## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984 D O UG LAS R I CHA RDS, etal. , P etitio ners , v. N ATI ONA L L ABO R R ELA TION S B O ARD , R es pond ent, an d U NI T ED S TEE L, P APE RAN D F O RESTRY, R UBBER, M ANU FA CT UR I NG, E NE R GY, A LLI ED I NDUS T R I AL AN D S ERVICE W O RKERS I NTERNATI ONA L U NI ON, AF L- CI O/ CLC , etal. , Interv eno rs-R espo nd ents.

On Pe titions fo r Review o f D ecisi ons an d O rde rs o f the N ational L ab o r Relations B o ard. No s. 25- CB -8891, 25-CB-9253, 25-CB-9254, 13-CB-18961, and 13-CB-18962.
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 30, 2012

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 26, 2012

Befo re B AUER, R OV NER, an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges.2 N os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984 W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . Th e la b or u n ion s in th is c on so lidat ed appe al al l o wed no n- uni o n m embe r s who w ere part ofthei r bar ga in in g unit s t o fi l e obj ecti ons i fthey w ish ed to opt ou t of p aying d ue s us ed to sup p ort p oli tical and other ac tiviti es un related to coll ective ba rgaini ng, co ntra ct a dm i nist ra ti on, o r gr i evance adj ustm ent, pursuant to C W A v. Beck, 4 8 7U. S
. 7 3 5 ( 1 9 8 8 )
. Ho weve r, the unio ns r equi re d that these obj ecti ons be re new ed on a n annua lbas i s i fthe em plo yee wanted to re m ai n opted- out. Peti ti oner s, nonm em berem p loyees w ho were part ofthe unio ns’ bar gaini ng uni ts, fi l ed separate unf ai rl ab o rpr ac ti ce c ha r g es a g ains t th e unio ns, ar gui ng that thes e “ annual re new al ” pol i ci es vi ol ate d the uni ons’ du ty off ai r re prese ntati on by pl ac i nga n un due b ur deno n obj ectors, a nd the y s o ug ht an o rderst ri ki ng down thes e pol i ci es. A l though they d id n otse ek refu n d s fo r t h em se lve s b ec au se th e P et it i o ne r s we r e a l wa y s o pt e d- o ut, the y a l s o s o ughtr e fun ds f o ro th erem pl o y ee s who m ayha ve fi l ed o bj ec ti o ns a t o ne t i me, b u tf a i l e d t o r e n e w th e m. O n a p p e a lt o th e NLR B, the Boa rd st ruck dow n the unio ns’ an n ual r enewal pol i ci es, but did notgr ant Pet iti oner s’ r equest f or re fund s o n behal fo fo ther s. Pe ti ti o ne r s ch al l en g e th e N LRB’ s dec i si o ns o n the m er i ts a nd a l so a r g ue tha t th e Apri l2 01 2 fi na lNLRB ord ers w e r e n ot legi tim ate bec au se th e Presid en t’s J an ua r y 4 , 2 01 2 r ec es s appo i nt m en ts o fthr ee o fthe fi ve N LR B m em ber s w er e inval i d. W e do not re ach th es e iss ue s, ho wev er, b ec au se Pe ti ti o ne r s l ac ks ta ndi ng to b r i ngthi s appe als i nc e th e N LRB s truckdo w n the annual re new alpol i ci es w h ich were the o nl y s ourc e o fN os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984 3 i nj ur y e ac h P et i ti o ne rs uffer ed. Be ca us e Pe ti ti o ne r s no l o ng ers uffera n inj ur y - i n- f ac t an d do no t sa tisfy th e st at u to ry “a gg rie ve d ” re q u ire m en t, see 29 U
. S. C
. § 160(f) , we d i s mi s s th e p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w.

I . B AC KGR OUND As the Uni te d S ta te s S upr eme Co ur t expl aine d i n C WA v. B eck, 48 7 U.S
. 73 5, 73 8 ( 1988 ) , the N ati onalLaborRel ati o ns Act ( “NLRA ”) “pe r m i ts an empl o y er an d an exc l usi ve bar gaini ng r epres entat i ve to enteri nto an ag re em ent r equi ring al lem plo yee s in the bar gaini ng uni t t o p ay p er io d ic u n ion d u es an d init iat ion fee s a s a co n d it i o n o fc o nt i nu e d e mp l o y me n t, w h e th e ro rn o tth e e mp loy e e s o th er w ise w ish to be c om e u n ion m em b er s.” H owever, i t hel d that e xpend i ng co l l ec te d fe es on ac t i v i t i e s “ un r e l a t e d t o c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i ning, c o nt r act adm i ni str ati on, or gr i evance adj ustm ent” ove r the obj ecti ons offee- paying nonm em berem p l oye es w as a vi ol ati on o fthe unio n’s “d uty o ff ai r re prese ntati on. ” Id. Those who m ake s u c h obj ecti ons ar e know n as B eck obj ecto rs . So pol i ci es w er e i m ple m ented byU ni ted S tee l, Paper and For est ry, Rubber, M anufa cturing, Energy, A l l i ed I nd us t r i a la nd S e r v i c e Wo r k e r s Int e r na t i o na lUni o n, AF LCIO/ CL C (“U SW ”) ; the I nter nati onalBro ther hood o f Ele ctr i calW or ker s, A FL-CI O ( “I BE W ”) ; and I BE W Local34 to al l ow nonm em berem plo ye es to fi l e obj ecti ons, wh i ch w oul d res ulti n a r educti on o fthe Be c k ob j ecto rs ’ fees th atfunde d no nre pr es en ta ti o na la ct i vi ti es . The uni o ns a l s o r e qu i r e d Beck obj ecto rs to r enew thei r obj ecti ons on4 N os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984

ana nnua lb as i s i fthe y w ishe d t o c o nt i nue o ptingo ut ofpayi ng such fees . On J une 10 , 20 05 , Doug l as Ri ch ar ds, an Indi an a r es i den t w h o w or ke d ata C e q u e n t T ow in g P ro d u c ts fac to ry in Gos he n, Ind i a na, fi l e d a n un f a i rl ab o rp r a c t i c e c ha rg e aga i nst USW , ar gui ng tha t the “ annual re new al ” pol i cy pl ac ed anundu e bur deno n th ose w ho wi sht o mai ntain th eir Beck o bj e c t o r s t a t us wi tho ut ha v i ng t o re new eve ryye ar . Rona ld R. Echegar ay and D avi d Yost

— Pe nnsy lva n ia a n d W es t V irg in ia re sid en ts , res p ec tiv ely

— who w orked at a Ch em tu ra C orp oration factory i n W est V irgi ni a fi l ed si m ilar char ges ag ai nst USW o n N ove m ber17, 2008
. J ohn L ugo, an I l l i noi s r esi dent and j ourne ym an e l e c t r i c i a n w h o o b t a i n e d e mp l o y me n twi t h v a r i o u s e mplo yer s thro ugh a hir i ng hall, als o fi l ed a c harg e o n J une 10, 20 08 , aga in st IB E W a n d IB E W L oc al 3 4. T h es e in d ivid u als ( th e “c ha r g i ngpa r ties ”) s tr o ng l y di sa g r ee d wi thc o ntributin g to w ha t the y pe rceived to be the u nion ’s p olit ica l ac tiv itie s. E c h eg ar ay an d Y os t a lw ay s a n n u ally rene w ed their obj ection s, an d R ichard s and Lu go w ere n ev e r r eq u ire d by th e u n ion s t o a n n u ally ren ew th eir o bj ec ti o ns . Butthe y a l ls o ug ht to put a n e nd t o the an nual re new alpol i ci es so that they w oul d no l onge r have to dealwith o r w or ryabo ut havin g to re new th eir obj ection s every year. I n re sp onse to the abov e char ges , the N LR B G ener al C ou n se l, w h o is in d ep en d en t fro m t h e N L R B an d inv es tigat es unfai r l aborprac ti ce c harg es to deter m i ne wh ether to pr o se cut e th em, fi l ed a com pl ainta g ains t I BEW a nd I BE W Local34 o n A u gu st 28, 20 08, and a c onso l i datedN os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984 5

co m pl ainta g ains t U SW o n May 8, 2 00 9. The NLRB GeneralC ou n selurg ed an end to the annual re new al po l i c i e s , b utthe c ha r g i ngp a r t i e s a l s o a s k e d fo rr e fun ds f o ra l le m pl o y ee s who ha d o nc e obj ecte d i n the pa stb ut faile d to ren ew . See 29 C.F
. R. § 102. 8 ( charg i ng p ar ties consi dered to be parti es to N LR B procee dings bydef aul t)
. S i gni fi cantly, the charg i ng par ti es w er e no t al l eging an enti tl em ent t o re fund s forthem selv es, since they annually r enewed thei r obj ecti ons orw er e o ther w i se tr eat ed as B ecko bj e c t o r s a ta l lr e l e v a ntt i mes . T he ALJ ass i gned to h earthe I BE W m att erst ruck dow n I BE W Local 34 ’ s annua lr en ewa lpo l i cyo n De ce m be r1 9, 2 008 , b ut decl i ned to or der r efund s foral lem plo yee s who had obj e c t e d in the p a s tb utf a i l e d t o r e ne w the i ro bj e cti ons. The ALJ a ss i g ne d t o he arthe USW m at te rdi smi ss ed th e c om p lain t in its en t i r e ty on A u gu st 6, 20 09 , an d th e d ec isi ons w er e appe al ed to the NLRB ( al te r na ti ve l y, the “B oard ”). I n A ugust 2 011, the Board r ule d that the a nnual re new alpol i ci es vi ol ate d the uni ons’ du ty of f ai r re presenta ti on, and or dered t h at the a nnual re new alpol i ci es no l onge r be e nfo rce d. I t di d not, h owever, address th e r eq ue st f o rr efunds

. La te rtha t m o nth, the c ha r g i ng par ti es , no t th e N LRB Ge ne r al Coun se l, fi l ed m o ti o ns f o r r e c o ns i de r a t i o n, a s k i ng tha t r efund s a l so be aw ard ed

. W hile the m otions for r econ side r ation w ere p en d in g, th e t er m s o f tw o B oa rd m em b er s e x p ire d . Th is l eft o nl y tw o sea ts fi l l ed, and at l eas t a three

- m em ber q u or u m i s req u ire d for th e B oa rd to ta ke ac tio n . See New Pr oc e s s S t e e l, L
. P. v . NLRB , 1 3 0 S
. Ct
. 2 6 3 5 , 2 6 4 2 (20 1 0 )
. On J anuary 4, 20 12, Pre si dent Obam a m ade thr ee re cess6 N os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984 ap p oin tm en ts to th e B oa rd , brin gin g t h e B oa r d to its fu ll five

- m em bercapaci ty. The char gi ng par ti es m ove d to disqual i fy th e appoint ees . A nd se ver alse nator s o pp ose d th es e a p p oin tm en ts , arg u in g t h at th ey w er e in va lid b ec au se , t h ey co n te n d , th e Se n at e w as n otac tu ally in re cess . I n Apr i l2 01 2, the Bo ar d e nt er ed ord ers den y i ngthe m oti ons f or re consi derat i on, rul i ng that retr oac ti ve re fund s were i napp ro pri ate bec ause the uni ons had not necess ar i l y b een o n noti ce that thei r annual re new al pol i ci es w er e unl aw ful, and i t decl i ned to co nsi der th e l eg i ti m ac y o fthe r ec es s appo i nt m en ts
. The c ha r g i ng parti es ( “Peti ti oner s”) ti m el y fi l ed peti ti ons forr evi ew to thi s co urt.

II. A N A L Y S IS Pe ti ti o ne r s ar g ue tha t th e N LRB de ci si o ns de ny i ng thei r re quest forr et roacti ve re fund s s houl d be r eve rs ed an d the ma t t e rr e man de d b e c a us e the y we r e n o tma de bya pr o per l y c o ns ti tu ted B oar d. The y a ss er t th atthe Recess A pp oi ntm ents Clause o nl y a l l ows re cess appoi ntm en ts t o b e m ade i fthe v ac an ci es o r i ginat e dur i ng the S enate ’ s r eces s, and that re cess app ointm ents can onl y b e m ad e d uri ng i nter ses si on r eces ses ( any r eces s b et w ee n th e t w o a n n u al s es s ion s o f C on gr es s, ge n er ally start i ng so m eti m e in Decem berand endingo n J anuary3 w hen the next se ssi on s tar ts) and not i ntra ses si on r ec es se s ( an y r ec es s dur i ng an annua l se ss i o n o fCongr ess )
. Peti ti oner s r eas on that the r eces s a pp ointm ents w er e al so i nval i d b ecause the Se nate did n ot co n si derN os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984 7 itselfto be i n rece ss at th e tim e the ap p ointm en ts w ere m ade no twi th st an di ngi ts de si g na ti o n o fi ts s es si o ns as “p ro form a.” O n t h e m er its , Pe tit ion er s a lso ch allenge th e B oard ’s den ialof retroa c t iv e reli ef in th e form o fr e fu n ds. W e n e e d n o ta d d r e s s th e s e a r g u me n t s , h o wev er , bec au se w e a gr ee w ith R es p on d en ts th at P et itio n er s la c k s ta n d in g t o b rin g t h is a p p ea l.

A . P e titi on ers W ere N ot “A ggrieved ” Bec au se T h eir O nly Clai m ed In ju ry W as Redress ed by t he Final N L R B O rd ers The r el ev an t po r ti o n o fthe Nat ional Lab o rRe l at i o ns A ct pr ovi des: A ny pers on agg rieved by a fi na l ord er of the B oard gr an tin g o r denyi ng i n w hol e o r i n partthe re l i ef so ug htmay o bt ain a r ev i ew o fs ucho r deri n a ny U n ite d Sta te s c ou rtof ap p ea ls in th e c irc u it w he r e i n the u nf a i rl ab o rp r a c t i c e i n qu e s t i o n was al l ege d to have b een e ngage d i n orwh er ei n such per sonr es i des o rt r an sa ct s bus i ne ss , o ri n the U ni ted S tat es Court ofA pp ea ls for the Dis tr i ct o f Col um b ia, by fi l i ng i n such a cour t a wri tte n peti ti on pra yi ng t hat the o rdero fthe Board be m odi fi ed orse t a si de. 29 U
. S. C. § 1 60( f )
. T h er ef or e, o nl y per sons w ho a re “a ggr i eve d” by th e Board’ s fi nalo rderm ay peti ti on f or re vi e w o fthe de c i s i o n b y the Co ur to fApp e a l s . “ A pa r ty i s ‘ agg ri eve d’ byan o rderi fthe or der r esul ts in a n
‘ advers e e ffect i n f act. ’ ” Har r i s on St e e l Cas t i ngs, Co. v. NLRB , 923 F.2d 542 , 545 (7th C ir. 1991) (ci tation om itted ).8 N os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984 The pa r ti es g en er al l y assu m e th atthe mean i ngo fthe ter m “a ggr i eve d” i s coe xtensi ve w i th the f am i l i ar“inj uryin -fac t” req u ire m en t o fA r t i c le IIIst an d in g. Se eBlo om v. NLRB , 153 F.3d 84 4, 84 9 (8 th C ir. 1 9 98 ), rev’d on oth er groun ds s ub no m . Lo ca l 12 , O PE I Uv. Blo om , 119 S. Ct. 10 23 ( 1999 ) ( “Congr ess ’ s e x p ress gr ant o fst anding to agg ri eve d perso ns such a s Bl oo m e xtends to the l i m i ts of th atwhi chi s per m i tt ed byArt i cl e I I I
. . . . ”)
. Howev er, the S up r e me Co ur tr e c e nt l y h e l d tha ta s i m i l a r“ a g g r i e v e d” re qu ire m ent in Ti tl e VI Idi d not r eferto “a nyone w i th A rt i cl e I I Ist anding , ” but re fer re d m or e nar ro w l y t o peo pl e who “ ‘ f al l [ ] wi th i n th e “ zo ne o fi nt er es ts ” so ug ht to be pr ote cte d b y the st atuto rypro vi si on wh ose vi ol ati on f or m s the l ega l basi s f orhi s co m pla i nt. ’ ” Thom ps on v. N
. Am
. St ai nl e s s , LP , 13 1 S. Ct. 86 3, 87 0 ( 2011 ) (c ita tio n om itt ed ). A p ar t y ’s in te re st s d o n otfall w ith in that “zo ne” i fthey“ ‘ ar e s o m ar gi nal l y r el ated t o or i nconsi ste nt with the purp os es im pli ci t in the sta tute that i t ca nnot r eas onabl y b e a ssum ed that Congre ss i ntended to perm i t the sui t. ’ ” Id. ( citation om itted ). W e n ee d n otd ec id e w h e th er th e t er m “a gg rie ve d ” in th e N LRA r efer s to an y o ne who su ffer s an “i nj ur y - i nfact” for A rticl e I I Ipu rp oses or refers to som eth ing na rro w er . Even i fthe m or e g ener ous r equi re m ents of Ar t i c l e I I Is t a n d i n ggo v e r ne d th e d e fi n i t i o n o fth a tt e r m, Pe ti ti o ne r s ha ve no t th emse l ve s su ffer ed an y i nj ur y - i nf act fr om the N LR B decis i ons. Peti ti oner s e i ther renewed the i ro bj ec ti o ns a nnua l l y unde rpr o te sto rwere neverr equi re d to re n ew t hei r obj ecti ons at al l, and so thei r onl y inj ury w as the b urden orth re at o f having to re new thei r obj ec tio ns ye arafterye ar . In A ugust 2 011N os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984 9

w hen the N LR B or dered th e u n ions to no l onge r enf or ce th eira nnua lr en ewa lpo l i ci es , tha t bur denwas l i fte d a nd the thr e a twas r e mov e d. T ha tde c i s i o n i s n o tb e i nga pp ea l e d by th e u n ion s. P et itio n er s t h em se lve s s im p ly su ffer ed n o inj u rie s fro m th e B oa rd d ec isio n s t h at co u ld be r em ed ied o n appeal, and so theyl ack sta nd i ng to b rin g t h e in st an t p e t i t i on s fo r re vie w . Se e, e . g. , Pir l ot tv. NLRB , 522 F.3d 42 3, 43 3 (D .C . C ir. 20 08 ) (“T h er e is nothi ng i n the Board’ s deci si on that res ult ed i n a c ogni zable i njury to the C ha rgin g P arties suffi cientto sup p ort a sho w ing of aggrievem en t un d er [§ 160(f)]

. ”).

B . Th e NL RB’ s F a i l ur e t o Rei mbur s e E c he g a r a ya nd Yostf orPost age D oe s N otConfe rSta nd i ng Since t ha tRe que s tWas Wai v e d Pe titi one rs argue that at l east E ch egaray an d Yos t w ere “ag gr i eve d,” bec ause the NL RB deci si ons f ai l ed to o rder re i m burse m ent forthe postag e co sts thattheyi ncu rr ed w hen theyannual l y m ai l ed thei r obj ecti ons. To b e sure , “a n i denti fi abl e t ri fl e i s e nough to fi ght o ut a questi on o fp ri nc i pl e; the t r i fl e i s th e ba si s f o rs ta ndi nga nd the pri nci ple pro vi des the m oti va ti on. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. S CRAP , 412 U
. S. 669, 689 n
. 14 (1973). Bu t a tho ro ugh re vie w of th e re c or d on ap p ea l m ak es cle ar th at P et iti oner s nev er m ade any m eani ngful re quest f orp os ta ge re i m burse m ent a t an y stag e o fthe adm i ni str ati ve proc ee d in gs . S e eL oc al 6 5- B , IBT v
. NLRB , 57 2 F
. 3d 342, 34 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( “the NLRA b ar s us fr o m c o ns i der in g ar gum ents t hat the par ty peti ti oni ng f orr evi ew di d not r a i s e b e f o r e th e B o a r d ” ( c i t i n g2 9 U
. S
. C
. § 1 0 9 ( e ) ) )
. We10 N os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984

ca nno t an aly ze , o n the mer i ts , whethe rthe NLRB ab us e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g c e r t a i n r e l i e f wh e n t he N LRB ne ve rha d a meaningful o ppo r tu ni tyt o e ve n c o nsi dera r eque stf o rtha t r el i eft o b eg i n wi th

. P et iti o n er s s tr es s t h at th ey am p ly c om m u n ica te d th eir r eque stf o r“ m ak e- whol e” r el i efa nd s ug g es t th atthe use ofthi s t e r m i n the NLR B c o nt e xts o meh o w i nc l ud es a r equest f orpost age r ei m burse m ent ( i
. e., Echegar ay a n d Y o s tc a n n o tb e “ ma d e w h o l e ” u n l e s s th e y a r e r e i mbur se d f o rtha t po st ag e)
. The NLRB r egulati o ns a nd gui del i nes c i ted b y Peti ti oner s do sugge st that “m ake

whol e” r el i efis a t er m o fa r t th ati s us ed i n the NLRB proce edi ngs with so m e fre quency ( though they s ugges t l i ttl e m or e than that)

. Bu t e ven i fa re quest for“m ake

w hol e” re l i efbya Beck o bj ec to r , wh o a n n u a l l y r e n e ws hi s obj ecti on under pr ote st, pro vi de s m eani ngful noti ce o f a po s t a g e r e i mbu r s e men t c l a i m t o the NLR B, Pe titi one rs did not give ad eq ua te not ice that they w ere se ek in g “ m ak e-w h ole ” re lief on be h alf o ft h em se lve s. In the m oti on f orr eco nsi derat i on fi l ed by Richa rds, Echegaray, a nd Yo st, the y e xpr es sly s ta te : “ Cha r g i ng Part i es hereby askthe Board , on reco nsi derat i on, to or der s uch nati onw i de si m i l ar l y s i tuate d ‘m ake wh ol e’ re m edi es fo r all o ther d i s crim ina tees besides the three C ha rgin g P a rties ” ( em phasi s a dd ed). N ei therthe or igi nal charg es fi l ed nort h e N LR B G ener alCounselco m pla i nts se ek“ m ak e- whol e” r el i efo n b eh al f ofPe ti ti o ne r s. The br i effi l ed byRi ch ar ds, Ec he g ar ay, a nd Yo sta ppea l i ng the ALJ d eci s i o n di d inc l ud e a r e qu e s tf o ra “ na t i o nwi de re im b u rs em en t re m ed y,” b u t itlat er ex p lain s e x ac tly whatthe y mean t: “ i n o r derto retu r n e m pl o y ee s to theN os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984 11 po si ti o n tha t th eywoul d h av e be eni n ‘ butf o r ’ the U SW ’ s unl aw fu l pol i ci es, the un io n m ust reim burse a ll du es that i t co l l ecte d fo r nonre prese ntati onalpurposes fro m em plo yee s . . . wh ose B eckob j ec tio n s w er e n oth on or ed

. . . o rwho se s ta tu s w as ch an g ed fr o m o bj ec to rt o no nobj ector as a resu lt ofthe p oli cy” (e m p ha sis add ed ). Post age r ei m burse m ent was notm enti oned. I t has bee n cl earfro m the beginning that the o nl y “ m ake

- w hol e” or r et r o ac ti ve r el i efPe ti ti o ne r s ev err ea l l y s o ug htwas the r efund o f due s f o r o th er empl o y ee s. Bec au se any r e qu e s tf o rp o s t a g e r e i mbu r s e men th a s b e e n wa i v e d, thi s l a s t
- mi nute r e qu e s tc a nn o ts e r v e a s a b a s i s f o rs t a nd

in g. Cf. Chi ca go U ni t e d Indu s . , Lt d. v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 44 5 F. 3d 940, 94 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( “ ‘ [ I ] t s houl d have be en c learto the Court ofA pp eal s that a cl ai m f ornom i nal d am ages, extrac t e d l a te in the d ay from Yn iguez’s ge n er al p ra ye r for relie f an d as se rt ed so le l y to av oid ot h er w ise ce rt ain m oo tn es s, b or e c los e in sp ec tio n .’ ” ( quoti ng Ar iz o n a n s f o rOf f i c i a l En g l is h v . A r iz o na , 520 U
. S. 43, 71 (1997))). W e a l so note that, since we m ay onl y c onsi der p et itio n s fo r re v i e w o f N L R B d ec isio n s if th is c irc u it is “w here [ ] the unfai r l abor practi ce in questi on was al l ege d to have been engaged i n orwh er e[ ] such per son re si des o r tr ansact s busi ness, ” 29 U.S
. C. § 1 60( f ) , Echegar ay an d Yos t m ay a ls o l ack sta nd ing by virtue of w he re they liv e a nd work. Echegar ay l i ves i n Pennsyl vani a, Yo s tl i v e s i n W e s tV i r g i ni a , b o th wo r kin W e s tVi rg i ni a, an d USW i s he adqua r te r ed i n P enns y l va ni a ( wher e th e annual re new alpol i cy w as p re sum abl y dra fted)

. Giv en these f acts , i t was i ncum bent up on Echegar ay and Yost12 N os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984

Tho u g h th e NL RB Ge n e r a l C o u n s e l t e c h n i c a l l y t a k e s u p the  b ato n after the ch arg es are fil ed , 29 C .F.R
. § 102.8 g e n e rally perm it s the charging p art ie s to full y partic ipate as parti es thr ou g ho u t the ad m inistra tiv e p ro ceed ing s. to als o e x p lain in t h eir Ju ris d ict i o n a l S ta te m en t h ow it i s that they ar e enti tl ed to peti ti on thi s cour t f or revi ew . They di d not.

C. Peti t i oner s D o Not H ave Sta nd i ng t o P et i t i on f or R evi ew J ust Because They Are Ch ar gi ng Part i es The ess ence ofPetitio ners ’ fi nalar gum ent i s that they have sta nd i ng si m plybec ause they w er e the o ri gi nal ch ar g i ngpa r ti es . Th ey s ug g es t th atthe ys ho ul d b e th e ones to se e i t t o the e nd sinc e th ey i ni ti ate d thi s a cti on on be ha l fo fthem sel ves and thei r fel l ow em plo yee s.  So m e ca ses co ntai n l anguage thatwould se em to su p p or t t h is v iew
. Se e, e . g. , UA W v. Sco fi eld, 38 2 U.S
. 20 5, 21 0 ( 19 65 ) ( “[ W ]hen the Bo ar d di smi ss es c er ta i n po r ti o ns o fthe c o m pl ainta nd i ss ue s ano r dero n oth ers . . . [ t] he charg i ng par ty i s a ggr i eved w ith r espectto the port i on of the d ecision d ism issi ng the com p lai nt
. ”); Local 282, IBTv. NLRB , 3 3 9 F
. 2 d 7 9 5 , 7 9 9 ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 6 4 ) ( “ [ W ] hen the c ase has been car ri ed to a deci si on o n the m er its by the Boa rd, the charg i ng par ty has s tandi ng as a ‘ pe rs on agg ri eve d’ under [ § 1 60( f ) ] to se ek re vi ew o fan o rder g r an tingi na dequa te r el i efo rde ny i ngi t al to g ethe r . The G en eral Cou ns el cann ot a p p eal from his ow n B oard ’s dec i si o n, the r es po nde nthas no mot i ve t o do s o , a nd thi s por ti on o fthe sta tute w oul d thus be re nd er ed nuga-N os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984 13 tory unl ess the charg i ng p ar ty were re cogni zed as a ‘p er so n ag g r i e ve d .’ ”); M ar i neEng’ rs Be ne f i ci al As s ’ n No. 13 v . NLRB , 2 02 F. 2d 5 46, 5 48 ( 3d Ci r . 1 95 3) ( The NLRB “r ule s a nd r egul ati ons perm i t the chargin g par ty to be l i ste d as a party t o the pr oce edi ngs fro m the outse t i nstea d ofr el ating hi m to in tervent i on. H e i s a party aggrieved un d er [§ 160] an d

. . . ‘ m ay con test’ the correctn ess of the B oard ’s order.” ( citation om itte d )) ; N LR B v. O CA W

IU, 476 F. 2d 1031 , 1036 ( 1st Cir . 197 3) ( “[ T]he charg i ng par ty i n an unf ai r l abor p ra cti ce pr oceedi ng poss ess es a uni que l ega lst atus. A lth ou gh l i ke a com pla i ni ng witnes s in a cri m i nalpro secuti on in that i t ca nnot co m pel issuance o fa com pla i nt, i t has f ar g r e a t e rp o we r s o nc e the c o mpl a i nti s s ue s . . . [ a nd ] parti ci pate[ s] fully in the s u b sequent he ar i ng and pro

c ee d in gs b ef or e the Boar d .

. . . I fi ts posi ti on i s unsuccessfu l bef or e the Boar d, i t m ay peti ti on the appropr i ate cou rt for review , as ‘a p erson aggrieved ’ und er [§ 160(f)]

. ”); see also UAW

v . NLRB , 23 1 F
. 2d 237, 24 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 56) (“T h e c harg i ng par ty i n a l aborcas e i s s om ethi ng l i ke a c om p lain in g w i t n e ss in a cr im in al c as e. B u t h e is m uch m or e than that, f ora com pla i ni n g w itn ess i s no t enti tl ed to ap pealev en wh er e a n appeal i s a l l owed f or th e pros ecu tion in a crim inal case.”). H owe ve r, none ofthes e ca ses i nvol ved a si tuati on l i ke thi s o ne , wh e r e the c ha r g i ngp a r t y wa s n ot actual l y inj ured bythe fi nalN LR B ord er . S ee, e . g., IW IU v. NLRB , 36 0 F
. 2d 823, 82 6 ( D.C. Ci r. 19 66) ( “Of cour se, a char gi ng par ty in so m e ci rcum sta nces m ay be agg ri eve d by an o rderwh i ch deni es i n partthe re l i ef s o ught, b ut tha t do e s no t s e e m t o us t o b e the cas e pr e-14 N os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984 sente d here

. ”)
. The te xt o f29 U .S
. C. § 1 60( f ) does not sugge st that charg i ng par ti es have tal i sm ani c st atus f or sta nd i ng purp ose s, and i t s tr i ctl y r efer s t o “pers on[ s] agg ri eve d,” with no exce pti ons f or c harg i ng par ti es or f oranyo ne el se. Co nt i nuingthe i r the me tha tc ha r g i ngp a r t i e s o c c up y a sp ecial category o f p erson s w ith stan d ing, Pe titi one rs an alo giz e t h is c as e to a c las s a c tio n, an d p oin t t o th e w elles tabl i sh ed r ul e th atthe moo tn es s o fa c l as s r epr es en ta ti ve ’ s cl ai m do es no t au to m at i ca l l y prohibi t th e cl ass r epres entat i ve fro m co nti nuing to l i ti gat e the cl ass ac tio n . S e eS os n a v. Iowa , 41 9 U .S. 3 93, 40 1 ( 1975 )
. They ar gue tha t l i k e cl as s r epr es en ta ti ve s, the cha r g i ng parti es here have br ought and l i ti gat ed this cas e o n b eh alf of sim ilar ly sit u at ed em p loy ee s. See N LR B v. Ind . & M ich . E lec. C o ., 318 U
. S. 9, 17(19 43) ( eve n a “ str anger ” t o th e d isput e m ayb r i nga c ha r g e o n b eh al fo fs o m eo ne el se); 29 U
. S. C. § 1 60(b) ( no m enti on o fany prer equi si tes f or fi l i nga c ha r g e ) ; 2 9 C. F
. R. § 1 0 2
. 9 ( “ A c ha r g e . . . may be m ade by any perso n . . . . ”)
. So they c on te n d th at ki cki ng them out at thi s s tag e be cause they no l onge r need a r em edy f orthem sel ves w oul d be t an tam ount t o im p ro p e r l y k ick in g a cla ss rep re se n ta tiv e o u t s im p ly be ca us e th e r epr es en ta ti ve ’ s cl ai m s be co m e m o o t. The E i g h th C irc u it h as ad op te d a ve rs ion of th is th eo ry , s ee Bloom , 15 3 F
. 3d at 848, as has the S i xth Cir cui t in an u n p u b lish ed d ec isio n . S e eC e c i l v . NL RB , 1 94 F. 3d 1311 , 1999 W L 9 70 312, at* 3 n. 1 ( 6th Ci r. Oct. 14, 19 99) ( unp ubl i shed) ( “W e r eco gni ze that Ceci l ’ s l aw suit has neve r been f o r mal l y c e r t i fi e d a s a p r o pe rc l a s s a c t i o n, . . . [ but] [ w ] e s ee no functi onaldi ffer ence, as i t r el ate s t o m oo tness ,N os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984 15 b et w ee n th is p ro c es s a n d th at of t yp ica l cla ss ac tio n s. . . . [W ]e a re co m f or tabl e a pp l yi ng [ the S up re m e Cour t’ s] dec i si o ns o n moo tn es s an d cl as s ac ti o ns i n thi s an al o g o us c on te x t.” ). Buts e eOr c ev . NLRB , 1 33 F.3d 90 7 (2d C ir. D ec. 9, 1997) (un p ub li sh ed ). A s a pre l i m i narym att er, w e note thatPeti ti oner s’ e n d ea vo r to em p loy a c las s a c tio n an alo gy p ot en tia lly ba ck fi r es . Tho ug h the uni o ns a ckno wl edg e th ata ny o ne can fi l e the in itialunfa i r l aborprac ti ce c harg e, ev en tot al“s tr anger s, ” see Ind . & M ich . E lec. C o ., 318 U
. S. at17, they sugge st that Peti ti oner s a re n ot si m i l ar l y s i tuate d en ough with the em plo yee s who w ant r efund s t o adequatel y r epres ent th em . I t i s ind eed uncl earthat P et i ti oner s a re “s i m i l ar l y s i tuate d” w i th the em plo yee s who wantr efunds : whi l e th eywer e al ls ubj ec t to the sam e a nn ual r enewal pol i ci es, the re l i efso ught i s qui te differ ent. In addit i on, i ncl ud i ng em plo yee s who once o bj ec te d bu t l at erf ai l ed to r en ew po te nt i al l y r ai se s th e uniqu e pr obl em o fdeter m i ni ng wh etherea ch oftho se em plo yee s si m ply i ntended no t to re new ( i
. e. , intend ed t o o pt b a c k i n) , a nd the r e b y pr e s umab l y l o s t hi s r i g htto a r efund

. W e a l so ackno w l edge on the other hand that the NLR A d o e s n o th a v e a n e xp l i c i t“ s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d” ty p e o f req u ire m en t, u n like , for in st a n c e , t h e F air L ab or Sta n d ar d s A c t. See 29 U
. S. C. § 2 16(b) ( “A n act i on t o re cove r the l i abi l i ty presc ribed .

. . m ay be m ai ntai ned aga i nst a ny em plo yer. . . by a n y on e or m or e e m plo yee s f orand i n behal fo fhi m selfo r them sel ves and other em plo yee s sim i l ar l y s i tuate d.” )
. A nd nothi ng i n the re cor d b efo re u s s ugges ts that the AL J s o r the NL RB to ok i ss ue wi thPe ti ti o ne r s’ s ee k i ngr el i efo n b eh al fofthe16 N os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984

em plo yee s a l l ege dlyenti tl ed to r efund s ( nei ther, f or that m att er, di d the uni ons du ring the adm i ni str ati ve p roceed ings). W e need not deci de today w hether som e ki nd of re prese n ta tiv en es s o r “s im ilar ly sit u at ed ” re q u ire m en t e x ist s in the NL RA , o r, i fso , wh etherPeti ti oner s s ati sfy that r equir em ent. That i s b ecause ev en i fPeti ti oner s pass that te stwi thfl y i ngc o l o r s, a nd e ve n i fPe ti ti o ne r s ar e r i g ht th atc l as s a ct i o n moo tn es s pr i nc i pl es a ppl y i n the N L R B co n te x t, t h e y st ill d o n oth av e s ta n d in g. Sim p ly put, whethe ra c as e i s m o o t unde r A r ti cl e I I Ii s no t th e s a me a s wh e the ra p a r t y h a s b e e n s t a t ut o r i l y “ a g g r i e v e d” by the NL RB
. See, e . g. , In M at t e rof TheWat ch Lt d. , 25 7 Fed. A pp x. 74 8, 74 9- 50 ( 5th C i r. Dec. 7, 20 07) ( unp ubl i shed) ( anal yzing st atuto ry“per sons agg ri eve d” re quir em en t in ba n kr u p t c y c on te x t s ep ar at ely from A rt icle II I m o o t n es s); Pub l i cUt i l s . Co mm ’ n v . F ERC, 10 0 F
. 3d 1451 , 1 4 5 7

- 5 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( a na l y z i ngs t a t ut or y “ a g g r i e v e d” re q u ire m en t in N at u ra l G as A c t s ep ar at ely from A rt icle II I m oo tn es s); N. C. Ut i l s . Co mm ’ n v . F ERC, 65 3 F.2 d 6 55, 66 0- 69 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 98 1) ( sa m e)
. In thi s ca se, we do no t fi nd th at th e in st an t p et itio n s a re m oo t fo r A rt icle II I pu rpos es; we si m p ly fi nd thatPeti ti oner s hav e f ai l ed to sa tis fy t h e s ta tu te ’s a gg rie ve m en t re q u ire m en t. P et iti o ne r s su g g es t th atthe y a r e ind is pen sabl e to the appell ate pro cess i n ass er ti ng t h at “ only a char gi ng par ty can . . . seek j ud ici al r eview ” of fi na l N L R B orders (R ep ly B r. at8 (em p h as is a d d ed )), bu t t h at as se r t ion is d irectly co n t r a r y to the p lai n tex t of 29 U
. S. C
. § 160(f) , w h ich pro vi des that“ [ a] nyper son w ho has bee n ag gr ieved by a fi nalo rdero fthe Board” m ay bring a p et itio n for re vie w . (E m p h as is a d d ed .)N os. 12

- 1973 & 12

- 1984 17 I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe abov e- sta ted r eas ons, we D ISMISS th e pet i ti o ns f o rr e v i e w.

12- 26- 12