1

0 8

- 3 8 2 2

- a g ( L) , 0 8

- 4 3 3 6

- a g ( XA P) S ne l l Is l an d SN F L L C v. N ati on al L ab or R elati on s B oa rd UN ITED STA

TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT Aug us t T er m 2 008 (A rgue d: Apr

il 1 5, 2 009 Dec id ed: J un e 17 , 20 09)

Docket Nos. 08-3822-ag (L), 08-4336-ag (XAP) S NE LL I S L A ND SNF LL C, d/ b/ a S HORE A C RE S R EH A B I L I T A T I ON A ND N UR S I NG C ENT ER , LLC, and HGOP, LL C, d /b /a C AMB R I DGE Q UA L I T Y C ARE , LL C,

Petitioners-Cro ss-Respondents,
-v .- N AT I O NAL L

AB O R R E LA TIO N S B O ARD , Responden t-Cross-Petitio ner

. B ef or e: W I NT ER , C AB R ANES , and S ACK , Circuit Jud ges . Pe ti ti on er s —t

wo c om panies who s e em pl oye es hadr ecen tly vo te d t o j oi n a l abo r unio n— s eek
r evi ew o f a n o r der

of th e Na ti on al L abo r

Relat io ns B oar d ( “N LRB ” or

th e “B oar d”) , which
con clu dedth at p et

it io ner s hadvio lat ed v ar

io us pr ov is io ns of th e Na ti on al L abo r

Relat io ns Act , 29 U.S .C. § 151 et

seq. (the “Act”), by

refus ing to recogniz e and ba rgain with the Unite d Food and C om me rc ia l W ork er s Un io n, Loc a l 1 62 5. The Boa rd h a d p re vi ou sly ce rti fie d a vo te by

pe ti ti on er s’ emp lo yees infa

vo r of unio n r epr es ent ati on . P et it io ner s argue th at, ineachin s tan ce, the B oar d act ed th r ough a n u nl awf

ully co ns ti tu te d p anel

of on ly t wo m emb er s , b ecau s e the A ct r equ ir es th at p anel s of th e B oar d co nt aina mi ni mu m o f thr ee m emb er s , wi thtw o m emb er s nec es s ary f or a qu or um . We ho ldth at the p anel

inthis cas e was a lawf

ully co nv ene d p anel

of th r ee m emb er s , an d that

th e pan el continued to operate in a ccordanc e with the A ct after one of its members cea sed to s erve on the B oar d, bec aus e ther e r emain ed a q uo r um of tw o m emb er s . We al s o h ol d that th e de cis io n b y a regional direc tor of

the NLRB to overr ule petitioners’ objections to the union elec tion without2

ho ldin g a h ear

in g was no t an“ab us e of

di s cr et io n. ” T he p et it io n f or r evi ew is DEN I ED. T he c r os s -a pp lic ati onof th e NLRB fo r

enf or cem ent is GRANTED. C H AR LE S P. R O BERTS , III , (Cl if fo r d H . N els on , J r ., on the brief ), Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LL C, Winston- Sale m, NC, andAt

lan ta, GA, for Petitio ners-Cross-Respondents
. RUT H E. B URDI CK , At to r ney (Ro nal d M eis bu rg, G ene r al Cou ns el, J oh n E. Hi ggi ns , J r ., D epu ty Gen er al Cou ns el, J oh n H . F ergus on , As s oci ate Gen er al Cou ns el, Li nd a Dr eeb en, Dep ut y As s oci ate Gen er al Cou ns el, Rob er t J . En gle har t, Su per vis or y At to r ney , andDav idA. S eid , At to r ney , on the brief ), Nat io nal La bo r Relat io ns B oar d, Was hi ngt on , D .C., for Responden t-Cross-Petitio ner

. J OS É A. C AB R ANES , Circuit Jud ge : We c onsider two questions arising froma la bor disput e adjudi cated be fore a panel of the National Labor R elations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”): (1) whether an adjudi cation bya twomem ber pan el o f the N LRB is per mi tt ed u nd er Sect io n 3 (b ) o f the N ati on al L abo r Relat io ns Act , 29 U.S .C. § 151 et

seq. (the “Act”), w here a third member of the panel w as disqualified beca use his ter m hadexp ir ed an d the t ot al m emb er s hi p o f the N LRB was on ly t wo m emb er s ; an d (

2) whe th er

it was an “a buse of dis cretion” for a regional direc tor of the NLRB to overr ule an e mployer’s objections to

a un io n e le ctio n wit ho ut h ol di ng a he a rin g o r in te rvi ewin g wit ne sses. BAC KGROUND T he f ollo wing f act s ar e no t i n dis pu te . Se e g en er all y Snell I sl and S NF LLC , 35 2 N LRB No . 10 6, at 2-3 (2008). The NLRB is the administrative ag ency of the United States respons ible for overseeing la bo r-un io n e le ctio ns a nd a dj ud ic a ti ng ce rta in type s of l a bo r di spu te s. Itco nsi sts of fiv e m em be rs,
eac h of whom is appointed by the President, with the advic e and c onsent of the Sena te, for a term of fi ve ye ar s . See 29 U .S. C. § 1 53(a) ( pr ov idin g f ur th er th at “ [t ]h e P r es id ent

s hall d es ign ate on e me mb er to serve as Chairman of the Board”). In the or dinary course, the NLRB hears and decide s cases byThe National Labor Re lations Act—whic h is also known as the “Wa gner Act” a fter its 1 s po ns or , Se nat or

Rob er t F . Wagn er

of New Yor k, see T

he Encyclopedia of New York City 123 1 (K enn eth T . J acks oned. , 19 95) —was enac te d an d t oo k ef fe ct in193 5. See ge nerally Lawrence M. Fr ied man , American L aw in th e 20th Cen tury 167-69 (2002) (describing the reception of the Ac t by bu s in es s andlab or

in te r es ts andit s ef

fe ct oncom mer ce an d p ol

it ics inth e Ne w De al, Seco ndWor ld War , an d p os t- war

year s ). T he A ct , whichwas amo ng the f ir s t N ew D eal r egulat

io ns to be u ph eld by the S up r eme Cou r t, se e N LRB v . J o ne s & La ug hli n St eel Co rp. , 30 1 U. S. 1 , 30 (1 937 ) ( “We thi nk it clea r that the National Labor Re lations Act may be construed so as t o operate within the sphere of constitutional authority.”), originally created a three-member Board, with two members nece ss ary fo r a qu or um , see Pub. L. No. 74-198, § 3(a), 49 Sta t. 449, 451 (1935) (“There is hereby crea ted a bo ar d . . . whi ch s hall b e co mp os ed o f thr ee m emb er s . . . .”) ; id. § 3(b) (“A vac ancy in the Board s hall n ot im pai r th e r igh t o f the r emainin g m emb er s to exer cis e all th e po wer s of

th e B oar d, andtw o members of the Board shall, at all time s, constitute a quorum.”). In 1947, Cong ress passed the Labor Management R elations Act, w hich expa nded the membership of the Board t o five and cr eat ed the p anel

s ys te m u s ed t od ay. See

Pu b. L. No . 80 -1 01, §§ 3(a)- (b ), 61 S tat . 13 6, 1 39 ( 194 7) (“Taft- Hartley Ac t” or “Taft- Hartley a mendments”). 3 pan els of th r ee m emb er s inacco r dan ce wi ths ect io n 3 (b ) o f the A ct , whichpr ov id es th at the N LRB is authorized to delega te to any group of three or more members any or all of the powers which it ma y itself exercise. . . . A vaca ncy in the Board shall not impair the right of the remaining membe rs to exercise all of the powers of the Board, and three members of the B oar d s hall, a t all t

im es , co ns ti tu te a qu or um of th e B oar d, exce pt

th at t wo m emb er s s hall constitute a quorum of any group designated pursuant to the fir st s entence hereof. 29 U.S.C . § 153(b). 1 Atthe be gi nn in g o f De ce mb er20 07 , t he NLRB co nsi ste d o f fo ur m em be rs—Wil ma B. Liebman, Peter C. S chaumbe r, Peter N. Kir sanow, and De nnis P. Walsh—whose terms were staggered. One seat w as vaca nt, and the terms of Kir sanow and W alsh were set to expire on Dec emb er

31, 200 7. A nt

ici pat in g that no r epl acem ent

app oi ntmen ts wer e f

or th com in g, an d that

it
wouldlo s e it s th r ee- mem ber qu or um , the B oar d d eleg ate d all o f i ts po wer s to a th r ee- mem ber pan el
con s is ti ng o f L

ieb man , Sc hau mb er , an d K ir s ano w, ef

fe ct ive Dec emb er

28, 200 7. I n r eachin g thi s decision, whic h the Board memorialized in a Decembe r 20, 2007, Minute of Board Action, the Board relied on the pla in langua ge of the Ac t and also
r eli ed o n . . . the M ar ch 4 , 20 03 o pi ni onis s uedby the O ff ice o f L egal

Cou ns el o f the U .S. Dep ar tm ent

of J us ti ce ( OL C) i n r es po ns e t o the B oar d’ s M ay 16 , 20 02 r equ es t f or OL C’s op inio n wh ether

th e B oar d m ay is s ue d ecis io ns du r in g pe r io ds whe n thr ee o r

mo r e of th e f ive seats on the B oard are vac ant. OLC’s opinion concl uded that “if the Board delega ted all ofThe NLRB is authorized by statute “to dele gate to its regional direc tors its powers . . . to 2 determine the unit appropriate for the purpos e of collec tive barga ining, to investigate and provide for hearings, and determine whethe r a question of r epresentation exists, and to direct an ele ction or tak e a s ecr et

ballo t . . . a ndcer ti fy

th e r es ul ts th er eof

. . . .” 2 9 U. S.C. § 15 3(

b) ; see also 29 C. F. R. § 102.69(a) (“Unle ss otherwise directed by the Board, all elec tions s hall be conducted unde r the supervis ion of the Reg

ional Director in whose R egion the proce eding is pending. ”). 4 its powers to a group of thr ee membe rs , that group could continue to issue decisions and or der s as lo ng a s a qu or um of tw o m emb er s r emain ed. ” . .
. OLC’s opinion stands for the proposition that the B oard has the authority to iss ue twomember decisions and orders, but that it is within the Board’s discretion whether or not to exer cis e that

autho r it y. Add end um to J .A. 2 ( “Min ut e of B oar d Ac ti on ,” D ec. 2 0, 2 007 , at 2) ; see also M. Edward W helan, III , Quorum Requirements: Memorandum Opinion for the Solicitor, Nationa l Labor Rela tions B oard 2 (M ar . 4, 200 3) , availa ble at ht tp :/ /ww w.u s do j.g ov /o lc/ 200 3/ nl r b_ qu or um_0 304 200 3.p df (l as t v is it ed June 11, 2009) (on file with C lerk of Court) (“OL C Opinion”). W hen Kirsanow’s term expired on Decembe r 31, the panel c ontinued to operate in the normal c ours e with a two-member quorum
con s is ti ng o f L

ieb manandSch aum ber
. As of th e f ili ng o f thi s op inio n, Li ebm an an d S chau mb er remain the only tw o members of t he Board. Petitioner Snell Island SNF LL C operate s a nurs ing home a nd long-term care facili ty in St. Petersbur g, Florida, ca lled “Shore A cres.” Petitioner HGOP, L LC, provides employee -st affing

s er vic es to th e Sh or e Acr es fa cil it y andother

nu r s in g ho mes , an d h as it s pr in cip al p lace of

bu s in es s in B r oo kly n, New Yor k. Se e S nell I

sl and S NF LLC , 352 NLRB No. 106, at 1. Petitione rs are joint emp lo yer s of

th e em pl oye es of

Sh or e Acr es . OnDec emb er

12, 200 7, a t a r epr es ent ati ve el ect io n h eldun der

th e aus pi ces of

th e NLRB , see 29 U.S.C . § 159, e mployee s at Shore Acres elected U nited Food and Comme rcial W orkers Union, Local 1625 (the “Union”), as their excl usive collec tive-bargaining representative. Petitioners pr om pt ly f ile d wi thth e NLRB thir te en o bj ect io ns to th e ele ct

io n. A r egi on al dir ect or

of th e NL RB
r evi ewedth e ob ject

io ns andr eco mm end ed i n J anu ary 20 08 that th ey b e ov er r ul ed i n thei r ent ir et y. 2Petitioners s tated to the NLRB that “they are refusing to bargain in this case in order to 3 s ecu r e ju di cial

r evi ew o f the c er ti fi cat

io n [of th e unio n el ect

io n] is s uedby the B oar d. ” J .A. 85 (Resp’ts’ Answer to Compl., Feb. 15, 2008 , ¶ 13). See Hal l- Br o o ke Ho sp. v. N

LRB , 64 5 F .2d158 , 15 9 n. 2 ( 2dCir . 19 81) (“ Cer ti fi cat

io n d ecis io ns ar e no t ‘ fi nal or der s ’ u nd er

§§ 10 (e ) an d ( f) of

th e NL RA, and are therefore not judicia lly revie wable . Inst ead, to obtai n judicia l review, aggriev ed employ ers can refuse to bargain with certified representatives, thus subjecting themselves to unfair labor practice proce edings.” (citations omitted)). 5 Petitioners f

iled ex ceptions to the regional direc tor’s recommendation a nd on March 13, 2008, a twomember panel of the Board—consisting of L iebman a nd Schaumbe r—overruled the exceptions and is s uedan u np ub lis hedDec is io n an d Cer ti fi cat io n o f Re pr es ent ati

ve. Footnote 1 to that decision

ex pl a in ed the nu mb era nd sel ec ti on of t he pa ne l m em be rs: Effective midnig ht December 28, 20 07, Members Liebman, Schaumbe r, Kirs anow, a nd Wa lsh delega ted to Members Liebman, Sc haumber, and Kirsanow, a s a three-member group, all of the Board’s powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir sanow and W alsh on Decembe r 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delega tion, Members L iebman a nd Schaumbe r constitute a quorum of the three-member group. As a quorum , they ha ve the autho r it y t o i s s ue d ecis io ns andor der s inun fair lab or pr act ice a ndr epr es ent ati oncas es . See Sec. 3 (b) of the Ac t. J .A. 71. Following the March 13 De cision and C ertification, petitioners refus ed to recogniz e and bargain with the Union. On May 16, 2008 , the Union filed a n unfair labor practice c laim wi th the 3 NLRB, which wa s r eferred to the regional director and ultimate ly adj udicate d by the same twomem ber pan el o f the B oar d. OnJ uly 18 , 20 08, th e t wo- mem ber

pan el i s s ueda De cis io n an d O r der concluding

that petitioners had engag ed in unfair labor practice s by refus ing to negotia te with the Unio n an d o r der

in g pe ti ti on er s to mee t w

ith the U ni on . Se e S nell I

sl and S NF LLC , 352 NLRB No. 106 , at 2- 3. T he J uly 18 Dec is io n an d O r der con tai neda f

oo tn ot e s ub s tan ti ally s im ila r to fo otno te 1 in the March 13 Deci sion and Order but indicating that President B ush had, in the interim, designated Sc haumber as Cha irman. This appea l followed. Before this Court, petitioners argue principa lly that the July 18 a nd M ar ch 1 3 D ecis io ns andOr der s wer e no t i s s uedby a p r op erly co ns ti tu te d p anel of th e NLRB6

beca use only two Board members part icipa ted in the adjudi cation. In the al ternative, petitione rs contend that the NLRB abused its discretion with res pect to two of petitioners’ thir teen objec tions to the union ele ction, whic h objections petitioners argue should not have bee n overruled without interviewing

witnesses or

conducting a n evidentia ry hearing. The NLRB has filed a cross- applic ation for enfor cement of its July 18 Decision and Order. DISCUSSI ON I. J urisdict ion We hav e ju r

is di ct io n t o r evi ew f

in al o r der s of

th e NLRB pu r s uan t t o s ect io n 1 0( f) of

th e Act
. See 29 U .S. C. § 1 60( f) (“ Any

per s onaggr

iev ed b y a f

in al o r der of th e B oar d gr ant

in g or denyin g in whole or in part the relief sought may obtain a review of such order in any United S tates court of app eals inth e cir cui t wher ein th e un fair

lab or pr act ice i n ques ti onwas all egedto hav e be en e ngaged in or wherein such person r esides or transacts bus iness . . . .”). As we have previously expla ined, to obtain judici al revie w of a union’s certification by the Board, an employe r mus t refus e to bargain, pr om pt in g anun fair

lab or pr act ice f in di ng— a f

in al o r der th at w e may r evi ew. Se e N LRB v . A rt hur Sarnow Ca ndy Co. , 40 F.3d 552, 556 n.5 (2d Cir. 1994). A ccordingly , we c onsider in this appea l both th e M ar ch 1 3 D ecis io n an d O r der (c er ti fy in g a u ni onelec ti on

), andth e J uly 18 Dec is io n an d O r der (f in di ng a n u nf

air lab or pr act ice)
. See 29 U .S. C. § 1 59(d) (“ When ever an o r der of th e B oar d . . . i s based in whole or in part upon facts certif ied following

an inve stigation [of a union elec tion] and there is a petition for the enfor cement or reviewof such or der, such certification and the rec ord of

s uchinves tigat

io n s hall b e in clu dedinth e t r ans cr ip t o f the e nt

ir e r eco r d . . . a ndth er eup onth e de cr ee of th e co ur t e nf

or cin g, m odif

yin g, o r s et ti ng a s id e inwho le o r

inpar t o f the o r der

of th e B oar d s hall be made and entered upon the pl eading s, test imony, and proce edings set for th in such tr anscript.”). II. Quorum Requi rement Petitioners contend that the NLRB is sued its M arch 13 a nd July 18 Decisions and Orders witho ut s tatut or y autho r it y be caus e only t

wo B oar d m emb er s par ti cip ate d i n tho s e adj udicat io ns .7

Ac co rdi ng

to p etitio ne rs, se ctio n 3 (b) of t he Ac t re qu ire s tha t a pa ne l o f th e Bo a rd c on sistof a t l ea st three members. Petitioners acknowledge that once a three-member panel is duly constituted, the panel ma y continue i f one member should become unav aila ble so long as there remains a quorum of
tw o m emb er s . H owe ver , p et it io ner s argue th at the N LRB nev er ef fe ct ive ly co ns ti tu te d a thr eemember panel i n this case beca use “[t]here never was any intent that th[e] three-member group [co ns is ti ng o f L

ieb man , Sc hau mb er , an d K ir s ano w] w ouldactually i s s ue d ecis io ns andor der s .” Petitioners’ B r. at 19. Inst ead, be cause “Kirsanow’s term was set to expire in three days, . . . the B oar d knew

he w ouldno t b e ar ou ndto exer cis e the p owe r s bei ng d eleg ate d. ” Id
. T her ef or e, pet it io ner s con clu de that

th e De cem ber

28, 200 7, d eleg ati onof

all po wer s to th e thr ee- mem ber pan el of Liebman, Scha umber, and Kirsanow wa s “an ack nowledg ed sh am .” Id
. (emphasis added). A. S ta nd ar d o f R evi ew Petitioners argue that our r eviewof the NLRB’s “power or jurisdiction” is “plenary and de
no vo .” P et

it io ner s ’ B r . at

14 ( cit in g Rail ro ad Yar dmas te rs o f A mer ic a v. H arr is , 72 1 F .2d133 2, 1 338 (D.C. C ir. 1983)). We note tha t the cited passage of Ra ilroad Ya rdma sters does not discus s a standard of review at a ll; instead, it discusses whether a que stion r ega rding an ag ency ’s “power or juris diction” th at w as no t r ais ed i n anadm inis tr ati ve p r oce edi ng w as waiv ed i n a co ur t p r oce edi ng, 721 F. 2dat 133 8. I n any eve nt , Ra ilroad Ya rdma sters was deci ded before the Supreme C ourt’s landmark dec ision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natura l Res. Def. C ouncil, Inc. , 467 U.S. 8 37 (1984), whic h established a twos te p p r oce s s fo r

r evi ewing s tatut es th at g ov er n f ede r al ag enc ies . O ur

Cou r t h as r ecen tly exp lai ned th e Che v ro n sta nd a rd o f re vi ewa s fol lo ws: At s te p o ne, we co ns id er

whe th er Con gr es s has di r ect

ly s po kento th e pr ecis e qu es ti onat is s ue. I f the i nt ent

of Con gr es s is clea r , that

is th e en d o f the m att er ; f or th e co ur t, as well

as th e agen cy, m us t g

ive ef fe ct to th e un amb igu ou s ly ex pr es s ed i nt ent of Con gr es s . T o as cer tai n Congress’s int ent, we be gin with the statutory text because if its langua ge is unambiguous, no fu r th er in quir y is nec es s ary. O nly if

we d et er mi ne that

Con gr es s has no t dir ect

ly ad dr es s ed th e pr ecis e qu es ti onat i s s ue w ill we tur n t o can on s of

con s truct io n an d, if th at i s unsuccessf

ul, to legislative histor

y to see if those interpr etative c lues permit us to identify Con gr es s ’s clea r

in te nt .Evenbef or e Chevron

was deci ded, the Supreme C ourt affor ded deferentialtreatment to the 4 NL RB ’s in te r pr et ati onof

th e s cop e of

it s po wer s un der

th e Act
. See NLRB v. City Disposal Sys., Inc. , 8 If, despit e these efforts , we still ca nnot conclude tha t Congress has dir ectly a ddress ed the precise question at iss ue, we will procee d to Che v ro n step two, which instructs us to defer t o an ag enc y’s in te r pr et ati onof th e s tatut e it

adm inis te r s , s o l on g as it

is r eas on abl e. N. Y. S tat e O ffi ce o f Chi ldr en & F amil y Se rv s. v. U. S. De

p’t o f H eal th & H uman S er v s. Admi n. f o r Ch ild re n & Famili es , 55 6 F .3d90, 97 (

2dCir . 20 09) (c it ati on s andin te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks om it te d) . We ap ply the two-pronged Chevron

analys is evenwhe r e, as her e, the ques ti onpr es ent ed i nv ol ves an ag enc y’s ju r is di ct io n o r po wer to act . Se e M

is s. Po we r & Li

gh t Co . v . M is si ss ippi , 48 7 U. S. 3 54, 380 -8 1 ( 198 8) (S cali a, J ., c on cur r

in g) (c ollect

in g cas es andno ti ng that

“it is s et tl ed l aw that

th e r ul e of

def er enc e app lie s evento an ag enc y’s in te r pr et ati onof it s owns tatut or

y autho r it y or ju r is di ct io n”) ; Comm odity Futures Tr adi ng Comm ’n v. Schor

, 478 U.S. 8 33, 845 (1986) (“[T]he Court of Appeal s was incorrect to state on the facts of this case that the [age ncy’s] expertise was not deserving of deference be cause of th e ‘s tatut or

y in te r pr et ati on -j ur

is di ct io nal ’ n atu r e of

th e qu es ti onat i s s ue. An ag enc y’s exp er ti s e is

s up er io r to th at o f acou r t whena di s pu te cen te r s onwhe th er a par ti cul ar

r egulat io n i s r eas on ably
nece ss ary to effectuate a ny of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act the age ncy is cha rged with enforcing; the a gency ’s pos ition, in such circumstances, is therefor e due

s ub s tan ti al d ef

er enc e.” (c it ati onandin te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks om it te d) ); Mathiram puz ha v. Potter , 54 8 F. 3d70, 82 (

2dCir . 20 08) (“ [W] e de fe r to agen cies ’ r eas on abl e in te r pr et ati on s of amb igu ou s lan guage inth e s tatut es th ey ad mi ni s te r , in clu di ng the s cop e of th os e s tatut es andth e t

ype s of clai ms th ey
cov er .” ( cit

in g Chevron , 46 7 U. S. a t 8 44) ); Nut ri ti o nal H eal th A lli anc e v . F DA , 318 F.3d 92, 97 (2d C ir. 2003) (“Whe n an admini str ative a gency assert s juris diction to regulate a particular subject matter of public conc ern based on its construction of a statute that it administer s, our analysis is governed by Chevron
. . . .” ( fo otno te om it te d) ); Connecticut ex rel. Blum enthal v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior

, 22 8 F .3d82, 93 (2d Cir. 2000) (rejec ting an a rgument that “ Chevron de fe re nc e i s in a pp rop ria te . . . b ec a use le ss deference i s owed to agenc y determinations that expa nd an ag ency ’s juris diction”). 446 5 U .S . 8 22 , 8 30 n. 7 ( 19 84 ) (“ R esp on de nt a rgu es t ha t be ca use the sco pe of t he ‘c on ce rte d a ctiv itie s’ clau s e inSect

io n 7 [o f the A ct

] i s es s ent ially a jur isdic ti o nal o r l eg al qu es ti o n conce rning the coverag e of th e Act , we n eedno t d ef

er to th e exp er ti s e of

th e B oar d. We hav e ne ver , h owe ver , h eldth at s uch an ex cep ti onexi s ts to th e no r mal s tan dar d o f r evi ew o f B oar d i nt erpr et ati on s of th e Act ; in dee d, we hav e no t h es it ate d t o d ef

er to th e B oar d’ s in te r pr et ati onof th e Act inth e co nt ext

of is s ues s ub s tan ti ally s im ila r

to th at p r es ent ed h er e.” (e mp has is add ed; cit ati onandin te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks omitted)). 9 B. Other Cir cuits Ours is not the only court to consider the question of the NLRB’s quorum r equirement. The Unit ed S tat es Cou r t o f A pp eals fo r th e F ir s t Ci r cui t r ecen tly co nf r on te d the s ame qu es ti onin No rt he ast er n Land S er v s. , Lt d. v . N LRB , __ F.3d __, No. 08-1878, 2009 U.S. App. LE XIS 5267 (1st Cir. M ar . 13 , 20 09) , an d co ncl ud ed that “[ t] he B oar d’ s del egat

io n o f i ts in s ti tu ti on al p owe r to a pan el that ul ti mat ely c on s is te d o f atw o- mem ber qu or um bec aus e of

a vaca ncy was lawf ul un der th e pl ainte xt of s ect io n 3 (b ), ” id. at * 12- 13. Af te r r evi ewing the t ext

of s ect io n 3 (b ) o f the A ct , the F ir s t Ci r cui t reasoned that Fi r s t, s ect io n 3 (b ) allo wedth e B oar d t o d eleg ate all of it s po wer s to a th r ee- mem ber gr ou p. Second, the statute s tates that “[a] vac ancy in the Board shall not impair the right of the remaining membe rs to exercise all of the powers of the Board.” The vaca ncy, w hich left the two-member quorum r emaining , may not, unde r the terms of section 3(b), impair the right of the two-member quorum to exercise all powe rs of the Board. Id
. a t * 13 (qu oti ng

29 U. S. C . § 15 3(b)) (se co nd a lt er a ti on in ori gi na l) . Th e F irstC irc ui t a lso ackn owl edg ed that

th e OL C Op inio n r eco mm end ed the s ame r es ul t, andpo s it ed that “an y other gen er al r ul e wo ul d i mp os e an u nd ue b ur denonth e adminis tr ati ve p r oce s s .” Id

. (internal quotation
mar ks andalt er ati onom it te d) . F in ally, the F ir s t Ci r cui t r eco gni zedth at “ cou r ts hav e up hel d anal ogo us app r oach es by o th er adm inis tr ati

ve ag enc ies ,” i ncl udin g the S ecu r it ies andExch ang e Commission and the National Media tion Board, s eeking to continue to operate whe n confronting
vacan cies
. Id

. at *15 (col lecting c ases). After the instant case was argued, two othe r courts of appeal s is sued relevant dec isions. I n New Pro ce ss St eel, L. P. v. N

LRB , _ _ F .3d
__ , N o. 08- 351 7, 2 009 U.S . Ap p. LE XI S 94 40 ( 7th Ci r . M ayAs the Seventh C ircuit explai ned, the membe rs hip of the Board was ultimately expa nded to 5 five members, rather than seven, as the Senate bill proposed: The Ho use ve rsio n c re a te d a La bo r-Ma na ge me nt R el a ti on s Boa rd o f th re e m em be rs w ho se sole duty was to decide cases. H.R. R ep. No. 80-245, a t 25 (1947). The Senate v ersion expande d the size of the NLRB fr om three members to s even but inc luded the del ega tion andqu or um pr ov

is io ns . S. Rep. [N o. ] 8 0- 105 , at 19 ( 194 7) . T he e ven tu al b ill , which exp and ed the N LRB to fi

ve m emb er s , was a com pr om is e be tw eenth e t wo v er s io ns . New Pro cess Ste el

, 20 09 U .S. App . L EXI S 94 40, at * 16. 10 1, 2 009 ), th e Unit ed S tat es Cou r t o f A pp eals fo r th e Sev enth Ci r cui t c on clu dedth at atw o- mem ber panel of the NLRB—the same pane l that adjudic ated the instant ca se—“had authority to hea r the lab or di s pu te ,” id. at *21. In the Se venth Circuit’s view , the “pla in meaning ” of section 3(b) of the Act “s up po r ts th e NLRB ’s del egat io n p r oce du r e”: [T]he vacanc y of one member of a three[-]member panel doe s not impede the right of the r emainin g t

wo m emb er s to exec ut e the f ull d eleg ate d p owe r s of

th e NLRB . As th e NL RB deleg ated its full powers to a group of three Board members, the two remaining Board mem ber s can p r oce ed as a qu or um des pi te th e s ub s equ ent vacan cy. Id
. at * 12. Having c oncluded tha t the two-member panel ha d jurisdiction under the “plain mea ning” of th e Act , the S even thCir cui t n on ethel es s com men te d o n i ts leg is lat ive hi s to ry. Se e i

d. at * 15 ( “Whe n the plain me aning of a statute is unambiguous, we ne ed not consider a statute’s legislative history or anal ogo us cas es inor der

to in te r pr et

it . H owe ver , we als o t ake t im e t o n ot e that

th e leg is lat ive hi s to ry be hi nd§ 3(

b) do es no t s up po r t N ew P r oce s s ’ r eadi ng o f the s tatut e.” (c it ati onom it te d) ). Sp ecif ically, th e co ur t dis cus s ed the his to ry of th e T af t- Har tl ey am end men ts of

194 7, whi ch e xp and ed th e NLRB ’s mem ber s hi p f r om th r ee t o f

ive
. Se e i d. at * 16- 17 ( cit

in g, int er ali a , S. Rep. No . 80 -1 05, at 8 (1947) (“There is no f

ield in w hich time is more important, yet the Board is f rom 12 to 18 months behin d i n i ts do cket
. . . . T he e xp ans io n o f the B oar d f r om th r ee t o s evenmem ber s , whi ch thi s bill 5 propos es, would permit it to operate in pane ls of three, thereby inc reasing by 100 pe rcent its ability to di s po s e of cas es exp edi ti ou s ly i n the f in al s tag e . . . .”), re

pri nte d in 1 N LRB , Leg

is lat ive H is to ry o f t he11

Labo r M anag eme nt Relat io ns Ac t, 194 7 , at 407, 414 (1948 ) (hereinafter “ Leg. Hist. ”)). In the Seventh Circuit’s view, “[t]he purpose of the [Taft-Hart ley] revisions . . . was to allowthe NLRB to hear more
cas es by c r eat

in g pa nel s of

th e en ti r e B oar d. ” New Pro cess Ste el , 20 09 U .S. App . L EXI S 94 40, at * 17 (e mp has is add ed) ; acc

o rd H all -B ro o ke Ho sp. v. N

LRB , 645 F.2d 158, 16 2 n.6 (2d Cir. 1981 ) (“Section 3(b) of the NL RA a uthorizes the Board ‘t o deleg ate to any group of thr ee or more members any or all of th e po wer s whi ch i t m ay it s elf exer cis e.’ Con gr es s add ed thi s pr ov is io n t o the N LRAto enab le the Board to handle an inc reasing caseloa d more efficiently.” (c itation omitted)). In light of the legislative histor

y of the Taft-Hart

ley a mendments, the Seventh C ircuit conclude d that “a c ourt in te r pr et in g the s tatut e [t o r es tr

ict th e NLRB fr om act

in g wh en i ts mem ber s hi p f all s bel ow a c er tai n lev el] wouldhi nd er

th e ef fi cien t p anel

op er ati onth at Co ngr es s in te nd ed t o cr eat e.” New Pro cess Ste el , 200 9 U. S. A pp . L EXI S 94 40, at * 17. On the same day tha t the Seventh C ircuit decide d New Pro cess Ste el , the United State s Court of Appea ls for

the Distr ict of Columbia Circuit (“D.C . Circuit”) reac hed a different concl usion in La urel Ba y e H eal thc are o f Lak e Lan ie r, In c. v. N

LRB , _ _ F .3d
__ , N o. 08- 121 4, 2 009 U.S . Ap p. LE XI S 94 19 (D .C. Ci r . M ay 1, 200 9) . Relyin g pr in cip ally onth e “at

all ti mes ” r equ

ir eme nt fo r B oar d quo r um , see 29 U.S.C . § 153(b) (“A va canc y in the Board shall not impair the right of the remaining members to
exer cis e all

of th e po wer s of

th e B oar d, andth r ee m emb er s of th e B oar d s hall, at al

l times, co ns ti tu te a qu or um of

th e B oar d, exce pt

th at t wo m emb er s s hall co ns ti tu te a qu or um of any g r ou p d es ign ate d pu r s uan t t o the f

ir s t s ent enc e he r eof

.” ( emp has is add ed) ), th e D. C. Cir cui t c on clu dedth at “ a th r ee- mem ber

B oar d m ay de leg ate it s po wer s to a th r ee- mem ber gr ou p, andthis del egee gr ou p m ay act with t wo m emb er s s o l on g as th e B oar d quo r um r equ ir eme nt is , ‘a t all t im es ,’ s ati s fi ed. ” La urel Baye Healthcare , 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9419, at *9. In the D.C . Circuit’s view , whene ver the Board loses jur isdiction beca use of a loss of quorum, s o too do any pa nels of the Board los e jurisdiction,
r egar dl es s of

whe th er th e pan els r et aina qu or um . The D. C . C irc ui t c on sid er ed a nd re je ct ed the NLRB’s a rgu me nt t ha t th e “ ex ce pt t ha t” cl a use12

was an ex cep ti onto th e “at all ti mes ” r equ

ir eme nt . See 29 U.S.C . § 153(b) (“[T]hree members of the B oar d s hall, at al

l times, co ns ti tu te a qu or um of th e B oar d, except that tw o m emb er s s hall co ns ti tu te a quorum of any group designated pursuant to the fir st s entence hereof.” (emphases added)). In the D. C. Cir cui t’ s vie w, “ Con gr es s ’s us e of di ff er in g ob ject no un s [‘ qu or um of

th e B oar d’ v er

su s ‘quorum of any g r ou p’] wi thinth e t

wo q uo r um pr ov

is io ns in di cat es clea rly that eachqu or um pr ov

is io n i s in dep end ent

fr om th e other .” La urel Baye Healthcare , 20 09 U .S. App . L EXI S 94 19, at * 10. Acc ordingly, the D.C . Circuit conc luded that “[t]he del egee group quorum pr ovision does not eli mi nat e [the B oar d’ s qu or um ] r equ ir eme nt ,” id. at *11, nor does it permit the two-member panel to “ci r cumven t the s tatut or

y B oar d quo r um r equ

ir eme nt ,” id. at * 9. The D.C. C ircuit did not discuss the legislative histor y of the Taft-Hart

ley a mendments, but instead include d a discussion of age ncy law (meaning

“principal-a gent” law, not the lawof administrative age ncies), which—i n that court’s view—applie d to the delega tion of full powers f rom a bo ar d t o a co mm it te e or s ub gr ou p o f abo ar d. Acco r di ng t o the D .C. Ci r cui t, “anagen t’ s del egat ed authority terminates when the powe rs belonging to the entity that bestowed the a uthority are

s us pen ded .” Id

. at * 11 ( cit

in g the Re s tat eme nt

(T hi r d) of

Agen cy § 3 .07 (4

) ( 200 6) (“ Whena pr

in cip al that is not an individual c eases to exist or commences a process that will l ead to ce ss ation of its exi s te nce or

whe n i ts po wer s ar e s us pen ded , the ag ent ’s actual autho r it y t er mi nat es exce pt

as pr ov id ed b y law .”) ). B ecau s e “the d eleg ee co mm it te e do es no t ac t o n i ts ownbeh alf [,] [ bu t o n]
. . . th at o f the B oar d, ” wh er e a B oar d l os es it s autho r it y, s o d o i ts com mi tt ees . La urel Baye Healthcare , 200 9 U. S. A pp . L EXI S 94 19, at * 12. To s ummarize, one of our s ister circuits —the Seve nth Circuit—has upheld a decision by the two-member NLRB panel based on the “pla in meaning ” of section 3(b) of the Ac t, noting that its interpretation comports with the leg islative history of r eleva nt amendments to the Act, without di s cus s in g pr

in cip les of agen cy ( i.e
. pr

in cip al- agen t) law. New Pro cess Ste el , 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9440, a t *11-12. Another of our s ister circuits —the D.C. C ircuit—has overturned a decision by the13

same two-member panel ba sed on the plain la nguage of section 3(b) of the Act, noting tha t its interpretation comports with applic able princi ples of agency law, but without discuss ing the app lic abl e leg

is lat ive hi s to ry. See Laurel Baye Healthcare , 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9419, at *9. A third sis ter circuit—the Firs t Circuit—has conclude d that the “plai n text” of the Act authorize d the decisions by the same two-member panel , without discuss ing either the le gislative history of the

s tatut e or r elev ant pr in cip les of agen cy la w. Northeastern Land

Servs
. , 20 09 U .S. App . L EXI S 52 67, at *13
. The question r ega rding the jurisdiction of the NLRB’s two-member panel is one ultimately to be resolved by the Supreme C ourt. I n the meantime, we must make a determination in the present

cas e. C. T he N LRB P an el Was D ul y Co ns ti tu te d i n t he F ir stIns ta nc e We first consider petitioner’s argument that the NLRB panel w as not duly constituted in the fi r s t i ns tan ce b ecau s e the d eleg ati onto a pan el p lenip ot ent iar y was a “s ham ,” P et

it io ner s ’ B r . at

19, andbeg inou r analys is with the s tatut e it s elf , as ou r s is te r cir cui ts hav e do ne. Sect

io n 3 (b ) o f the A ct pr ov id es th at the N LRB is authorized to delega te to any group of three or more members any or all of the powers which it ma y itself exercise. . . . A vaca ncy in the Board shall not impair the right of the remaining membe rs to exercise all of the powers of the Board, and three members of the B oar d s hall, a t all t

im es , co ns ti tu te a qu or um of th e B oar d, exce pt

th at t wo m emb er s s hall constitute a quorum of any group designated pursuant to the fir st s entence hereof. 29 U .S. C. § 1 53(

b)
. Her e, we agr ee wi thth e F ir s t Ci r cui t that , inlig ht of th e t ext of th e s tatut e, whichexp r es s ly authorizes the NLRB “to delega te to any group of three or more members any or all of the powers whi ch i t m ay it s elf

exer cis e,” id. , the d eleg ati onto a pan el p lenip ot ent iar y was withi n the N LRB ’s
autho r it y. See No rtheastern La nd Servs. , 20 09 U .S. App . L EXI S 52 67, at * 13 ( “[ S] ect io n 3 (b ) allo wed the Board to delegate a ll of its powers to a three-member group.”). That the NLRB knew that the14

mem ber s hi p o f the p anel

woulds oo n b e r edu cedfr om th r ee t o t wo— andth at B oar d’ s mem ber s hi p would al so decrease to two—has no bearing on the fac t that the panel w as lawfully constituted in the fi r s t i ns tan ce. Petitioners argue that Northeastern Land Service s is un per s uas ive bec aus e the F ir s t Ci r cui t did
no t dis cus s inth at d ecis io n the r elev ance of 28 U .S. C. § 4 6, whi ch s et s th e r equ ir eme nt s fo r

s er vic e
ona th r ee- mem ber

pan el o f afe der al co ur t o f a pp eals
. See Le tt er of Char les P. Rob er ts , I I I , co un s el fo r Sn ell I s lan d, Apr

il 3 , 20 09, at 1 . As pet

it io ner s no te , the S up r eme Cou r t h as in te r pr et ed 2 8 U. S.C. § 46 to “r equ

ir e[ ] th e in clu s io n o f a t l eas t thr ee [ Ar ti cle I I I] j ud ges inth e f

ir s t i ns tan ce,” Nguyen v. United Sta tes

, 53 9 U. S. 6 9, 8 2 (

200 3) , as a pr er equ

is it e t o any val

iddec is io n b y a qu or um , see 28 U .S. C. § 46 (d ). We agr ee wi thpet

it io ner s th at, lik e a thr ee- mem ber pan el o f afe der al co ur t o f a pp eals , a th r ee- mem ber

pan el o f the N LRB mu s t b e duly co ns ti tu te d “i n the f ir s t i ns tan ce,” Nguyen , 53 9 U. S. a t 82 , b ef ore the a ctio n o f a qu oru m o f th e p a ne l i s va li d. In t he in sta nt c a se, we a gre e wit h th e F irst Cir cui t that

th e thr ee- mem ber

pan el o f the N LRB th at t oo k ef fe ct onDec emb er

28, 200 7, w as duly
con s ti tu te d. See No rtheastern La nd Servs. , 20 09 U .S. App . L EXI S 52 67 a t * 12- 13. D. The NLRB Panel Retained JurisdictionWhen the Board Lost Its Quoru m The mo re di ffi cu ltqu estio n i s wh et he r th e N LRB pa ne l l ost i ts a uth ori ty on ce the NLRB a s a whole lost its quor um. As required under Chevron , we c on s id er fi r s t “ ‘wh ether

Con gr es s has di r ect

ly

s po kento th e pr ecis e qu es ti onat i s s ue. ’” N.Y. Sta te Office of Child ren & Fam ily Serv

s. , 55 6 F .3dat 9 7 (quo ti ng Chevron , 46 7 U. S. a t 8 42) . O n thi s po in t, tw o o f o ur s is te r cir cui ts di s agr ee o ver

th e “p lai n
mea ni ng” of

s ect io n 3 (b ) o f the A ct . Comp are New Pro cess Ste el , 20 09 U .S. App . L EXI S 94 40, at * 12 (“As the NLRB delegate d its f ull powers to a group of thr ee Board members, the two remaining Board members can proce ed as a quorum despite the subsequent vacanc y.”) with La urel Baye Healthcare , 20 09 U .S. App . L EXI S 94 19, at * 12 ( “Readin g the t wo quo r um pr ov

is io ns har mo ni ou s ly, th e r es ul t i s clea r : a thr ee- mem ber B oar d m ay de leg ate it s po wer s to a th r ee- mem ber gr ou p, andthis15

del egee gr ou p m ay act

with t wo m emb er s s o l on g as th e B oar d quo r um r equ ir eme nt is , ‘a t all t im es ,’ satisf ied.”). A t the very lea st, this split s uggests that the s tatute is ambiguous regarding the enduring
or res idual pow ers of

an NLRB panel onc e the Board has lost a quorum
. In our view, nothing in the statute itself explains what ha ppens to a duly constituted pan el of th e NLRB whe n the Bo ard itself los es its quorum. Acc ordingly, since the statute is silent on the precise question, “we turn to canons of construction and, if that is unsuccessful, to legislative history
to s ee if th os e in te r pr et ati

ve cl ues per mi t u s to id ent if y Con gr es s ’s clea r

in te nt .” N.Y. Sta te Office of Chi ldren & Fa mily Servs

, 55 6 F .3dat 9 7 (

in te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks om it te d)
. The canons of st atutory constr uction do not shed any lig ht on Congress’s intent in the circumstances presented in the instant case. The D.C. C ircuit, relying on “[a ] cardinal princi ple of in te r pr et ati on. . . th at n o p r ov is io n i s r end er ed i no per ati ve o r s up er fl uo us , vo idor

in s ignif ican t, ” La urel Baye Healthcare , 20 09 U .S. App . L EXI S 94 19, at * 8 ( in te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks om it te d) , h eldth at “the Board quorum r equirement must be satis fied ‘ at al l times,’” id. (q

uo ti ng 2 9 U. S.C. § 15 3(

b) ). We agr ee wi ththis po r ti onof

th e D. C. Cir cui t’ s analys is
. Se e F ill er v. H anv it Ba nk , 37 8 F .3d213 , 22 0 ( 2d Cir . 20 04) (c it

in g wi thapp r ov al Babb itt v. Sweet Ho me Ch apter of Cm tys. for a Great Or. , 51 5 U. S. 6 87, 698 (1995), for the pr oposition that courts should avoid interpretations of s tatutes that “render s tatutory lan guage s urpl us age” ). Ho weve r , the ap pl icat io n o f thi s “car di nal

pr in cip le o f i nt erpr et ati on ” do es not answer the precise question presented here: once the Board has lost its quorum, what happens to a pane l that was duly c onstitut ed before the Board lost it s quor um? T o answer this quest ion, the D. C. Cir cui t r eli ed o n “b as ic t ene ts of agen cy an d co r po r ati onlaw. ” La urel Baye Healthcare , 20 09 U .S. App . L EXI S 94 19, at * 11 ( cit in g, int er ali a , Re statement (T hird) of Agency § 3.07(4) (2006)). In the view of the D.C . Circuit, “[a ]n agent’s dele gated a uthority is . . . deemed to cea se upon the resignation
or te r mi nat io n o f the d eleg ati ng a utho r it y,” id. , s o that

“[ i] f the B oar d h as no autho r it y, i t f ollo ws th at th e [p anel ] h as no ne, ” id. at * 12.Some opponents of the Taft -Hartley Act, inc luding Sena tor Wayne L. Mor se of Or egon, 6 also acknowledge d that the purpose of expanding the membership of the Board was to enable the B oar d t o i ncr eas e it s ef

fi cien cy. See

93 Cong . Re c. 6593, 6614 (June 5, 1947) (“So I think it is very im po r tan t that

we h ave a s even -m an b oar d, r ath er th an a f ive -m an b oar d, bec aus e I wis h t o s ee t wo dep ar tm ent s , co mp os ed o f thr ee m en e ach, s it ti ng d ay af te r day a ndweek

af te r week inth e he ar

in gs hel d b y the b oar d, inor der to keep th e bo ar d u p t o d ate inr es pec t t o i ts do cket .”) , re pri nte d in 2 NL RB , Leg

. H is t. 152 6, 1 562
. 16 Our Court’s precedents, howev er, require us to turn to legislative history inst ead of considering related fields of law—a s the D.C. Circuit did in c onsulting agenc y and c orporation law— inth e eve nt

th at o r di nar

y can on s of

s tatut or y in te r pr et ati onar e un hel pf ul
. See N.Y. State Offi

ce of Child ren & Fam ily Serv

s ., 5 56 F .3dat 9 7. O ur

s ur vey o f the l egi s lat

ive hi s to ry of

th e T af t- Har tl ey Act, whi ch crea ted the NLRB’s panel system, reveals that the broad animating purpos e of the legislation w as “to equaliz e the bal ance of power betwee n employe rs and employ ees” in response to th e “wi des pr ead f

eeli ng that th e unio ns hadgot te n t oo mu ch p owe r du r in g the Ro os evel t y ear s .” La wr enc e M . F r

ied man , American L aw in th e 20th Cen tury 189 (2002). Among othe r things, the TaftHartley a mendments outlawed “c losed shops ” and seconda ry boycotts, permitted employers to s ue
unio ns fo r

br eachof con tr act , an d—

inth e wo r ds of

Sen ato r Rob er t A . T af

t o f O hi o, th e Chai r man of th e Sen ate Com mi tt ee o f L abo r andPu bl ic Wel fa r e—“ ent

ir ely r ewr [o te] the Wag

ner Act .” 93 Con g. Re c. 3 753 , 37 86 (

Apr . 17 , 19 47) , re

pri nte d in 2 N LRB , Leg. Hist. 100 0, 1 000
. In light of the s wee ping nature of the Taft-Hart ley a mendments and their focus on the bala nce of powe r in dealings with organiz ed labor, it is surprising that the reforms to the structur e of th e NLRB r ecei

vedr elat ive ly l it tl e at te nt io n i n the l egi s lat

ive hi s to ry. S enat or

T af t e xp lai nedinhi s floor r emarks that the purpos e of increasing the NLRB’s membership was to enable the Board to “acco mp lis h t

wice as mu ch i n the w ay of th e nu mb er

of hear in gs hel d. ” 93 Con g. Re c. 3 950 , 39 53 (A pr . 23 , 19 47) , re

pri nte d in 2 N LRB , Leg

. H is t. 10 05 , 1 01 1. Thi s wa s pa rti cu la rly im po rta nt b ec a use “the B oar d [

was ] b ehi ndinit s wor k, a nd[the T af t- Har tl ey am end men ts would ] i mp os e a
con s id er ably gr eat er

vo lu me o f w or k u po n the B oar d. ” Id
. 6T he H ou s e Rep or t didno t dis cus s an ex pan s io n o f the B oar d’ s mem ber s hi p. See H.R. R ep. 7 No . 80 -2 45, at 2 5 ( 194 7) , re pri nte d in 1 N LRB , Leg. Hist. 292, 316. The House C onference R eport noted the differences betwee n the House and Sena te bills, and conc luded simply that “[t]he conference a greement . . . retai ns the existing Board but increases its members hip to five,” without commenting on the purpose of the amendment. H.R . Re p. No. 80-510, at 37 (194 7) (Conf. Rep. ), re pri nte d in 1 N LRB , Leg. Hist. 505 , 54 1
. 17 In light of Senator Taft ’s remarks , we ha ve previously observed that “Sec tion 3(b) of the NLRA authorize s the B oard ‘to delega te to any group of three or more members any or all of the powers which it may

itself exercise.’ Cong ress added this provision to the NLRA to ena ble the Board
to han dl e an i ncr eas in g cas elo ad m or e ef fi cien tly.” Hal

l- Br o o ke Ho sp. , 645 F.2d at 162 n. 6 (citation omitted)). In Hal

l- Br o o ke Ho spi tal , we a lso examined a report by the Senate C ommittee on Labor and Public We lfare, whic h conclude d that “[t]here is no field in which time is more important, yet the B oar d i s fr om 12 t o 1 8 m on th s behin d i n i ts do cket
. . . . T he e xp ans io n o f the B oar d . . . w ould per mi t i t t o o per ate inpan els of th r ee, ther eby

in cr eas in g by

100 per cen t i ts abilit

y t o dis po s e of

cas es exp edi ti ou s ly i n the f

in al s tag e . . . .” S. Re p. No . 80 -1 05, at 8 (1 947 ), re pri nte d in 1 N LRB, Leg. Hist. 407 , 41 4; see also New Proc

ess Steel , 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9440, at *16-17 (considering the Se nate Report and c oncluding tha t “Congress[’s ] . . . primary conce rn was increasing the efficie ncy of the B oar d.
. . . T he p urpo s e of th e [T af t- Har tl ey] r evi s io ns . . . was to all ow the N LRB to hear mo r e cas es by crea ting panel s of the entire Board.”). 7 In addition to the legislative histor y described in Hal

l- Br o o ke Ho spi tal , the N LRB argue s th at prior t o the Taft-Hart

ley a mendments of 1947, the Board consis ted of three members, two of whom
wer e r equ ir ed f or a qu or um . See Res p’ t B r . 16 ; see also Pu b. L. No . 74 -1 98 § 3(a), 49 S tat . 44 9, 4 51 (1935) (“There is hereby created a board . . . whic h shall be composed of three members . . . .”); id. § 3(b) (“A vaca ncy in the Board shall not impair the right of the remaining membe rs to exercise all the po wer s of th e B oar d, andtw o m emb er s of th e B oar d s hall, a t all t

im es , co ns ti tu te a qu or um .”) . As th e NLRB no te s , “P ur s uan t t o that tw o- mem ber

qu or um pr ov

is io n, th e or

igi nal B oar d, du r

in g it s 12 year s of adm inis te r

in g f ede r al l abo r

po lic y, i s s uedhu nd r eds of dec is io ns with o nly t

wo o f i ts th r ee18

s eat s fille d. ” Res p’ t B r . 16 . Sp ecif ically, From 1935 to 1947, the original Board iss ued 466 de cisions dur ing three discrete periods when it ha d only two seated me mbers. F irst , from August 27 through October 11, 1941, the tw o- mem ber

B oar d i s s ued224dec is io ns . Se con d, fr om Aug us t 2 7 t o N ov emb er

26, 194 0, a tw o- mem ber

B oar d i s s ued239 dec is io ns . T hi r d, fr om Aug us t 3 1 t o S ept emb er

23, 193 6, a tw o-m em be r Boa rd i ssue d th re e d ec isi on s. Res p’ t B r . at

16- 17 n .8 ( cit ati on s om it te d)
. I n o ur vie w it is s ignif ican t, inlig

ht of th e es tab lis hedhi s to ry of

op er ati ng w

ith o nly t wo
mem ber s , that

Con gr es s con ti nu ed t o allo w only t wo B oar d m emb er s (a q

uo r um of an N LRB pan el)
to is s ue l abo r

dec is io ns . Wh ile in cr eas in g the s ize o f the B oar d f r om th r ee m emb er s to fi

ve
mem ber s , Co ngr es s lef

t u ndis tu r bedth e t

wo- mem ber

qu or um r equ

ir eme nt fo r pan els of th e B oar d. Moreover, as the NLRB obs erves, “the Sena te [version of the] bill woul d have e xpanded the Board to

s evenmem ber s , f

ou r of who m wo ul d b e a qu or um . H owe ver , that s ame bill a utho r

izedth e lar

ger B oar d t o d eleg ate it s po wer s ‘t o any gr ou p o f thr ee o r mo r e me mb er s ,’ t

wo o f who m wo ul d b e a qu or um .” Re s p’ t B r . 17 (quo ti ng S . 11 26, § 3( b) (1 947 ), re

pri nte d in 1 N LRB , Leg. Hist. 107 ). See ante n.5 (describing the House and Sena te versions of the Taft-Hart

ley a mendments). Howeve r, while this histor y seems to s upport the B oard’s reading of the Act, it does not definitively

answer the precise question at issue in the instant case—whether, in the na me of efficiency , a pa nel of the Board may continue to ope rate once the Board itself loses it s quor um. The
on ly r ef er enc e t o thi s pr ecis e qu es ti oncom es fr om th e f lo or r ema r ks of

Sen ato r J os ephC. O’Mahoney of Wy oming, in whic h he opposed overriding President T ruman’s veto of the T aftHar tl ey Act
. Observe that the Board is given c omplete and pl enary pow er to delega te any or al l of its power to any g roup of three; and then a ny two members of that group of three can spea k for the Board. So we hav e a bil l—and I invite the a ttention of lawye rs in this body to this—which not only authorizes the Board to delega te its powers, but authorizes the Board to del egat e it s po wer s , an d all o f them , to less thana qu orum of the Board

. This we do in the name of reducing government in W ashington. This we do in the name of returning control of the eco no mi c li fe of

th e pe op le o f the U ni te d S tat es to th e pe op le o f the U ni te d S tat es ; an d we un der tak e a pr ogr am o f d eleg ate d p owe r s whi ch, s o f ar as I kn ow, has nev er

bee n s ugg es te d19

before in the histor

y of this Government. 93 Co ng. Rec. 7 677 , 76 79 ( J un e 23 , 19 47) (e mp has is add ed) , re pri nte d in 2 N LRB , Leg

. H is t. 162 9, 1632. Howe ver, Sena tor O’M ahoney did not raise this objection in his earlier floor s tatements
con cer ni ng s ect

io n 3 onM ay 6 an d M ay 12 , 19 47, see 2 N LRB , Leg . H is t. 1263, 1467 , and none of the other Senators—including Sena tor T aft—responded to Senator O’Mahoney’s pointed criticism of the panel quorum requirement in the deba te that followed prior to a vote to override the President’s veto
onth e s ame day. We a re reluctant to draw much significa nce from a lone remark by a single senator opposing a bill, ma de after the Taft-Hart ley A ct initially

passed and only just before the Senate v oted to

ov er r id e P r es id ent

T r um an’ s vet o. Se e S chw

eg mann B ro s. v. Cal

v er t D is ti lle rs Co rp. , 34 1 U. S. 3 84, 395 -9 6 (1 951 ) ( J acks on , J. , co ncu r r

in g) (ar gui ng i n f avo r of limit in g “l egi s lat

ive hi s to ry” t o “Co mm it te e reports ” beca use “to select casual statements from f loor debates, not alwa ys distinguis hed for candor
or accurac y, as a ba sis for making up our minds what law Cong ress intended to ena ct is to s ubstitut e
ours elves for the Congress in one of its important functions ”). Without more, we a re unable to
con clu de that

del egat io n t o l es s th an a q

uo r um of th e B oar d was an i nt end ed o r unin te nd ed

co nse qu en ce of t he Ta ft-H a rtl ey a me nd me nts. I n s ho r t, we d r aw t

wo c on clu s io ns abo ut

th e qu or um r equ

ir eme nt ins ect io n 3 (b ) o f the A ct from thi s di scu ssio n o f th e l eg isl a tive hi stor y o f th e Ta ft-H a rtl ey a me nd me nts. Fir st, C on gre ss restructured the NLRB to enable it to resolve more disputes, not fewer. As a result, we a dhere to our prior obs ervation that one of the purposes of the Taft-Hart

ley a mendments was to increase the NL RB ’s ef

fi cien cy. Se e H

all -B ro o ke Ho sp. , 645 F. 2dat 1 62 n .6; see also New Proc ess Steel , 2009 U.S. App. LE XI S 94 40, at * 18 ( “T o the e xt ent th at the l egi s lat

ive hi s to ry po in ts either

way . . . i t e s tab lis hes th at T af t- Har tl ey cr eat ed a B oar d that fu nct io nedas an ad ju di cat

ive bo dy that

was all owe d t o o per ate inWe ar e mi nd ful that vacan cies onth e go ver ni ng b oar ds of “in dep end ent ” f

ede r al ag enc ies 8 ar e f ill ed b y pr es id ent

ial no mi nat io ns with the ad

vic e andcon s ent

of th e Sen ate , an d d elay s ar e a common occurrence. Courts have gene rally bee n sympathetic to a fede ral age ncy’s efforts to con ti nu e t o o per ate inth e f ace o f v acan cies , an d h ave i nt erpr et ed quo r um r equ ir eme nt s to per mi t an agen cy t o f

un ct io n. See No rtheastern La nd Servs. , 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5267, at *15 (col lecting cas es ). 20 pan els inor der

to wor k m or e ef

fi cien tly.” ). Seco nd , the l egi s lat ive hi s to ry of

th e T af t- Har tl ey 8

ame nd men ts lack s any c lear s tat eme nt

of in te nt r egar di ng the j ur

is di ct io n o f apl eni po te nt

iar y pan el where the Board loses its quorum—the precise question that we face in this ca se. Where the le gi sla tive hi stor y t ou ch es o n th e p re ci se q ue sti on , i n S en a torO’ Ma ho ne y’ s flo or re ma rks, C on gre ssio na l i nte nt i s un cl ea r. “ If .
. . we . . . c a nn ot c on cl ud e t ha t C on gre ss ha s directly add r es s ed th e precise question at iss ue, we will procee d to Che v ro n s te p t wo, whi ch i ns truct s us to def er to an agen cy’s in te r pr et ati onof

th e s tatut e it

adm inis te r s , s o l on g as it

is r eas on abl e.” N.Y. Sta te Office of Chi ldren & Fa mily Servs. , 55 6 F .3dat 9 7 ( emp has es add ed; in te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks om it te d) ; see also Cohen v. JP Mo rgan Ch ase & C o. , 49 8 F .3d111 , 12 0 (

2dCir . 20 07) (o bs er

ving that , wh en a s tatut e is

a mb ig uo us, a co urt“l oo k[ s] to stru ct ure , p urp ose , a nd hi stor y t o d et er mi ne wh et he r th ese construction devices can c onvincingl y resolve the ambig uity at Che v ro n s te p o ne, ” an d that “[a] high lev el o f c lar

it y is nec es s ary t o r es ol

ve t extual amb igu it y inthis man ner ” (

in te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks omitted)). Accordingly, we e xamine with appropriate deference the NLRB’s interpretation of the Act ’s qu orum r equ

ir eme nt . The NLRB’s interpretation of the Act is s traightforward. T he Ac t express ly permits the NLRB to delegate a ll or part of its powers to a three-member panel, for which two membe rs
con s ti tu te a qu or um . See 29 U.S.C . § 153(b). Although the Act does not expressly provide that a pan el r et ain s ju r

is di ct io n wh er e the B oar d l os es it s qu or um , n either do es th e Act

s tat e that th e pan el lo s es ju r is di ct io n i n s uchcir cum s tan ces . I n l igh t o f the anim ati ng p urpo s e of th e T af t- Har tl ey
ame nd men ts at i s s ue h er e, whichper mi tt ed the N LRB to con ti nu e t o o per ate inpan els of as fe w as tw o m emb er s inor der

to in cr eas e the B oar d’ s ov er all ef fi cien cy, the N LRB in te r pr et s th e Act as21

per mi tt in g the t wo r emainin g m emb er s of th e B oar d t o i s s ue l abo r

dec is io ns des pi te th e B oar d’ s lack of a qu or um . In our view, this is a reasonable interpretation of the s tatute. Indeed, we commend the NLRB for its conscientious eff

orts to st ay “ open for bus iness” in the face of vac ancie s that it did not
cr eat e andfo r

whi ch i t l acke d the au th or it y t o f ill . O f c ou r s e, the D .C. Ci r cui t’ s vie w that whe r e a B oar d l os es it s autho r

it y, s o d oes it s pan els , see La urel Baye Healthcare , 20 09 U .S. App . L EXI S 94 19, at *12 , is als o a r eas on abl e in te r pr et ati onof th e Act . H owe ver , inapp lyi ng Che v ro n def er enc e, an agen cy’s “vi ew go ver ns if

it is a r eas on abl e in te r pr et ati onof th e s tatut e—n ot

nec es s ar ily th e only po s s ib le i nt erpr et ati on , n or eventh e in te r pr et ati ondee medmo s t r eas on abl e by th e co ur ts .” Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. , _

_ U .S.
__ , 12 9 S. Ct. 149 8, 1 505 (2 009 ) ( emp has is om it te d) . Acc or di ngl y, we hold that the NLRB panel in this case w as a law fully conve ned pane l of three members. B eca use of the existence of a two-member quorum, the panel continued to ope rate in ac cordance with section 3(b) of the Act after one of its members ceased to serve on the Board and even though the Board itself los t a quorum. III . Regional Direct or’s Certifi cation Petitioners’ r emaining

clai m—that the NLRB’s r egiona l director should not have certified the union elec tion in this case without firs t holding a pre-certification he aring and inte rviewing witnesses—is without merit. We revie w such objections under a deferentia l “abuse of discretion”

s tan dar d. See, e.g. , NLR

B v. HeartSha re HumanServs . of N.Y., Inc. , 10 8 F .3d467 , 47 0 ( 2dCir . 19 97) (“Congress has given the NLRB broad discretion in the conduct and supervision of r epresentation elec ti on s , an d co ns equ ent

ly the B oar d’ s dec is io n earns con s id er abl e de fe r enc e. O ur r evi ew is limit ed
to det er mi ni ng whether

th e B oar d r eas on ably exe r cis ed i ts di s cr et io n. ” ( cit ati onom it te d) ); Ar thu r Sarnow Ca ndy Co. , 40 F.3d at 556 (“‘[T]he conduc t of r epresentation elec tions is the very arche type of a purely a dministr ative function, with no qua si about it, conce rning which c ourts should not interf ere22

s ave f or th e mo s t g

lar in g di s cr im in ati onor

abu s e.’ ” ( qu ot

in g NLR B v. Olson Bo dies, Inc. , 42 0 F .2d 118 7, 1 189 (2 d Ci r . 19 70) (F r ien dly, J .))); NLRB v. S

pri ng field H o sp. , 899 F.2d 1305, 1 312 (2d Cir. 1990) (“[A] party seeking

to set aside an elec tion has the heavy burden of establishing that the Board abu s ed i ts di s cr et

io n i n ce r ti fy

in g the e lect

io n. ” ( in te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks om it te d) ); cf. Sims v. Blot , 534F. 3d117 , 13 2 (

2dCir . 20 08) (“ A di s tr

ict cou r t h as abu s ed i ts di s cr et io n i f i t b as ed i ts r ul

in g onan erroneous view of the law or on a c learly e rroneous assess ment of the evidenc e, or rendered a decision that ca nnot be loca ted within the range of permis sible decisions.” (citation, a lterations, and in te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks om it te d) ). A pre-certification hea ring before an NLRB regional director regarding obje ctions to a union elec tion is not r equired by fede ral regulation unle ss the chal lenging party “raise[s] s ubstantial and
mat er ial fa ct ual is s ues .” 2 9 C.F .R. § 102 .69 (d ) ( “I n i s s ui ng ar epo r t o n o bj ect io ns or challen ged ballots, or both, . . . or in is suing a deci sion on objections or challenge d ballots, or both, . . . the regional direc tor ma

y act on the ba sis of an administrative investigation or upon the record of a hear in g be fo r e a he ar

in g of fi cer . Su ch h ear

in g sh all be conduc ted with respect to those objections or chal len ges whi ch the r egi on al dir ect or con clu des r ais e s ub s tan ti al an d m ate r ial fa ct ual is s ues .” (e mp has is add ed) ); see also NLR B v. Semco Printing Ctr., Inc. , 72 1 F .2d886 , 89 1 ( 2dCir . 19 83) (“ [A] par ty is ent it ledto hav e a he ar

in g only i f i t d emo ns tr ate s by pri ma fac ie evidenc e the exi stence of subs tantial a nd material fac tual issues which if res olved in its favor, would require the setting aside of th e r epr es ent ati onelec ti on .” ( in te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks om it te d) ). I n the i ns tan t c as e, p et

it io ner s wer e af

fo r dedan o pp or tu ni ty

to s ub mi t “ [a] ff

id avi ts , s ign ed

s tat eme nt s , d ocu men ts or

other app r op r iat e ma te r ial whi ch c on s ti tu te s pr

im a f acie evi den ce o f e ach of th e f ile d o bj ect

io ns ” t o the N LRB r egi on al dir ect or . J .A. 28. T he r egi on al dir ect or r evi ewed pet it io ner s ’ p r of

fe r ed e vid enc e, i ncl udin g a le tt er fr om pet it io ner s s tat in g that at l eas t t wo e mp lo yees would testify that several co-workers told them pr ior to the union election that “i f they were goi ng to23

vo te ‘N o’ it

wouldbe b es t f

or th em n ot to vo te at all, ” J .A. 40 (

Repo r t o n O bj ect

io ns to [the] Elec ti onandReco mm end ati on s to th e B oar d, J an. 18, 200 8, a t 4 .) . T he r egi on al dir ect or fo un d that th es e s ub mi s s io ns wer e, at bes t, hear s ay s tat eme nt s by m anag eme nt th at e mp lo yees hadas s er te d
com pl ain ts abo ut

a gen er al atmo s ph er e of

unio n i nt im id ati on . I n l

igh t o f thi s fi ndin g, the r egi on al director concluded tha t the evidenc e did not supportpetitioners’ objections because second- or thirdhand al lega tions of

intimidation, without specific a llega tions of voter coercion or other misconduct,

couldno t c on s ti tu te an u nf air lab or pr act ice. See, e.g. , NLR

B v. B asic Wire Prods., Inc. , 51 6 F .2d261 , 264 (6th Cir. 1975) (stating that the NLRB “properly refus ed to invali date the e lection or to hold a hear in g onth e all egat

io ns ” of elec ti onabu s es whe r e “[

t] he o nly evi den ce p r of

fe r ed b y [e mp lo yer

] wa s an af fi dav it of it s Vice Pr es id ent

to th e ef fe ct th at ‘ unio n p eop le’ to lds ever al em pl oye es ‘that it would pay t o s up po r t the U ni on ’”) . We agr ee. P et it io ner s di d n ot

“de mo ns tr ate by pri

ma fac ie evidenc e the exi s te nce of

s ub s tan ti al an d m ate r

ial fa ct ual is s ues ,” Semco Printing Ctr. , 72 1 F .2dat 8 91 ( in te r nal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, w e detec t no error in the regional director’s decision to fo rgo ahear

in g inthis cas e. CONCLUSI ON Fo r th e f or ego in g r eas on s , we DENY th e pe ti ti onfo r

r evi ew o f the N LRB ’s J uly 18 , 20 08 Dec is io n an d O r der . We GRAN T the NLRB’s cros s-application for enforcement.