FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT APRI L17, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ P U B L I S H ] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T
No. 9 8- 84 54 -EE
GEORGIA POW ER COMPANY, Pe tit ion er -C ro ss- Re spon de nt,
ve rs us NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent -Cross-Pe tition er.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ IN TE RNA TI ON AL BRO TH ERHO OD OF EL EC TR ICA L W ORKER S, A FL -C IO , CL C L oc al N o. 84, In te rv en or .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- On Application for E nforcem ent of an O rder of the Na tional Labor Rela tions Board

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- BEFORE: MARCUS an d HILL, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and ADAMS,* Di st ric t J ud ge . MAR CUS , C ircuit Judg e:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ * Honora ble Henr y L ee A dams, J r., United States District Judge f or the Middle District of Florida , sitti ng by

desig nation.2

N owpe ndi ng be fo re the Co urt is a Pe tit ion fo r A dj udi ca tio n of Ci vil Co nte m

pt, in which the Na tional Labor Rela tions Board (“ Board”) alleges that Ge orgia Powe r Co m pa ny ( “ G eo rg iaP ow er ”) is in c ont em pt o f thi s C ourt’ s M ar ch8, 199 9 Ju dgm en t in this m at te r. A ft er

r ev ie w ing the Bo ar d’ s c ont em pt p et iti on, w e dir ec te d G eo rg ia Po w er to fi le a n A nsw er

a nd dir ec te d the Bo ar d to pr ovi de thi s Co ur t w ithc opi es of
an y doc um en ta tio n w hic h it be lie ve d supp orte d the al le ga tio ns o f its P et iti on f or Ci vil Co nte m pt. O n D ec em

be r 12, 2006 , w e iss ue d an O RD E R T O S H O W CA U SE w hy Ge o rg i a P o we r C o m

p an y s h o u l dn o tb e h el di n ci v i l c o n t emp to f t h i s Co u rt ’s ju d g m en ti n Ge o rg i a Po we r Co . v . NL RB , 1 7 6 F. 3 d4 9 4 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( t ab l e) , a ff ’g & e nf ’ g, G eo rg iaP ow er

Co
. , 325 N
. L
. R. B. 420 ( 1998 ). A ft er r ev ie w ing the m at er ia ls subm itt ed by the part ie s, w e D E N Y the P et iti on f or A dj udi ca tio n of

Ci vil Co nte m

pt. This action arises fr om

an unfair-la

bor-practice com

plaint filed with the Board alleging th at G eorgia Pow er unilaterally changed working conditi ons for em ploy ees
re pr es ente d by

the I nte rn at ion al Br oth er hood of E le ctri ca l W orke rs L oc al 84, AF L- CIO -CL C (“ Union”). M or e specifica lly , the U nion claim ed that Geor gia Powe r unilaterally , that is , w ithou t collective bargaining, m odified the Other Post-Retirem ent Benefits (“ OP RB”) , including future retiree s’ life and m edical benefits, of current em

ploy ees, in violation of Sections 1 and 8(a)( 5) of the N ational La bor Relations A ct (“

NL RA” ), 29 U .S .C. §§ 151, 158(a)(5). The Board found that3

G eo rg iaP ow er ’ s unilate ra l de ci sio n to li m it the c om pa ny -p ai d po rt ionof

the prem ium s for its future re tirees’ OP RB, in th e fo rm o f m edical and life insurance benefits, violated Sections 1 and 8(a)(5) of the NL RA. As a result, G eorgia Pow er
w as dir ec te d, int er

a lia , to ce as e an d de sis t f ro m m ak ing un il at eral change s to it s bargaining u nit em

ploy ees’ OP RB w ithou t providi ng no tice of the proposed changes and an adequate oppo rtunity to the Union to bar gain a bout those changes, as w ell as fr om int er fe ri ng w ith , re str ai nin g, or co er ci ng its em plo y ee s in the e xe rc ise of r igh ts gu a r a nt e e d t o t he m by S e c t i on 7 of t he N L RA
. S pe c i f i c a l l y , t he B oar d’ s order dir ec te d th at

G eo rg iaP ow er

sha ll: 1. Ce as e an d de sis t f

ro m (a) M a ki ng u ni l a t e r a l c hang e s i n bar ga i ni ng u ni te m pl oy e e s’ O PRB w ith out pr ovi din g no tic e of

the pr opos ed

c ha nge s and a de qua te oppo rt uni ty f or the U nio n to barg ai n a

bout tho se c ha nge s. (b ) In an y like or

r el at ed m an ne r int er fe ri ng w ith , r es tr ai nin g, or co er ci ng its em

plo y ee s inthe e xe rc ise of r igh ts g ua rante ed

the m by Se ct ion7 of

the A ct
. 2. T ak e the f

oll ow ing a ff

irm at ive a ct ionne ce ssary to ef fe ct ua te the pol ic ie s of

the A ct
. (a ) O n r eque st, barg ai n c oll ec tiv el y w ithI nte rn at ional Br oth er hood of E le ctri ca l W o r

k e r s L o c a l 8 4 , A FL -C IO -C L C a s e xc lus ive r ep re se nta tiv e of the em plo y ee s in the ap pr opr ia te ba rg ai nin g uni t de sc ri be d ina rt ic le II , se ct ion2 of the ir

c oll ec tiv e- ba rg ai nin g a gr ee m en t ( m em or an dum of agreem ent) and, if

an understandi n g is reac hed, em bodythat unde rs tandi ng i n asig ne d c ontra ct
.In Bonne r v . City of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e adopte d as 1 bin din g pr e c e de nt a ll c a se s d e c ide d b y the F if th C ir c uit , in c lud ingbo th Units A and B , p ri or to October 1, 1981 . 4 (b ) Re sto re O PRB t o th e pr e- Apr il 21, 199 5, le ve l. G eo rg ia Po wer Co ., 325 N
. L
. R. B. a t 42 7. O n M ar ch8, 199 9, thi s C ourt e nte re d a de cr ee a ff irm ing a nd e nf

or ci ng the Bo ar d’ s or de r. G eo rg ia Po w er Co
. v. N L RB , 176 F. 3d 49 4 (11th Cir. 1999) (table). Following entry

of our judgm ent in 199 9, fr om 2000 to 200 1, G eorgia Pow er and the Union engaged in good -faith negotiations , the scope of which included dis cu ssi on o f the barg ai nin g- uni t e m plo y ee s’ O PRB. T he part ie s r ea ch ed a n im pa sse dur ing the ir

200 0- 2001 ne got iati on s, af te r w hic h G eo rg iaP ow er im ple m en te d it s

“ la st, be st and f

ina l of fe r” ba se d onthe c om

pa ny ’ s in te rp re ta tio n of

“ the im pa sse
ru le , ” w hic h pr ovi de s th at “ fo llo w ing goo d- fa ithne got ia tio ns, . . . aparty ge ne ra lly
m ay take unilateral ac tion with respect to a m andatory subject of

bargaining ov er
w hic h im pa sse ha s be en re ac he d. ” N L RB v. Mc Cl at ch y N ew spa pe rs , In c. , 964 F
. 2d 1153 , 1155 (D .C. Cir. 1997 ) (per curiam ) (Edwards, J., c oncurring); see also NL RB v. Bancroft Mfg. Co., 635 F.2d 492, 494 (5th Cir. Unit AJan. 1981) (“ ‘ Im passe’ within the m ea n i n g o f the fe deral labor law s presuppo ses a re asonable effort a t good -faith bargaining which, despite n o b le intention s, does not conclud e in an ag re em en t be tween th e pa rt ie s. ” (quot at ionm ar ks o m itt ed ))
. T he U nio n f ile d no 15

unf ai r- la bor -p ra ct ic e co m

pla int ch al le ngi ng the fo re goi ng i m ple m en ta tio n pu rs ua nt to Georgia P ower ’ s interpretation of the im passe rule. T he re af te r, on Se pte m

be r 30, 200 4, G eo rg iaP ow er dis tr ibu te d am em or an dum to i ts e m plo y ee s inw hic h it

a nnounc ed

tw o c ha nge s to cu rr en t em plo y ee s’ O PRB: ( 1) a change in the m et h o d fo r coo rdination o f benefits betw een the G eorgia Pow er Me dic al P lan and ot he r in sur er s, a nd ( 2) the im ple m en ta tio n of

apr em ium cont ributionf

or r et ir ee s a ft er

the y tur ne d 65
. T hose c ha nge s be cam e ef fe ct ive on Ja nuary 1, 200 5. A lon g w iththa t m em or an dum , G eo rg iaP ow er pr ovi de d a doc um en t entitled “ Highlight s of Changes to the South ern Com pany Ser vices, I nc. H ealthcare Pl an . ” I n a ddi tio n to de sc ri bin g the ch an ge s to the Me dic al Pl an , the m em or an dum sta te d tha t “ Fu tur e ch an ge s to re tir ee he al th care pr em ium s fo r cu rr en t active
em plo y ee s m ay

be a nnounc ed

a t the dis cr et ionof

the P lan A dm ini str at or . ” T he U nio n f ile d no unf

ai r- la bor -p ra ct ic e co m

pla int c ha lle ngi ng the f

or eg oin g c ha nge s. By le tte r da te d O ct obe r 21, 200 4, the U nio n a dvi se d G eo rg iaP ow er tha t i t oppo se d th e pr opos ed

c ha nges to the Me dic al P lan and i ndi ca te d it s vi ewtha t the is su e wa s pr op erl y

a su bjec t o f ba rg ai ni ng an d m us t b e n eg ot ia te d wi th th e Uni on . Ina n Apr il 6, 200 5 let te r in re spon se , G eo rg ia Po w er advis ed the U nio n th at : (1 ) be ca use the pr opos ed

c ha nge s a ff

ec te d on ly

r et ir em en t bene fi ts, the y w er e not subj ec t t o ne got ia tio ns w iththe U nio n; ( 2) e ve n if the c hange s w er e subj ec t t o6

ne got ia tio ns, the U nio n ha d a lr ea dy a cc ep te d th ose c ha nge s by not obj ec tin g in200 2,
w he n th e ch an ge s w er e im ple m en te d, or

in 2003 , w he n th e U nio n a gr ee d to a llo w it s
m em be rs to pa rt ic ipa te in the Bl ue Cr oss /B lue S hie ld m ed ic al plan, or both; and ( 3) af te r the pa rt ie s re ac he d an im pa sse dur ing the ir 2000 -2 001 good -f ai th n eg oti at ion s, th e co m pa ny im pl em en te d i ts “ la st , bes t an d fi na l o ffer .” O ve r a y ear la te r, on Ju ly 1 7, 20 06, the Bo ar d f ile d th is P et iti on f

or A dj udi ca tio n of

Ci vil Co nte m

pt. The Bo ar d a sks tha t G eo rg iaP ow er be f ound in contem pt of this Cou rt’ s March 8, 1999 Judgm ent, and that Georgia Pow er be order ed to p ur ge it se lf

of the co nte m

pt b y , a m ong oth er

thi ngs, r es ci ndi ng the 200 4 c ha nge s,
m ak ing w hol e em

plo y ee s w ho h av e bee n af fe ct ed by the c ha nge s, pos tin g no tic es of the contem

pt findin g, an d p ay m ent of the Board’ s costs and exp enses. T he Board al so s ay s this Co urt s houl d di re ct G eo rg iaP ow er

to m ak e im

m ed ia te paym en t of $50, 000 int o th e D istri ct

Co urt f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia ’ s r eg istry

a s a

“ co ndi tio na l fi ne ” to be re m itt ed upon pe rf orm an ce of the oth er pr opos ed pu rg ing
ac tio ns. W e w ill m ak e a fi ndi ng o f ci vil co ntem pt - - tha t i s, w ill fu l di sr eg ar d of the
au tho ri ty of thi s C ourt - - onl y

upo n a show ing tha t the a lle ge d c ont em pt i s c le ar a nd convin cing. See McG regor v. Chierico, 206 F.3d 1378 , 1383 (11th Cir. 2000); NL RB
v. Cr oc ke tt- Br ad le y , I nc . , 598 F
. 2d 9 71, 975 ( 5thCi r. 197 9)
. “ T his bur de n of pr oof7

is m or e ex ac tin g th anthe ‘ pr ep onde ranc e of the e vid en ce ’ stand ard but , unl ike
cr im ina l c ont em

pt, doe s no t r equir e pr oof be y ond a re as ona

ble dou bt .” Jor da n v. W ils on, 851 F
. 2d 1 290, 129 2 ( 11th C ir
. 198 8) (p er cu ri am). T he c le ar a nd c onvi nc ing
ev ide nc e m

ust e sta bli sh tha t: (1 ) the a lle ge dly vio la te d or de r w as va lid a nd l aw fu l; (2 ) the or de r w as c le ar

a nd u na m

big uous ; and ( 3) the al le ge d viola tor ha d th e ab ili ty to c om ply w iththe ord er. Mc G re gor , 206 F
. 3d a t 13 83 ( em pha sis a dde d)
. O ur dispo sition of the instant Petition concerns the second e lem ent of the standard for a fi ndi ng o f ci vil c ont em

pt.

“ Inde te rm ini ng w he the r a pa rty is in co nt em

pt o f a co urt or de r, the or de r is subj ec t t o r ea sona

ble int er pr et at io n, though i t m ay not be e xpande d be y ond the
m eanin g of

it s te rm s ab se nt notic e an d an op portun ity to be he ar d. ” Ri cc ar d v. Pr ude nti al Ins . C o. , 307 F
. 3d 1 277, 129 6 ( 11th C ir
. 200 2)
. Mo re ove r, w e w ill
co nstru e an y

a m big uit ie s or unc er

ta int ie s in suc h ac ourt or de r in a li ght f av or ab le to the p e r s o n c h a r g e d w i t h c o n t e m p t
. N B A P r o p e rt i e s , I n c . v . G o l d , 8 9 5 F
. 2d 3 0, 32 (1 st C ir
. 199 0)
. O ur fo cu s in ac ivi l c ont em pt p ro ce ed ing “ is n ot o n th e subj ec tiv e beliefs or intent of the alleged contem ners i n com

ply ing with t he order, but whether in f ac t the ir c ondu ct c om pli ed w ith the or de r at

iss ue . ” H ow ar d Jo hnso n C o. , I nc . v. Khi m an i, 8 92 F.2d 15 12 , 15 16 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ).8

H er e, the Bo ar d arg ue s th at G eo rg ia Pow er ’ s part ic ipa tio n inthe ult im at el y
unsu ccessful negotiation s over the OP RB and its right to unilaterally change OP RB
w as ins uf fi ci en t t o pe rm it the im

ple m en ta tio n of

c ha nge s to the O PRB o r of the unilateral ability

to m ake future c hanges, pursuant to th e im passe rule. In short, given the pr oc ed

ur al pos tur e of

the ins tant a

ppl ic at ion , w e ne ed

not , a nd d o no t, r ea chthe Bo ar d’ s ul tim at e ar gum en t c onc er nin g th e sc ope of

the im pa sse doc tr ine , sin ce our inquir y in a ci vil c ont em

pt p ro ce ed ing is na rr ow ly pr osc ri be d an d e nc om pa sse s on ly
w he the r G eo rg iaP ow er ’ s post- j udgm en t cond

uc t, inc lud ing it s in te rp re ta tio n of the im pa sse r ule a ft er the uns uc ce ssf

ul n eg oti at ion s, in fa ct , co m pli ed w ithour

Marc h 8, 19 99 Ju dg m en t i n t hi s m at te r. The c lear and unam

bigu ous language of the Board’ s order, which w e af firm ed
an d e nf or ce d inou r March8, 199 9 Ju dgm en t, pr ohi bit ed G eo rg iaP ow er

f ro m

“ [m ] ak ing uni la te ra l c ha nge s in ba rg ai nin g unit em plo y ee s’ O PRB w ith out

pr ovi din g not ic e of the pr opos ed ch an ge s an d ad equa te oppo rt uni ty fo r the U nio n to b arg ai n about th os e c hang e s. ” G e or gi aP ow e r C o. , 3 25 N
. L
. R
. B
. a t4 27
. T he u nd i sp ute d fa ct s sh owtha t the U nio n ne ce ssari ly ha d no tic e of

the pr opos ed

c ha nge s to the
cu rr en t e m

plo y ee s’ O PRB, by

vir tue of the U nio n’ s part ic ipa tio n inthe 200 0- 2001
ne g o t i a t i o n s , w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n a n i m p a s s e . M o r e o v e r , t h e r e i s n o d i s p u t e tha t t he U nio n ha d the oppo rt

uni ty to pa rt ic ipa te , an d in fa ct did part ic ipa te , in ne got ia tio nsThe pa rties appa rently dispute whether

the 2000-2001 ne g otiations include d discussions 2 about the g ener al rig ht sought by Geor g ia P ower to unilaterally make c hang es in the future to curre nt employ ees’ OPRBs. Reg ardle ss of wh et h er Geor g ia Power g ave the Union notice and the opportunity to ba

rg ain over this g ener al rig ht, how ever , the plain terms of the Boa rd’s d ec i s i o n, which we enfor ced, G eorg ia Power Co., 176 F .3d 494, did not address that issue. See Doe v. B ush, 261 F.3d 1037, 1062 ( 11th Cir. 2001) (“[A]ny ambig uities in a judgme nt a re to be construe d in favor of the a lleg ed conte mnor.” (c iting NB A Props., Inc., 895 F.2d at 32)). There fore , even if the B oard is c or re c t th a t G e or g ia

Pow e r d id n ot p ro vid e the Un ion wi th n oti c e and an o pp or tun ity to b arg a in ov e r t he g e ne ra l r ight t o ma

ke futur e un ilate ra l c ha

ng e s, that do e s n ot w arr ant h old ingGe or g ia Pow e r i n c ivi l c on te mpt
. We offer no opinion on the leg ality of Geor g ia Power’s conduct unde r the NL RAor

wh e the r a

n unf a ir -l a bo r- pr a c tic e c omp la int

lie s b a se d o n th a t cond uct, a s th a t is a matter for the B oard, not the courts, to adjudicate in the f irst instance. Cf. Computer Scienc es Corp. v. NL RB, 677 F.2d 804, 807-08 (11th Cir. 1982) (dismissing B oard’ s petition for contempt whe re B oa rd ha d n ot a dju dic a te d und e rl yingun fa ir -labo r-pr a c tic e c omp la int ; “ Re a so ns akin to t ho se un de rl ying the do c tr ine of e xha us tio n of a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s p e rs ua de us that it is i ll- a dv ise d to resolve the se hig hly

fac tual and close issues befor e the ag ency possessing e x pertise in these matters has p assed upon the question . . . .”). On this rec ord, a judicia l determination of the leg ality of Geor g ia Power’ s conduct unde r the NL RA is better postponed until ther e has be en ag ency action. I d. at 807. 9 over the changes to current em ploy ee s ’ O PR B. It w as only after the parties pa rt ic ipa te d ingoo d- fa ithne got ia tio ns tha t G eo rg ia Po w er im ple m en te d its “ la st, be st
an d f ina l of fe r, ” pur suant t o w hic h G eo rg iaP ow er m ad e the 200 5 P lan a m en dm en ts the Bo ar d no w c ha lle nge s. T he Bo ar d’ s arg um en t tha t the N L RApr ohi bit s G eo rg ia Powe r’ s im

plem entation, pursuant to the im passe doctrine, of the “ last, best and final of fe r” is m isp la ce d si nc e our inquir y is lim ite d to w he the r the “ fo ur c or ne rs ” of thi s Co u rt ’s ju d g m en t , in cl ea r an d u n amb i g u o u s t erm s , pr o h i b i t ed Ge o rg i a P o we r’s
co nduc t, a nd n ot w he the r tha t co nd uc t wa s avio la tio n of the N L RAin the f

ir st instance. 210

O n th e re co rd

be fo re us, w e cannot

c onc lud e tha t the Bo ar d ha s es ta bli she d, by cl ea r a n dco n v i n ci n g ev i d en ce t h at Ge o rg i a P o w e r ’s a ct i o n s -- Ge o rg i a P o we r’s
ac tio ns, of

c our se , w oul d e nc om

pa ss i ts i nte rp re ta tio n of

the im pa sse r ule in l igh t of
our Marc h 8, 199 9 Ju dgm en t - - w er e bas ed on an unr ea sona ble int er pr et at ion of

the cl ear an d un am

big uous dir ec tiv e of

our or de r en fo rc ing the Bo ar d’ s de ci sio n inthi s
m at te r. Acco rd in gl y , we DENYthe P et iti on f or A dj udi ca tio n of

Ci vil Co nte m

pt. W e DEN Y A S M OOT Ge o rg i a Po we r’s M o t i o n t o Di s m i s s , t h e B o ar d ’s Motion for S umm ary

Adj udication , and Ge orgia Powe r’ s Cross-m otion for Sum m ary Adju di cat io n. W e GRANT Ge orgia Powe r’ s Motion for leave to file a R eply Brief
.