranan d th e u se of b us es —wer e h is to ric al ly establ is he d, i ts ch oi ce t o c utem pl oyee ho ur s t o res po ndto ch an ge s i n the se fact or s i s n otsubjec t t o the co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng requi rem en ts . The NLRB fo un d t ha t Pa lm Beac h M etro ha d n ev er re du cedem pl oyee ho ur s i n t he pa stan d h adpre vi ou sl y m ai nt ai ne d apo li cy

of a ll owi ng dri ve rs to work a s m

uc h a s t he y

want ed . Palm

Beac h M etro do es no t co nt es t thi s fi nd in g. The NLRB co nc lu de d tha t b ecau se Pal m Beac h M etro ha d n ev er re st ric te d t he work s ch edul es of e m

pl oyees b efo re, i t co ul d n otha ve a lo ng st an di ng pra ct ic e o f reduc in g e m

pl oyees’ ho ur s. We fin d n o e rro r in th is co nc lu si on . The p reex is te nc e o f certa in workco nd it io ns do es no t equa te to anest ab li sh edpo li cy of act io n wi th in th e co m

pa ny rega rd in g c ha ng es inem pl oym en t. Pal m Beac h M etro als o a rg ue s t ha t b ecau se th e reduc ti on inem pl oyee ho ur s was ne ces si ta te d b y

ex te rn al fact or s b ey on d P al m Beac h M etro ’s con tro l—na m el y Pal m Tran ’s dec reas edde m an d fo r se rv ic es —the co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng 5requi rem en t o f gi vi ng no ti ce an d h ol di ng di sc us si on s was ex cu se d. Pa lm Beac h Met ro co nt en ds th atba rg ai ni ng wou ldha ve be enfut il e an d t hu s was no t re qu ire d. As a p rel im in ary m atte r, Pal m Beac h M etro off

ers no supp ort fo r th e arg um en t tha t th ere i s a f

ut il it y de fen se to th e co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng requi rem en ts of 2 9 U.S.C. § 15 8( a)(5 ). Furth erm or e, th e NLRB fo un d t ha t Pa lm Beac h M etro ha d h ire d ad di ti on al dri ve rs durin g o r jus t p rio r to th e p eri odof d ecre as edde m an d fo r se rv ic es . Thatwas c le arl y a ch oi ce wi th in th e co m

pany’ s co nt ro l. The NLRB fo un d t ha t Pa lm Beac h M etro un il at eral ly decre as edem pl oyee work h ou rs —a f

in di ng whi chPal m

Beac h M etro do es no t d is pu te —an d re jecte d Pal m Beac h M etro ’s def

en se s t o t he co ll at eral ba rg ai ni ng requi rem en t. We fin d th e NLRB’s o rd er t o b e wel l-r eas on edan d s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce o n th e rec or d. The pe ti ti on forrev ie w is DENIED, an d t he cro ss -p et it io n fo r en fo rcem en t is GRANTED.

6