FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 27, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 44 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. 1 2- CA-2 22 02 ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r, vers us NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t. AMADEO BIANCHI, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll In te rv en or .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ardan d Cro ss App li cat io n fo r Enf or cem en t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 27 , 20 11 )Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, EDMONDSON andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Ro adway Exp res s, In c. (“ Ro adway ”) an d In te rn at io na l Br othe rh oo d o f Team st ers , Loca l 7 69 (“ un io n” ) pe ti ti on forrev ie w of afin al Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard(“NLRB”) rul in g. Be cau se we co nc lu de th at(1) is su e p recl us io n do es no t b ar the Gene ral Co un se l o f th e NLRB (“ Gen eral Co un se l” ) fro m pu rs ui ng a cl ai m ag ai ns t Ro adway , and(2) subs tant ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e NLRB’s co nc lu si on s t ha t t he un io n b reac he d i ts du ty of fai r rep res en ta ti on (“ DFR”) to ward s Am ad eo Bia nc hi an d t ha t Ro adway vi ol at edsec ti on 8(a )(1 ) of th e Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Act (“NLRA”), 2 9 U.S.C. § 15 8( a)(1 ), by dis ch arg in g Bi an ch i, we d en y

ap pe ll an ts ’ pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w.

BACKGRO UND InOcto be r 20 01 , Gero m e Dan ie ls , a fo rm er Ro adway em pl oyee, was adm it te d i nt o aho sp it al aft er h e ex pe rie nc edch es t p ai n wh il e u nl oa di ng a Ro adway tra il er. A few d ay s l at er Dan ie ls in fo rm edhi s u ni on st eward , Bia nc hi , th athe ha d b een in

jure d a t wo rk . Bian ch i h el pe d Dan ie ls fil e an in jury clai m . Afte r in ve st ig at io n o f th e cl ai m , Roa dwa y di sc ha rg edBia nc hi be cau se itbe li ev ed he ass is te d Dan ie ls in fil in g afrau du le ntwork er’s co m pe ns at io n c la im .

2Dan ie ls an d B ia nc hi gri ev edth ei r di sc ha rg es inun io n a rb it rat io n h eari ng s;

bo th were re pr es en te d b y un io n a ge ntDon al d M arr. Ma rr an d B ianc hi were lo ng -s ta nd in g p ol it ic al riv al s wi th in th e u ni on , hav in g ru n a ga in steach othe r fo r of fic e si x t im es an d h av in g t wice ap pe aredbe fo re a u ni on m as te r to set tl e cam pa ig n d is pu te s. No twi th st an di ng th ei r ap pa ren t en m it y , when at t he en d o f th e arb it rat io n h eari ng th e co m m it te e as ke d B ia nc hi whet he r th e u ni on ha d rep res en te d h im

pro pe rly andful ly, Bi an ch i an swe redin th e aff irmativ e. Bia nc hi st at es in hi s b rie fs on ap pe al th athe di d s o b ecau se he want edto return t o wo rk wit ho utfurth er d el ay . W it ho utst at in g i ts reas on in g, t he arb it rat io n c omm it te e de ni edbo th Dani el s’s an d B ia nc hi ’s gri ev an ces an d uph el d t he ir d is ch arg es fro m Ro adway . Bi an ch i t he n fi le d u nf

ai r labo r pr act ic es cla im s ag ai ns t Ro adway an d t he un io n i n apri va te laws ui t b efo re a fe de ral di st ric t co urt. The jury fo un d i n fa vo r of Bia nc hi on hi s DFR

cla im , bu t t hi s C ou rt r ev ers ed , gra nt in g R oa dwa y ’s m ot io n

1
As summarized by

this Court i n Bianchi v. Roadway Ex press, Inc. , 441 F.3d 1278, 1281 1 (11th Cir. 2006) (pe r curiam), [t ]he jury held for Bia

nchi ag ainst b o t h R oadwa y and the Union, finding : (1) that Roadway had terminated Bia nchi without just cause in violation of the [coll ec t ive barg aining agree ment]; (2) that the Union had brea ched its DFR by Marr ’s handling of B ianchi’s grieva

nce pr ocee dings a

rbitrar ily , discriminatorily and/or in bad f aith; and (3) that the Union’s brea ch materia lly aff ecte d the outcome of Bia nchi’s g rieva nce he aring . 3fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Se e Bia nc hi v. Roa dw ayExp., In c. , 44 1 F .3d 12 78 , 12 79 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). W e rea so ne d tha t Bi an ch i h adwaiv ed an y cla im th atMarrrep res en te d h im in ba d fa it h b y

fai li ng to rai se itbe fo re the arb it rat io n c omm it te e. The Gene ral Co un se l the n fi le d b efo re the NLRB anun fai r labo r pr act ic e co m pl ai ntag ai ns t Ro adway

an d t he un io n, as se rti ng th atBianc hi was wro ng fu ll y di sc ha rg edon th e b as is of p ro te ct edun io n a ct iv it ie s an d t ha t the un io n b reac he d it s DFR to ward s B ia nc hi du rin g h is gri ev an ce p ro ceed in gs . In M arch 20 08 , th e ALJ d is m is se d t he DFR cl ai m ag ai ns t t he un io n a ndup he ldBia nc hi ’s di sc ha rg e fro m Ro adway . On rev ie w, th e NLRB (1 ) affi rm edth e ALJ’s co nc lu si on th at is su e p recl us io n d idno t b ar the Gene ral Co un se l fr om ass ert in g abre ach of t he DFR as a ba si s fo r de cl in in g t o d efer to th e arb it rat io n re su lt s; (2) affi rm edth e ALJ’s fi nd in gs th atth e arb itrat io n re su lt s wer e n otth e p ro du ctof afai r an d re gu la r pr oc eed in g a ndth atRo adway vi ol at edsec ti on 8 o f th e NLRA by dis ch arg in g Bi an ch i; an d (3 ) rev ers edth e ALJ’s fi nd in g tha t t he un io n h adno t b reac he d i ts DFR t owa rdBia nc hi . Accor di ng ly, th e NLRB awar de d B ia nc hi sev eny ears of ba ck pay an d o rd eredRo adway

to rei ns ta te hi m . Roa dwa y an d t he un io n n ow pe ti ti on forrev ie w of t he NLRB de ci si on . STANDARD OF REVIEW

4W e m us t ac cep t t he NLRB’s fin di ng s wi thres pe ctto qu es ti on s o f fac t i f th ey are s up po rte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce o n t he reco rdco ns id eredas awho le . Se e 29 U.S.C. § 1 60 (e). “ Subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce i s m or e th ana m ere s ci nt il la . It m ean s s uc h e vi de nc e as a reas on ab le min d m ig htacce ptas a de qu at e to supp ort a co nc lu si on .” Fla . St eel

Co rp . v. NLRB , 58 7 F .2d73 5, 7 45 (5t h C ir. 1 97 9) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Whi le th is Co urt wi ll no t actas am ere e nf

or cem en t arm

of t he NLRB, se e BE &

K Co ns tr . Co. v. N

LRB , 13 3 F.3 d 1 37 2, 1 37 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) (pe r cu ria m), we wil l n otsubs ti tu te ou r own jud gm en t fo r th e NLRB’s ch oi ce b etween two reas on ab le po si ti on s. Se e Uni ver sa l Ca mer a C

or p. v. NL RB , 34 0 U.S. 4 74 , 48 8 (1 95 1) .

DISCUSS IO N The th res ho ldqu es ti on is whet he r is su e p recl us io n o pe rat es to ba r th e Gen eral Co un se l fr om

pu rs ui ng it s DFR

cla im ag ai ns t Ro adway

in li gh t o f th is Co urt’s ru li ng in Bia nc hi , 44 1 F .3d12 78 , th atBia nc hi waiv edit . For i ss ue pr ecl us io n t o app ly, bo th cas es m us t i nv ol ve th e sa m e p art ie s o r th ei r pr iv ie s. Se e EEOC v. Pemco Aer op le

x, In c. (“ Pemco ”), 3 83 F.3d12 80 , 12 85 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Whe th er a p art y

is in pri vi ty w it h a no th er fo r pu rp os es of i ss ue pre cl us io n i s a qu es ti on of f

actth atwe rev ie w forcle ar err or . Id
. W e h av e n ot ed th atth e requi rem en t o f pr iv it y

is “pa rti cu la rly im

po rta ntwher e th e p art y

inth e se co nd 5act io n i s a g ov ern m en ta l ag en cy rep os edwith i nd ep en de ntst atut ory po wer t o en fo rce t he law an d h av in g i nd ep en de ntin te res ts no t s ha redby a pri va te pa rty.” Id
. Co ng res s v es te d t he Gene ral Co un se l wi th th e in de pe nd en t au th or it y to en fo rce t he NLRA. Se e 29 U.S.C. § 1 53 (d ). Sim il arl y , sec ti on 10 (a) o f th e NLRA st at es th atth e NLRB’s au th or it y to pre ve ntun fai r labo r pr act ic es “ sh al l n otbe affe ct edby any

ot he r m ean s o f ad

jus tm en t o r pr ev en ti on th atha s b eenor m ay be es tabl is he d b y

ag reem en t, l aw or

ot he rwis e . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 16 0( a). Fu rth er, the NLRB h as in de pe nd en t i nt eres ts —wh il e Bi an ch i’s i nt eres t i s i n s eek in g rei ns ta te m en t an d d am ag es for th e p ers on al ha rm

res ul ti ng fro m

hi s d is ch arg e, th e NLRB rep res en ts th e “publ ic [’s] int eres t i n e ffec tu at in g t he po li ci es of t he fed eral labo r la ws, n otth e wro ng do ne th e in di vi du al em pl oyee” wh en“ fas hi on in g u nf ai r labo r pr act ic e rem ed ie s.” Vac a v . Si pe s , 38 6 U.S. 1 71 , 18 2 n .8 (1 96 7) . To pu t i t an ot he r way , th e NLRB’s in te res t i s i n p ro te ct in g t he work fo rce a s a wh ol e b y pu rs ui ng rem ed ie s t ha t wi ll de te r fu tu re u nf ai r labo r pr act ic es . Whe th er tho se rem ed ie s wo ul d fu ll y

redres s B ia nc hi ’s in di vi du al in juri es is irr el ev an t i n t hi s ca se . Thu s, we co nc lu de th atth e Gen eral Co un se l o f th e NLRB an d B ia nc hi were n otin pr iv it y forpu rp os es of i nv ok in g i ss ue pre cl us io n. Se e Pemco , 38 3 F .3d12 80 at 12 83 (ho ld in g t ha t t he di stric t co urt erredby app lying is su e p recl us io n a ga in stth e 6EEOC where em pl oyer ha d p rev ai le d i n asep arat e la wsu itbro ug htby a nu m be r of in di vi du al pl ai nt iff

s al le gi ng raci al ha ras sm en t). Nex t, we co ns id er the reco rdas awho le to de te rm in e whe th er s ub st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rts th e NLRB’s co nc lu si on th atth e u ni on bre ach edit s DFR to ward s B ia nc hi , des pi te a un io n a rb it rat io n d eci si on to th e co nt rary. Not withs ta nd in g B ia nc hi ’s st at em en t atth e en d o f th e arb it rat io n h eari ng th athe be li ev edMarrha d re pr es en te d h im “pr op erl y

an d fu ll y ,” th e NLRB co nc lu de d t ha t Marr ha d “ al lo wedhi s p ers on al an im os it y to ward s B ianc hi to un de rm in e h is de fen se of B ia nc hi ’s gri ev an ce . . . .” The NLRB fu rth er s ta te d t ha t “ th e rec or d de m on st rat es th atMarract edinba d fa ith . . . by del ib erat el y m is le ad in g t he [arb itrat io n c ]om

m it te e ab ou t cruc ia l m at te rs . . . .”

“ A bre ach of t he st atut ory du ty of fai r rep res en ta ti on oc cu rs on ly whe n a un io n’s co nduc t t owa rda m em be r of th e co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng un itis arb it rary, di sc riminat ory , or i n b adfai th .” Vac a , 38 6 U.S. at19 0. Th e b ur de n t o e st ab li sh a br each of DFRis “ a subs ta nt ia l o ne .” Har ris v. S ch werman Tru cki ng

Co
. , 66 8 F.2 d 1 20 4, 1 20 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2) (qu ot in g a no th er s ou rce) . Furt he r, m ere ne gl ig en ce i s n ev er s uf

fic ie ntto su st ai n acla im

forbre ach of t he DFR. Parker s v. Co nn or s Ste el Co
. , 85 5 F .2d15 10 , 15 21 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). Nor ar e si m pl e m is ta ke s o f jud gm en t dur in g t he rep res en ta ti on . Har ris , 66 8 F .2dat 1 20 6. In 7Sp ie lb er

g Ma nu fa ct ur in g C

o. , 11 2 NLRB 10 80 , 10 82 (19 55 ), th e NLRB ex pl ai ne d th atde fere nc e to anarb itrat io n d eci si on is warran te d o nl y wher e “ th e p ro ceed in gs ap pe ar t o h av e b een fai r an d re gu la r, al l p art ie s h adag reedto be bo un d, an d t he de ci si on of t he arb it rat io n p an el is no t cl earl y rep ug nantto th e p ur

po se s an d po li ces of t he [NLRA]. ” The NLRB ha s re fu se d t o d eferto anarb it rat io n wh ere i t fo un d abre ach of t he DFR, a co nf li ctof i nt eres t, o r ho st il it y be twee n t he un io n an d g rie va nt s. Se e Tu ba ri Ltd
. , In c. , 28 7 NLRB 12 73 , 12 73 –7 4 & n.4 (19 88 ). Here, s ub st an ti al ev id en ce i n t he reco rdsupp orts th e NLRB’s co nc lu si on th atMarr ’s rep res en ta ti onof B ia nc hi was i n b adfai th . The NLRB fo un d t ha t Bi an ch i fa il edto di sc lo se ex cu lp at ory in fo rm at io n t ha t wo ul d h av e ai de d B ia nc hi an d t ha t M arr p ur

po se fu ll y pe rs ua de d t he arb it rat io n c omm it te e th atBia nc hi be li ev edDani el s’s i nju ry was n otwork -rel at edbu t en co ur ag edhi m to fil e itas su ch anyway . After c aref ul rev ie w of t he reco rdan d h av in g h eardora l ar gu m en t on th e m at te r, we ho ldth atsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e NLRB’s co nc lu si on th atth e uni on bre ach edit s DFR to ward s B ia nc hi in vi ol at io n o f se ct io n 8 (b )(1 )(A) of th e NLRA. Thu s, t he NLRB di d n oterr b y refu si ng to de fer t o t he arb it rat io n co m m it te e’s de ci si on . Andfin al ly, we co ns id er the reco rdas awho le to de te rm in e whe th er subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e NLRB’s fi nd in g tha t Ro adway vi ol at edsec ti on 88( a)(1 ) of

th e NRLA, § 1 58 (a)( 1) , by di sc harg in g B ia nc hi . The ALJ fo un d t ha t Ro adway be li ev edth atBia nc hi kn owi ng ly hel pe d Dan ie ls fil e a fraudul en t work- in jury repo rt. Th e ALJ al so fou ndth atBia nc hi be li ev edth atrep ort t o b e tru th fu l an d t he refo re h adno t en ga ge d i n m is co nduc t i n t he co ur se of h is pro te ct ed un io n- st ewardact iv it ie s. Ag reei ng with t he ALJ, th e NLRB s ta te d tha t “ [t]he cred it edtes ti m on y

est ab li sh es th atDani el s t ol d B ia nc hi th athe was i njuredat work.” Thu s, t he NLRB co nc lu de d t ha t Bi an ch i was act in g wi th in th e sc op e o f hi s pr ot ect edun io n- st ewardact iv it ie s wh enass is ti ng Dani el s. An em pl oyer’s con du ctvi ol at es sec ti on 8(a )(1 ) of th e NRLA if i t h as a reas on ab le ten de nc y

to in te rfer e wit h e m

pl oyees’ sec ti on7 ri gh t t o “ fo rm , join or as si stlab ororg an iz at io ns .” Id
. § 1 57 ; § 15 8( a)(1 ). The Supr em e Co urt h as sai d th atanem

pl oyer vi ol at es sec ti on 8(a )(1 ) whe re “ th e d is ch arg edem pl oyee was a t th e ti m e en ga ge d i n apro te ct edact iv it y , th atth e em pl oyer kn ew itwas s uc h, t ha t th e b as is of t he di sc ha rg e was anall eg edactof m is co nduc t i n t he co ur se of t ha t act iv ity , andth e em

pl oyee was n ot , infact , gu il ty of th atm is co nduc t.” NLRB v. Burnu p & Si ms, In c. , 37 9 U.S. 2 1, 2 3 (1 96 4) . An em pl oyer act s u nl awfu ll y

by di sc ha rg in g a n e m

pl oyee fo r m is co nduc t ar is in g o utof p ro te ct edact iv it y when itis sh own th atth e m is co nduc t n ev er o ccu rred , des pi te th e em pl oyer’s ho ne stbe li ef th atitdi d. Id
. at23 . 9W e co nc lu de th atsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce i n t he reco rdco ns id eredas awho le

supp orts th e NLRB’s co nc lu si on . Desp it e Ro adway ’s ho ne stbe li ef tha t Bi an ch i ha d e ng ag edin m is co nduc t, i t v io la te d s ect io n 8 by dis ch arg in g h im on th e b as is of pro te ct edun io n- st ewardact iv it ie s. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we d en y Ro adway ’s andth e u ni on ’s pet it io ns for rev ie w anden fo rce i n fu ll th e o rd er o f th e NLRB. PETI TI ON FOR REVIE W DENI ED, CROSS-APPLI CATIO N FOR ENFORCEMENT GRANTED.

10