2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-17-2009 

# NL RB v . Lo c al 98 P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4764

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " NLR B v . L ocal 98" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1737. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1737H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ctof * N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.

NO T PRECEDEN TI AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 4764 NAT I ONAL L AB OR RE L AT I ONS BO AR D,

P eti ti o n er, v. IN T E R N A T IO N A L B R O T H E R H O O D O F E L E C T R IC A L W O R K E R S , L O C A L U N I O N N O . 98, R e sp o n d e n t.

O n A ppl i cat i on forE nfor cementof an O r derof the N at i onal L aborR el at i ons B oar d ( B oar d C as e N o. 4- C B - 9713) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February3 , 2009 B e f o re : M c K E E , S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges , a nd I RE N A S , Seni orD is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 17, 2009)

OP I NI ONT hr oughoutthi s O pi ni on, r efe r ence s t o the s ubpar agr aphs of s ect i on 8( b) of the A ct 1 r efe rt o the corr es pondi ng s ubpar agr aphs codi fi ed underT i t l e 29, Sect i on 158 of the U n ite d S ta te s C o d e . T h e C o u rt e x e rc ise s ju risd ictio n o v e r th is a p p lica tio n f o r e n f o rc e m e n t p u rsu a n t to 2 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 6 0 (e ). 2 IR E N A S , Seni orU

ni t ed Stat es D is tr i ct

Judge . B ef o re the C o u rtis th e a p p li ca ti o n o f th e N ati o n al L ab o r R elati o n s B o ard ( “B oar d”) forenfor cementof i t s or deri s s ued aga i ns tthe I nt ernat i onal B r otherhood of E l ectr i cal W or ker s , L ocal U ni on N o. 98 ( “the U ni on”) . I n a dec i s i on and or derdat ed A ugus t31, 2007, the B oar d aff i r m ed the det erm i nat i on byan A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) thatthe U ni on vi ol at ed Sect i on 8( b) ( 1) ( A ) , 29 U . S. C . A . § 158( b) ( 1) ( A ) , of the N ati o n al L ab o r R elati o n s A ct (“A ct”). T h e B o ard also ad o p ted th e A L J’s 1 re c o m m e n d a tio n th a t a b ro a d c e a s e -a n d -d e s is t o rd e r s h o u ld b e im p o s e d u p o n th e U n io n . F o r th e re a so n s th a t f

o llo w , w e w ill g ra n t th e a p p lica tio n f o r e n f o rc e m e n t. 2 I. A . T h e p e rtin e n t f

a c tu a l ev e n ts in th is c a se o c c u rre d o n , an d a d jac e n t to , the p ro p e rty o f G e n e sis H e a lth C a re (“ G e n e sis ” ), a n u rsin g h o m e lo c a ted o n E d iso n A v e n u e in P h ilad e lp h ia, P e n n sy lv a n ia. (A p p . 1 6 ¶ 5 , 1 9 ¶ 5 .) B e g in n in g in Ja n u a ry2 0 0 6 , an e n tirely new el ectr i cal s y s t em w as i ns t al l ed i n the G enes i s fac i l i tyas partof a s i gni fi cantT h e G en esis fa cil ityrem aine d o p en thro u g h o u t th e c o n stru cti o n p rojec t. (A p p . 7 1 . ) 3 3 r enovat i on pr oj ect. ( A pp. 57- 58. ) D el r an B ui l der s C om panyw as the gene r al contr act or 3 i n char ge of the G enes i s pr oj ect , underthe l eade r s hi p of cons truct i on s uper i nt endent St eve H erm an. ( A pp. 84- 85. ) T r i - M G r oup ( “Tri - M ”) , a non- uni on empl oy er , w as the el ectr i cal s ubcontr act oron t he G enes i s r enovat i on. ( A pp. 57- 58, 127. ) I n A pr i l 2006, t he U ni on began pi cket i ng atthe G enes i s fac i l i ty . ( A pp. 131. ) R aym ond D el l a V el l a, empl oy ed bythe U ni on as a “bus i nes s r epr es ent at i ve or gani zer , ” di r ect ed the pi cket i ng a c tiv iti e s. (A p p . 4 4 -4 5 , 1 3 1 .) T h e U n io n in iti a llyp ick e ted d a ily , b u t late r re d u c e d its p icke ti n g to F ri d ay s, inclu d ing F ri d ay , Ju n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 . (A p p . 1 3 1 . ) T he U ni on typi cal l ypl ace d t w o pi cket s neareac h of the tw o entr ance s t o the G enes i s fac i l i ty . ( A pp. 132. ) T o fac i l i t at e under s t andi ng of the fa ctual hi s t orythat f o llo w s, it is n e c e ss a ryto d e sc rib e th e c o n to u rs o f th e so u th e a ste rn p o rtio n o f th e G e n e sis p ro p e rt ya s it e x is te d o n J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 . T he ea s t ern end of the G enes i s parki ng l otbor der ed a publ i c s i dew al k and Edi s on A venue. ( A pp. 59, 64- 65, 191. ) T he s outhern end of the parki ng l otabutt ed a w ooded a re a . ( See A pp. 193- 98. ) T hr ee l ar ge r ect angul ardum ps t er s s atatthe s outhernm os tend of the parki ng l ot . ( A pp. 191. ) T he l ong s i des of the dumpst er s fac ed the s i dew al k and E di s on A venue. ( A pp. 114, 191. ) T he ea s t ern dr i vew ayi nt o the parki ng l otw as a c c e s s ib le o n ly v ia E d is o n A v e n u e ; th a t d ri v e w a yw a s ju s t n o rt h o f th e th re e d u m p s te rs . ( A pp. 191. ) H ence , a per s on s t andi ng on the s i dew al k di vi di ng E di s on A venue a nd the4

e a ste rn d riv e w a y , w h o th e n w a lk e d slig h tlyso u th , w o u ld b e sta n d in g o n th e sid e w a lk b e tw e e n E d is o n A v e n u e a n d th e d u m p s te rs . A s n o ted p re v io u sly , o n Ju n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , the U n io n w a s p ick e tin g th e G e n e sis w or ks i t e. ( A pp. 131. ) A s w as i t s comm on pr act i ce, the U ni on had not i fi ed the P h il ad elph ia P o li ce D ep artm en t th at i t w o u ld b e p icke ti n g ; tw o civil aff airs of fice rs w ere obs ervi ng the demonstr at i on atG enes i s . ( A pp. 134. ) U ni on m ember s C r ai g C um m i ngs a n d M ik e Q u in n w e re p ic k e tin g in th e v ic in ity o f th e d u m p s te rs a n d th e e a s te rn d ri v e w a y . (A p p . 4 6 -48 . ) A tappr oxi m at el y1 p. m . thatday , Sean M uth, a Tri - M empl oy ee, w as dr i vi ng a backhoe carr y i ng cons truct i on debr i s . ( A pp. 113- 14. ) M uth i nt ended t o depos i tthe r efus e i n one of the dumpst er s . ( I d. ) I n or dert o unl oad the debr i s pr oper l y , i tw as n e c e ss a ryf

o r M u th to a p p ro a c h th e lo n g sid e o f th e d u m p ste r. (A p p . 1 1 4 .) H e n c e , M u th en tered E d ison A v en u e, fa ce d the d u m p sters, an d p rep are d to p roc ee d . (A p p . 1 1 4 -15 . ) H o w ev er, M u th co u ld n o t un load the d eb ri s b ec au se C u m m ing s an d Q u inn w ere p icke ti n g in f

ron t of the d u m p sters, d ir ec tl yin M u th’s p ath. (A p p . 1 1 6 -18 . ) W ith h is a b ili tyto d isp o se o f th e d e b ris o b stru c ted , M u th m a in tain e d a p o sitio n six ors even f

eetaw ayfr om the pi cket er s . ( A pp. 118. ) J os eph Pr ego, T r i - M ’ s for eman, w as w or ki ng i n a di ffe r entar ea of the G enes i s pr opertyw hen he s aw and hea r d the di s turbance nearthe dumpst er s . ( A pp. 60. ) Pr ego i nform ed St eve H erm an thata pr obl em w a s o c c u rr in g o n th e w o rk s ite a n d th e n w a lk e d o v e r t o d e te rm in e w h a t w a s h a p p e n in g .5

( I d. ) Pr ego di r ect ed M uth t o dr i ve the bac khoe i nt o the parki ng l ots o thattr aff i c on E di s on A venue w oul d notbe bl ocked. ( A pp. 63. ) O nce the bac khoe w as i n the parki ng lo t, H e rm a n a rr iv e d a t th e in c id e n t s c e n e . (A p p . 8 7 .) H erm an d ir ec ted P reg o an d M u th to a tt em p t t o d u m p the d eb ri s. (A p p . 8 9 -90 . ) H o w e v e r, th e p ick e ts c o n tin u e d to b lo c k M u th ’s p a th . (A p p . 9 0 -9 1 .) N e x t, th e c iv il a f f a ir s o f f ic e rs s p o k e to th e U n io n m e m b e rs , b u t th e ys till r e f u s e d to y ie ld th e irp o s itio n s . (A p p . 9 2 -9 3 .) A f

ter f u rth e r d isc u ss io n , D e lla V e lla in stru c ted C u m m in g s a n d Q u in n to m o v e. M u th the n d ep o sit ed the re fu se in the d u m p ster. (A p p . 9 4 -95 . ) T he part i es di s put ed tw o keyfac tual i s s ues conce rni ng the for egoi ng event s dur i ng the pr ocee di ngs befor e A L J Paul B uxbaum. Fi r s t , the part i es di s agr eed a boutw hether C u m m in g s a n d Q u in n w e re a lre a d ysta n d in g in f ro n t o f th e d u m p ste rs w h e n M u th appr oache d i n t he bac khoe, ori f theyhad moved spe ci fi cal l yt o obs tructhi m . Second, t he part i es cont es t ed how m uch t i m e el aps ed betw een M uth’ s i ni t i al att empt t o di s pos e of the d e b ri s a n d w h e n h e f

in a lly c o m p le te d h is ta s k . A s to the firstfa ctua l dispu te, D ell a V ell a c lai m ed that C u m m ing s an d Q u inn w ere p icke ti n g in f

ron t of the d u m p sters be fo re M u th arrive d w ith the b ac k h o e. (A p p . 1 3 8 . ) D el l a V el l a per cei ved M uth’ s appr oach a s an att empt t o i nt er fer e w i th the U ni on’ s l aw ful p ro tes t. (Id .) In c o n tra st, M u th tes tifie d th a t C u m m in g s a n d Q u in n m o v e d d ire c tlyin fr ontof the dumpst er s t o pr eventhi m fr om di s pos i ng of hi s car go. ( A pp. 116. ) N ei ther C u m m in g s n o r Q u in n te s tif ie d a t th e a d m in is tr a tiv e h e a ri n g .6

T h e A L J e x p re s s ly cr e d ite d M u th ’s te s tim o n yo v e r D e lla V e lla ’s f o r t h re e re a s o n s . (A p p . 8 .) F irst, th e A L J w a s im p re ss e d b yth e “ c a lm , d isp a ss io n a te m a n n e r” M u th di s pl ay ed w hi l e t es t i fy i ng, l eavi ng the A L J “w i th a s ens e of [ M uth’ s ] fundament al neutr al i ty [. ] ” ( I d. ) Second, the A L J found that“l ogi c and c om m on s ens e” i ndi cat ed that the pi cket s w oul d be l ocat ed nea rthe G enes i s dr i vew ay , i n ful l vi ew of pas s erby , r ather than i n fr ontof the dumpst er s atthe edge of the w ooded ar ea. ( I d. ) T hi r d, the A L J dr ew an adve r s e i nfer ence fr om the U ni on’ s unexpl ai ned fa i l ur e t o pr es entt es t i m onyfr om C um m i ngs orQ ui nn. ( A pp. 8- 9. ) Forthos e r eas ons , the A L J concl uded thatC um m i ngs and Q ui nn m oved i n fr ontof the dumpst er s w hen theys aw M uth appr oachi ng i n the b ac k h o e. (A p p . 9 . ) T h e se c o n d f

a c tu a l d isp u te c o n c e rn e d th e d u ra tio n o f th e d u m p ste r in c id e n t. M u th t es t i fi ed thatthi r tyt o t hi r ty - fi ve mi nut es pas s ed betw een hi s i ni t i al appr oach w i th the backhoe and hi s s ucce s s ful depos i tof the debr i s . ( A pp. 122. ) Pr ego es t i m at ed that f if tee n to tw e n tym in u tes p a ss e d f ro m w h e n h e h e a rd th e d isp u te n e a r th e d u m p ste rs to w hen M uth compl et ed hi s t as k. ( A pp. 68. ) H erm an t es t i fi ed thatt en mi nut es pas s ed fr om w hen Pr ego i nform ed hi m of the di s turbance unt i l hi s arr i val atthe i nci dents cene , and anothertw entym i nut es el aps ed fr om hi s arr i val atthe i nci dents cene t o the end of the di s put e. ( A pp. 87, 102. ) D el l a V el l a t es t i fi ed thatthe ent i r e s er i es of eve nt s t ook t en m i nut es orl es s . ( A pp. 141. ) A r eportpr epar ed bythe ci vi l aff ai r s offi cer s i ndi cat ed that the p icke ters y iel d ed fiv e m inu tes af ter H erm an ask ed D ell a V ell a to m o v e. (A p p . 2 0 2 . )7

A ft ernot i ng thatonl yM uth and D el l a V el l a w er e pr es entforthe ent i r etyof the e v e n ts , th e A L J c re d ite d M u th ’s th ir ty m in u te tim e e s tim a te o v e r t h a t o f D e lla V e lla . ( A pp. 9. ) I n cr edi t i ng M uth’ s t es t i m ony , the A L J r el i ed on the s ame t hr ee r eas ons d isc u ss e d a b o v e . T h e A L J d e ter m in e d th a t th e p o lice re p o rt re f e rrin g to a f

iv e m in u te t i m e per i od w as des cr i bi ng the dur at i on of “M uth’ s fi nal att empt t o m ake hi s dum p under p o li ce su p erv isi o n , n o t t o the d u rati o n o f th e e n ti re inc iden t. ” (A p p . 1 0 n . 1 4 . ) T h e A L J re a c h e d a f

a c tu a l co n c lu sio n th a t th e p ick e ts o b se rv e d M u th p re p a rin g to d e p o sit d e b ris in to th e d u m p ste r, in ten tio n a llym o v e d in to h is p a th , an d c o n tin u e d to p rev en t him fro m co m p let ing h is t ask fo r ap p rox im atelythirtym inu tes. (A p p . 9 . ) A ppl y i ng thos e fa ct s , the A L J det erm i ned thatthe U ni on engage d i n an unfa i rl abor p rac ti ce af

fe cti n g co m m erc e in v iolati o n o f S ec ti o n 8 (b)(1 )(A ) of the A ct. (A p p . 1 0 . ) B. N e x t, th e A L J c o n s id e re d th e a p p ro p ri a te re m e d yf o r t h e U n io n ’s c o n d u c t. Speci fi cal l y , he cons i der ed w hethert o r ecomm end the i m pos i t i on of a br oad ce as e- anddes i s tor deragai ns tthe U ni on bas ed on a r evi ew of i t s hi s t or i cal conduct–a hi s t oryw hi ch w e n o w s u m m a ri z e . I n 1996, the U ni on w as acc us ed of vi ol at i ng the A ctbypi cket i ng var i ous empl oy er f a c ili ties w ith th e o b

jec t o f c o m p e lli n g th o se e m p lo y e rs to c e a se d o in g b u sin e ss w ith L u c e n t T e c h n o lo g ie s . In t’ l B h d . o f E le c . W

o rke rs , L o c a l 9 8 (T

h e T e le p h o n e Ma n , In c .) , 327 N . L . R . B . 593, 602 ( 1999) . T hos e al l egat i ons w er e r es ol ved w hen the B oar d ent er ed8

an or derr el y i ng on a s t i pul at ed s ett l ement . ( A pp. 177- 180. ) T hator derw as enfor ced by th is C o u rt. (A p p . 1 8 1 ; N at ’ lLabor Relat i ons B d. v. I nt ’ lB hd. of

E l ec. W orker s , Local98 , N o . 9 7 -34 9 6 (3d C ir . N o v . 2 5 , 1 9 9 7 (j u d g m en t enf o rcing co n sen t ord er.) )) In Ju ly1 9 9 8 , A L J M a rg a re t M . K e rn d e ter m in e d th a t th e U n io n v io late d th e A c t in M a rc h , 1 9 9 7 , a n d O c to b e r, 1 9 9 7 . The Tel ephone M an, I nc. , 327 N . L . R . B . at601- 02. T he M ar ch, 1997, conductvi ol at ed Sect i ons 8( b) ( 1) ( A ) , 8( b) ( 4) ( i ) ( B ) , and 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) of the A ct , and i ncl uded phy s i cal as s aul t s upon an empl oy erand empl oy ees , des truct i on of empl oy erpr operty , and coe r ci ve ac t i on i nt ended t o for ce a n empl oy ert o cea s e doi ng b u s in e s s w ith a c o n tr a c to r. I d. at601. T he O ct ober , 1997, conductvi ol at ed Sect i ons 8 (b )( 4 )( i) (B ) a n d (i i) (B ) o f th e A c t. Id . at601- 02. A L J K ern r ecomm ended the im p o s itio n o f

a b ro a d c e a s e -a n d -d e s is t o rd e r o n th e U n io n . I d. at 60 2 . T h e B o ard a d o p te d th a t r e c o m m e n d a tio n a n d im p o s e d s u c h a n o rd e r i n F e b ru a ry, 1 9 9 9 . I d. a t 5 9 3 . T h is C o u rt e n f

o rc e d th e b ro a d o rd e r v ia a d e f a u lt ju d g m e n t d a te d S e p te m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 0 . (A p p . 1 8 2 ; N

at ’ lLabor Relat i ons B d. v. I nt ’ lB hd. of

E l ec. W orker s , Local98 , N o. 99- 3977 ( 3d C i r . Sep. 29, 2000 ( or dergr ant i ng defa ul tj udgm enti n favorof B oar d on ap p li ca ti o n fo r en fo rce m en t. ))) I n J une 2000, A L J G eor ge A l eman found t hatthe U ni on vi ol at ed the A cton m u ltip le o c c a s io n s a n d a s to v a ri o u s e m p lo y e rs in M a y , J u n e , a n d A u g u s t, 1 9 9 9 . Int’l B h d . o f E le c . W

o rke rs , L o c a l 9 8 (M C

F S e r v s ., In c .) , 3 4 2 N L R B 7 4 0 , 7 6 2 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . I n M a y, the U ni on contr avene d Sect i on 8( b) ( 1) ( A ) of the A ctbybl ocki ng empl oy ees fr omA tthe t i m e of the admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs i n thi s cas e, the B oar d’ s appl i cat i on for 4 enfor cementof i t s or deri n M C F Servs. w as stil l pen d ing b ef o re this C o u rt . (A p p . 1 3 . ) 9 re p o rt in g to w o rk . I

d. at757- 58. I n A ugus t , the U ni on vi ol at ed Sect i on 8( b) ( 1) ( A ) by p h o to g ra p h in g e m p lo y e e s a n d th e irv e h ic le s e n te ri n g a n d le a v in g a w o rk s ite . Id . a t 7 5 3 . T hats ame m onth, the U ni on comm i t t ed furthervi ol at i ons of Sect i on 8( b) ( 1) ( A ) by( 1) bl ocki ng an empl oy ee dr i vi ng a forkl i ftfr om depos i t i ng r efus e i nt o a dumpst erand ( 2) th re a te n in g th a t e m p lo y e e w ith f u tu re h a rm . I

d. a t 7 5 1 -5 3 . A L J A l eman al s o det erm i ned thatthe U ni on vi ol at ed Sect i ons 8( b) ( 4) ( i ) ( B ) and (i i) (B ) o n m u ltip le o c c a s io n s . See i d. at762. M os tnot abl y , a J une, 1999, vi ol at i on of 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B) i nv ol ve d a thr e a tbyD e l l a V e l l a t o e ng a ge i n mas s pi c ke t i ng a ta U PS l ocat i on unl es s U PS t erm i nat ed i t s contr actual arr angementw i th a non- uni on el ectr i cal s u b c o n tr a c to r. Id . at761. O n J une 24, the U ni on carr i ed outthe thr eat ened pi cket i ng i n a m a n n e r t h a t v io la te d S e c tio n 8 (b )( 4 )( i) (B ). Id . a t 7 6 1 -6 2 . A L J A l eman r ecomm ended the i m pos i t i on of a br oad ce as e- and- des i s tor derupon th e U n io n . Id . a t 7 6 2 -6 3 . T h e B o a rd im p o se d th e re c o m m e n d e d b ro a d o rd e r, w h ich th is C our tr ece nt l yenfor ced. N L R B v. Int ’l

B hd . of Elec. W

orkers , 251 F. A pp’ x 101, 102 ( 3d 4 C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). I n Sept ember2002, the B oar d i s s ued a de ci s i on i n a Sect i on 10( k) pr ocee di ng s te m m in g f

ro m a n a lle g a tio n th a t th e U n io n v io la te d S e c tio n 8 (b )( 4 )( D ) o f th e A c t. N L R B v . In t’ l B h d . o

f E le c . W

o rke rs , L o c a l U

n io n N o . 9 8 (Sw a r tle

y B r o s . E n g ’rs , In c .) , 337 N . L . R . B . 1270 ( 2002) . I n Sw art l ey B ros. , a gene r al contr act orw as over s eei ng a10

p roje c t in P h ila d e lp h ia . I d. at1270. T he gene r al contr act orhad r et ai ned Sw art l ey B r other s E ngi neer s , I nc. ( “Sw art l ey ”) , a nonuni on empl oy er , as an el ectr i cal s u b c o n tr a c to r. I

d. O n J anuary4, 2002, uni on- r epr es ent ed cr ane ope r at or s and oper at i ng e n g in e e rs w e re o n th e jo b s ite ; n o S w a rt le ye m p lo y e e s w e re p re s e n t. I d. T hatm orni ng, D el l a V el l a arr i ved atthe s i t e and i nqui r ed as t o the i dent i t i es of s ubcontr act or s thathad b e e n re ta in e d b yth e g e n e ra l c o n tr a c to r. I d. U p o n learn ing that S w artl eyw as to p erf o rm th e e le c tr ic a l w o rk , D e lla V e lla b e c a m e h o s tile . I d. H e s poke t o the cr ane ope r at or s and o p e ra tin g e n g in e e rs ; th o s e u n io n w o rk e rs c e a s e d th e irw o rk s h o rt ly th e re a f te r. I d. T hen, D e lla V e lla b e g a n p ic k e tin g th e lo c a tio n . I d. T h e p r o

j e c td i d n o tr e s u m e u n t i l t e n d a ys la te r, a f te r S w a rt le yh a d b e e n re p la c e d . I d. at1271. T he B oar d det erm i ned thatSw ar t l ey w a s ri g h tf

u lly e n title d to p e rf

o rm th e d is p u te d w o rk a n d is s u e d a b ro a d o rd e r i n its f a v o r. I d. a t 1 2 7 2 -7 3 . T he B oar d det erm i ned thatthe conduc tunder l y i ng Sw a r tle y B r o s . vi ol at ed a pr i or o rd e r o f th is C o u rt a n d p u rsu e d c iv il co n tem p t p ro c e e d in g s a g a in st th e U n io n a n d D e lla V e lla . Id . at1273 n. 7. T hos e cont empt pr ocee di ngs w er e r es ol ved on Sept ember16, 2 0 0 3 , b yth is C o u rt ’s c o n s e n t o rd e r i m p le m e n tin g th e p a rt ie s ’ s tip u la te d s e ttle m e n t. (A p p . 2 0 4 -1 0 ; N

at ’ lLabor Relat i ons B d. v. I nt ’ lB hd. of

E l ec. W orker s , Local 98 , N o. 99- 3 9 7 7 (3d C ir . S ep . 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 (co n sen t ord er a p p rov ing p arti es’ sti p u lat ed ag ree m en t. ))) A m o n g o th e r c o n d itio n s , th a t o rd e r r e q u ir e d D e lla V e lla to re m it $ 5 ,0 0 0 to th e B o a rd , a s um r epr es ent i ng “a c om pr om i s ed amountof fi nes , compensa t orydamages and/ or11

att orney s ’ fee s caus ed byD el l a V el l a’ s fai l ur e t o compl yw i th the pi cket i ng and other p ro v isio n s o f

th e C o u rt’s p rio r o rd e rs . . . . ” (A p p . 2 0 4 .) T h e U n io n w a s s p e c if ica lly b arred fro m reim b u rsi n g the $ 5 , 0 0 0 to D ell a V ell a. (A p p . 2 0 5 . ) I n eval uat i ng the appr opr i at e r emedyi n the i ns t antcas e, the A L J not ed thatthe m os tr ece ntpr i orr el at ed mi s conductbythe U ni on and D el l a V el l a w as the Sw art l ey i nci denti n J anuary , 2002. ( A pp. 14. ) A ccor di ng t o the A L J , the pas s age of fourand oneh a l f y e a r s b e twe e n th a tmi s c o n d u c ta n d th e c u rr e n tc a s e “ i n s u l a t e [ d ] th e Un i o n f r o m a fi nd i ng of p rocl i vitybased so l el yon a his t oryof p ri or m i scond uct. ” (I d. ) N evertheles s, the A L J ex p lai n ed that a b roa d o rde r w as n ec essa ryan d ap p rop ri ate f o r tw o rea so n s. (Id.) Fi r s t , a U ni on, l i ke a c orpor at i on, act s thr ough i t s agent s . ( I d. ) T hus , the A L J thought broad rel i ef w as part i cular l yapp ropri at e beca use t he m i scond uct i n the presentcase occurr ed underthe s upervi s i on of D el l a V el l a, a dr i vi ng for ce be hi nd pr i orU ni on m i s conduct . ( I d. ) Second, D el l a V el l a enga ged i n the curr entm i s conductl es s than thr ee y ear s aft erthe r es ol ut i on of hi s cont empt pr ocee di ngs . ( I d. ) T he A L J r ecomm ended the im p o sit ion o f a b roa d ce ase -an d -de sisto rde r up o n the U n ion . (A p p . 1 4 -15 . ) I n A ugus t , 2007, the B oar d aff i r m ed the A L J ’ s rul i ngs , fi ndi ngs , and conc l us i ons an d also ad o p ted th e re co m m en d ed b roa d o rde r. (A p p . 6 . ) In d o ing so , the B o ard expr es s l ydecl i ned t o r el yon t he A L J ’ s concl us i on thatconductoccurr i ng m or e than four y ear s pr i orcannotbe cons i der ed i n deci di ng w hethera partyi s a r eci di vi s toffe nderof the A c t. (A p p . 6 n .2 .) T h e B o a rd e x p lain e d th a t a b ro a d o rd e r sh o u ld iss u e w h e n th e to tality12

o f th e c ir cu m stan ce s so ind icates. ( Id.) T h e B o a rd n o w s e e k s e n f o rc e m e n t o f

its o rd e r. II. T he U ni on chal l enges the B oar d’ s deci s i on on tw o fr ont s –the fa ctual fi ndi ngs and the r emedy . A s t o t he under l y i ng fac tual fi ndi ngs , the U ni on ar gues thats ubs t ant i al evi dence does nots uppor tthe B oar d’ s det erm i nat i ons . A s t o the r emedy , the U ni on co n tend s tha t th e B o ard ab u sed it s d iscreti o n b yim p o sing a b roa d ce ase -an d -de sisto rde r. A. T he B oar d adopt ed the A L J ’ s fi ndi ng thatthe U ni on vi ol at ed Sect i on 8( b) ( 1) ( A ) of the A ctbyi nt ent i onal l yobs truct i ng M uth’ s abi l i tyt o compl et e a w or k t as k fora per i od of a p p ro x im a telyth irtym in u tes . O u r re v iew o f th e B o a rd ’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s is lim ited to co n side ri n g w h ethe r th o se f ind ing s “a re su p p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce o n the re co rd as a w hol e. ” Tr i mm As s o c s . , I n c . v . NLRB , 351 F. 3d 99, 102 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng S p e c ta c o rM

g mt . Gr o u

p v . NLRB , 3 2 0 F . 3 d 3 8 5 , 3 9 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); 2 9 U . S . C . § 1 6 0 (e)). “S ub st anti al evidence is m ore than a m ere s ci nti l l a. Itm eans such rel evan tevidence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ” A l l egheny Ludl um Cor p . v . NLRB , 301 F. 3d 167, 181 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng C i t iz ens P ubl ' g & Pri nt i ng C o. v . NLRB , 2 6 3 F . 3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )) ( interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). If s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , w e ar e bound t o uphol d the B oar d’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs as c o n c lu s iv e . I

d.13

H er e, the A L J cr edi t ed M uth’ s t es t i m onythatthe pi cket s m oved i n fr ontof the d u m p s te rs to b lo c k h is p a th , w h ile d is c re d itin g th e c o n tr a ry te s tim o n yb yD e lla V e lla . T h e U n i o n n o w a s s a i l s th a tf i n d i n g a s u n s u p p o r t e d b yth e e v i d e n c e i n th e r e c o r d . We d isag ree an d fin d that the re co rd c o n tai n s su b stan ti al ev iden ce in su p p o rto f th e A L J’s f in d in g s . A ft erobs ervi ng the t es t i m onyof both M uth and D el l a V el l a, the A L J w as f a v o ra b lyim p re ss e d b yM u th ’s “ c a lm , d isp a ss io n a te m a n n e r[ ,]” g o in g so f a r a s to e x p lain thatM uth “l eft[the A L J ] w i th a s ens e of hi s fundament al neutr al i tyi n thi s di s put e. ” The A L J had no s i m i l arpr ai s e forD el l a V el l a’ s demeanor . W hi l e the U ni on di s put es that appr ai s al of M uth’ s neutr al i ty , the A L J w as the l one fa ct fi nderw i th a fi r s thand oppor tuni tyt o obs erve the t es t i m onyand demeanorof M uth and D el l a V el l a. T hus , t he A L J w a s p a rt ic u la rl yw e ll- p o s itio n e d to d e te rm in e th e c re d ib ility o f th o s e w itn e s s e s . See E. En g ’ g& El e v a t o rCo. , I

n c . v . NLRB , 637 F. 2d 191, 197- 98 ( 3d C i r . 1980) . T he U n io n ’s b a re a ss e rtio n th a t M u th ’s te stim o n yw a s b ias e d in f a v o r o f h is e m p lo y e r is in s u f f ic ie n t to d is p la c e th e c re d ib ility f in d in g s o f

th e A L J . D ur i ng the admi ni s tr at i ve hea r i ng, onl yM uth and D el l a V el l a off er ed t es t i m ony co n ce rnin g the p icke ts’ loca ti o n b ef o re M u th ap p roa ch ed ; C u m m ing s an d Q u inn w ere abs entfr om thos e pr ocee di ngs . I n l i ghtof thei runexpl ai ned abs ence , the A L J dr ew an adver s e i nfer ence agai ns tthe U ni on. A s the A L J r ecogni zed, the l ocat i on of C um m i ngs a n d Q u in n is a k e yiss u e in th is c a se . T h e f a ilu re o f e ith e r m a n to c o rro b o ra te D e lla14

V el l a’ s ver s i on of the eve nt s i s s tr i ki ng and pr ovi des fur thers uppor tforthe conc l us i on th a t th e m e n m o v e d in to M u th ’s p a th . T he A L J al s o obs erved thatpi cket i ng atthe entr ance , r atherthan i n fr ontof the dum ps t er s , “compor t s w i th l ogi c and c om m on s ens e. ” W hi l e the U ni on di s put es that as s es s m ent , the A L J m ade hi s fi ndi ng aft err evi ew i ng exhi bi t s , i ncl udi ng phot ogr aphs and a di agr am of t he G enes i s pr operty . T he U ni on has i dent i fi ed no bas i s t o s etas i de the A L J ’ s obs ervat i on otherthan i t s ow n s el f- s ervi ng as s ert i on thatthe dumpst er s w er e a h ig h e r v is ib ility lo c a tio n . Fi nal l y , the A L J not ed thatD el l a V el l a’ s t es t i m onyw as i ncons i s t ent . A tone poi nt d u ri n g h is direct ex am ination , D ell a V ell a a g ree d that C u m m ing s an d Q u inn w ere pi cket i ng atthe “e as tentr ance . ” A ccor di ng t o the A L J , thi s t es t i m onym eantthatthe pi cket s w er e s t andi ng “ats om e di s t ance fr om the dumpst er [, ] ” r atherthan i n fr ontof the d u m p ste r. A c c o rd in g to th e U n io n , the “ e a st e n tra n c e ” re f e rs to a n a re a th a t in c lu d e s b o th the dumpst er s and the ea s t ern dr i vew ay . W e w oul d agr ee thatD el l a V el l a’ s t es t i m onyon this po i nt i s som ew hat am biguou s. H ow ever, the A L J’ s conclusi on s ar e nev ertheles s bas ed upon s ubs t ant i al evi dence adequa t e t o s uppor tthe conc l us i on thatC um m i ngs and Q u in n m o v e d th e irp o s itio n s to p re v e n t M u th f ro m c o m p le tin g h is w o rk ta s k . T h e U n io n a ls o c h a lle n g e s th e f in d in g th a t th e in c id e n t la s te d th ir ty m in u te s . A c c o rd in g to th e U n io n , the A L J s h o u ld n o t h a v e c re d ited M u th ’s e stim a te th a t th e e v e n ts l as t ed thi r tyt o t hi r ty - fi ve mi nut es beca us e M uth’ s appr oxi m at i on di ver ged fr om thos e ofW e r e c o g n i z e th a tth e c i v i l a f f a i r s o f f i c e r s ’ r e p o r tr e f

e r e n c e s a f

i v e mi n u t e t i me 5 i nt erval befor e M uth w as abl e t o dum p the debr i s . R ead i n cont ext , w e fi nd thatthe r efe r ence t o fi ve mi nut es des cr i bes the t i m e betw een w hen H erm an as ked the U ni on m ember s t o m ove and w hen M uth compl et ed hi s t as k. W e ar e notper s uaded bythe U ni on’ s cl ai m thatthe r eportw as i nt ended t o s ugges tthe ent i r e i nci dentt ook j us tfi ve m i nut es , part i cul ar l ygi ven thatD el l a V el l a hi m s el f admi t t ed thatthe i nci dentt ook cl os er to te n m in u te s . 15 Pr ego, H erm an, D el l a V el l a, and the ci vi l aff ai r s offi cer s . W e di s agr ee a nd fi nd thatt he t e s t i mo n yo f

He r ma n a n d P r e g o c a n b e e a s i l yr e c o n c i l e d wi th M u th ’ s t e s t i mo n y . As n o te d a b o v e , M u th te s tif ie d th a t th e e n tir e in c id e n t la s te d th ir ty to th ir ty-f iv e m in u te s . H erm an’ s t es t i m onyw as cons i s t entw i th M uth’ s ; H erm an es t i m at ed thatt en mi nut es p a ss e d f ro m w h e n h e lea rn e d o f th e d isp u te u n til h is a rriv a l at th e d u m p ste rs, a n d tw e n ty m o re m in u tes e lap se d b e f o re M u th c o m p lete d h is ta sk . P re g o tes tifie d th a t f if tee n to tw entym i nut es pas s ed fr om w hen he l earned of the di s turbance unt i l M uth dum ped the d e b r i s , a n e s t i ma t e th a td i d n o ta c c o u n tf o rth e p a s s a g e o f

t i me b e f o r e P r e g o b e c a me aw ar e of the i nci dent . O nl yD el l a V el l a cl ai m ed thatthe i nci dentl as t ed t en mi nut es or l es s . T he t empora l es t i m at es of M uth, H erm an, and Pr ego pr ovi de s ubs t ant i al evi dence supp ort i ng the A L J’ s conclusi on that the st and off l ast ed thi rtym i nu t es. 5 T h e A L J’s f

in d in g th a t, fo r a p e rio d o f th irtym in u tes , the U n io n in ten tio n a lly obs truct ed M uth’ s abi l i tyt o depos i tthe debr i s i n the dumpst er s i s s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence . B. P u rsua n t t o 2 9 U . S . C . § 1 6 0 (c), the B o ard is en tru sted w ith “the p ri m ary16

r es pons i bi l i tyand br oad di s cr et i on t o devi s e r emedi es thateff ectuat e the pol i ci es of the A ct , s ubj ectonl yt o l i m i t ed j udi ci al r evi ew . ” Qui c k v . NLRB , 2 4 5 F . 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 5 4 (3d C ir . 2001) ( quot i ng Su r e - Ta n , I n c . v . NLRB , 4 6 7 U .S . 8 8 3 , 8 9 8 -9 9 (1 9 8 4 )). W e a re n o t to “s ubs t i tut e [our ] j udgm entforthatof the N L R B i n det erm i ni ng how bes tt o undo the eff ect s of unfa i rl aborpr act i ces . ” I d. ( quot i ng Sur e- Tan , 4 6 7 U . S . at 89 9 ). T h e B o ard ’s chos en r emedy“mustnotbe di s turbed ‘ unl es s i tcan be s how n thatthe or deri s a pat ent att empt t o achi eve e nds ot herthan thos e w hi ch ca n fai r l ybe s ai d t o eff ectuat e the pol i ci es of the A ct . ’ ” I

d. ( quot i ng Fi b r e b o a r d Pa p e rPr o d s . Cor p . v . NLRB , 379 U . S. 203, 216 (1 9 6 4 )) . U n d e r B o a rd p re c e d e n t, a b ro a d o rd e r is a p p ro p ria te o n ly“ w h e n a re sp o n d e n t is s how n t o have a pr ocl i vi tyt o vi ol at e the A ctorhas engage d i n s uch egr egi ous or w i despread m i scond uct as t o d em on strat e a gen eral dis regar d fo r the em ploy ees’ fundament al s t atut oryr i ght s . ” Hi ckm ot tFoods , In c ., 2 4 2 N .L .R .B . 1 3 5 7 , 1 3 5 7 (1 9 7 9 ). T he Hi ckm ott

Foo ds i nqui r yl ooks t o “the t ot al i tyof ci r cumst ance s t o as cert ai n w hether the r es pondent ’ s s peci fi c unl aw ful conductm ani fes t s an att i tude of oppos i t i on t o the purpos es of the A ctt o pr ot ectthe r i ght s of empl oy ees gener al l y , w hi ch w oul d pr ovi de an obj ect i ve bas i s forenj oi ni ng a r eas onabl yant i ci pat ed futur e thr eatt o anyof thos e Sect i on 7 r i ght s . ” F i ve StarM

f g. , I nc. , 348 N . L . R . B . 1301, 1302 ( 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itte d ). I n thi s cas e, the B oar d adopt ed the A L J ’ s r ecomm endat i on thata br oad ce as e- and-T he U ni on corr ect l ynot es thatthe B oar d has , i n s om e dec i s i ons , r egar ded 6 m isc o n d u c t f

ro m f o u r o r f iv e y e a rs p rio r a s to o re m o te to su p p o rt a f in d in g o f p ro c liv ity to v io la te th e A c t. See I nt ’ lU ni on of O per at i ng E ng’ rs , LocalN o. 12 ( Hens el P hel ps C o n s tr . C o .) , 284 N . L . R . B . 246, 246 n. 2 ( 1987) ( fi ndi ng tw o s epar at e i ns t ance s of m isc o n d u c t f

iv e y e a rs p rio r w e re to o re m o te to su p p o rt a f in d in g o f p ro c liv ity ); P l um bers L o c a l 3 8 8 (D a ily He a tin ga n d A irC o n d itio n in g, In c .), 280 N . L . R . B . 1260, 1280 ( 1986)

17 des i s tor derw as w arr ant ed i n l i ghtof pas tm i s conductbythe U ni on and D el l a V el l a. T he U n ion n o w co n tend s tha t th e B o ard ab u sed it s d iscreti o n b yim p o sing that o rde r. A ccor di ng t o t he U ni on, a br oad or derw as notw arr ant ed bec aus e i t s pas tm i s conductw as re m o te in tim e a n d d is s im ila r i n n a tu re . T u rn in g f

irst to th e sta len e ss iss u e , the U n io n c laim s th a t th e B o a rd h isto ric a lly does notcons i derm i s conductw hi ch occ urr ed more than foury ear s pr i orw hen fa s hi oni ng a r emedy . T he U ni on r eas ons thati tcoul d nothave a pr ocl i vi tyt o vi ol at e the A ctw hen i t s m os tr ece ntm i s conductoccurr ed i n J anuary2002, m or e than foury ear s befor e the c o n d u c t u n d e rly in g th is c a se . In re n d e rin g its d e c isio n in th is c a se , the B o a rd e x p re ss ly decl i ned t o r ecogni ze a nys uch r i gi d t i m e l i m i t at i on. I ns t ead, the B oar d expl ai ned thatt he pr opr i etyof a br oad or deri s bas ed on an a s s es s m entof the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s i ncl udi ng the pr oxi m i tyorr emot enes s of the dat es of pr i orunfai rl aborpr act i ces and re la te d a d m in is tr a tiv e a n d ju d ic ia l o rd e rs . T he U ni on ci t es no author i tyr equi r i ng the B oar d t o w hol l ydi s r egar d m i s conduct fr om m or e than foury ear s pr i orw hen det erm i ni ng the appr opr i at e r emedyforunfai rl abor pr act i ces . T he s er i es of dec i s i ons ci t ed bythe U ni on do notes t abl i s h orr ecogni ze a ny su c h u n w a v e rin g leg a l p rin c ip le. T h o se c a se s m e re lyill u stra te th e u n re m a rk a b le 6( acc or di ng m i ni m al s i gni fi canc e t o a cons entj udgm entfr om fourt o fi ve y ear s pr i orw hen

as s es s i ng an appr opr i at e r emedy ) . H ow ever , i tdoes notfol l ow fr om thos e dec i s i ons t hat th e B o a rd is b o u n d to d isre g a rd m isc o n d u c t o c c u rrin g m o re th a n f o u r y e a rs p rio r in a ll cases. 18 pr opos i t i on thatpas s age of t i m e betw een a ct s of m i s conducti s r el evantt o w hetherthe to ta lity o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s w a rr a n ts th e im p o s itio n o f a b ro a d re m e d ia l o rd e r. M o reo v er, th is case is un li k e tho se c it ed b ythe U n ion . H ere , itw as o n lyin S ep tem b er, 2003, thatthe U ni on and D el l a V el l a r es ol ved ci vi l cont empt pr ocee di ngs vi a a s t i pul at ed s ett l ement . T he i ns t antcas e i nvol ves m i s conductthatoccurr ed i n J une 2006, l es s than th re e y e a rs la te r. N ext, the U nion argues t hat the B oard i m properl yrel i ed o n d i ssi m i l ar past m isco n d u ct i n co n clud ing that ith ad a p roc li v ityto v iolate th e A ct. T h e U n ion ’s history o f m isc o n d u c t in c lu d e s v io latio n s o f d if f e re n t su b se c tio n s o f

S e c tio n 8 (b ) o f

th e A c t, w her eas thi s cas e i nvol ves onl ya vi ol at i on of s ubs ect i on 8( b) ( 1) ( A ) . T hus , the U ni on ar gues thatthe B oar d s houl d have di s r egar ded al l butpr i orvi ol at i ons of s ubs ect i on 8 (b )( 1 )( A ) w h e n f

a s h io n in g a re m e d yin th is c a s e . A s s uppor tfori t s ar gum ent , the U ni on pr i nci pal l yr el i es on the B oar d’ s r ece nt deci s i on i n Me tta E lec tric , 3 4 9 N . L . R . B . 1 0 8 8 (20 0 7 ) (Metta II ). In th e o rig in a l Me tta E lec tric d ec isi o n , 3 3 8 N . L . R . B . 1 0 5 9 (20 0 3 ) (Met ta I ) , the B oar d det erm i ned thatan empl oy erhad vi ol at ed Sect i ons 8( a) ( 1) , ( 3) , and ( 5) of the A ctand i m pos ed a na rr ow re m e d ia l o rd e r u p o n th e e m p lo y e r. Met ta I, 338 N . L . R . B . at1059, 1065- 67. I n Metta II, th e A L J d e te rm in e d th a t th e e m p lo y e r h a d a g a in v io la te d S e c tio n 8 (a )( 5 ) o f th e A c t.19

Metta II, 349 N . L . R . B . at1093. T he A L J then s um m ar i l yconcl uded thata br oad ce as eand- des i s tor derw as w arr ant ed s ol el ybeca us e i tw as the s econd l aborvi ol at i on bythe e m p lo y e r. Id . a t 1 0 9 4 . T he B oar d decl i ned t o adoptthe r ecomm ended br oad or derand r ej ect ed the pr emi s e thats uch an or ders houl d aut om at i cal l yi s s ue bec aus e the empl oy ervi ol at ed the A c t tw ic e . I

d. at1088 n. 2. A s the B oar d expl ai ned, the narr ow or deri n Met ta I w as l ar gel ys ucce s s ful , i ns ofaras the empl oy erhad notr epea t ed much of i t s pr evi ous im p ro p e r c o n d u c t. I

d. at10 88 . A m on g o ther fact ors, the “n arr ow i ng scope o f viol at i on s” f r o m Metta I t o Metta II le d th e B o a rd to c o n c lu d e th a t a b ro a d o rd e r w a s n o t w a rr a n te d . I d. T he U ni on w oul d r ead Metta II forthe pr opos i t i on thata br oad or deri s not w arr ant ed w hen a s ubs equentvi ol at i on of the A cti nvol ves a di ffe r entvar i etyof m i s conductthan anypr i orvi ol at i ons . I n addi t i on, the U ni on w oul d r el yon Metta II for the p ri ncipl e t hat a br oad order s ho uld not i ssue w hen subsequ ent m i scond uct i s l ess eg reg iou s tha n p ri o r un fa irlabo r pra cti ce s. W e d isag ree an d d ec li n e the U n ion ’s i nvi t at i on t o extr apol at e s uch s w eepi ng l egal pr i nci pl es fr om the fa ct - s ens i t i ve Metta II d ec isi o n . In a d d it ion , the U n ion ’s historyo f re p ea ted m isco n d u ct i n d icates a fa r m o re fl agr antdi s r egar d forthe A ctthan the empl oy eri n the Me tta cas es , w hi ch had onl yrun a f o u l o f th e A c t o n tw o o c c a s io n s . M or eover , the A L J i n t hi s cas e r ej ect ed thi s l i ne of a r gum entbythe U ni on. T he20

A L J acknow l edged thata fi ndi ng of pr ocl i vi tyi s gener al l ybas ed on “pr i oradj udi cat i ons of ‘ s i m i l arunl aw ful conducti n t he pas t . ’ ” ( A pp. 11 n. 16 ( quot i ng Team s t ers Local U ni on N o. 166 ( Shank/ B al f ourB eat t y) , 327 N . L . R . B . 449, 455 ( 1999. ) ) ) H ow ever , the A L J expl ai ned that“i ti s i m por t antnott o confus e ‘ s i m i l ar ’ w i th ‘ i dent i cal . ’ ” ( A pp. 11 n. 16. ) H ence , the A L J cons i der ed “pa s tadj udi cat i ons forunl aw ful pi cket i ng act i vi t i es u n d e r a n yp o rtio n o f

S e c . 8 (b ).” ( Id .) S u c h a n a p p ro a c h w a s a p p ro p ria te, a c c o rd in g to the A L J, becau se “[t ]o conf i ne ex am i nati on on l yt o ad j ud i cat i on s und er the p reci se su b se c tio n o f

th e sta tu te a lleg e d in th is c a se w o u ld b e to e x a lt fo rm o v e r su b sta n c e a n d to i gnor e the B oar d’ s i ns truct i on t o cons i derthe t ot al i tyof the r el evantci r cumst ance s w hen fas hi oni ng an appr opr i at e r emedy . ” ( A pp. 11 n. 16 ( ci t i ng F i ve StarM f g. , 3 4 8 N. L. R. B. 1301. ) ) A s i de fr om i t s i l l - founded r el i ance on the Met ta cas es , the U ni on has i dent i fi ed n o b a s is to d is tu rb th e A L J ’s c o n s id e re d e x p la n a tio n , a n d w e w ill n o t d o s o . W e now turn t o t he ques t i on of w hetherthe B oar d abus ed i t s di s cr et i on by i m pos i ng a br oad ce as e- and- des i s tor derupon the U ni on. A s det ai l ed above , the U ni on h a s b e e n re p e a te d ly d is c ip lin e d f o r u n f a irla b o r p ra c tic e s . A s th e A L J re c o g n iz e d , a U ni on act s thr ough i t s r epr es ent at i ves , and D el l a V el l a w as i nvol ved i n pr i orU ni on m isc o n d u c t. L e ss th a n th re e y e a rs p rio r to th e c o n d u c t u n d e rly in g th is c a se , D e lla V e lla w as r equi r ed t o per s onal l yr emi t$5, 000 t o the B oar d i n s ett l ementof ci vi l cont empt char ges . T he U ni on i s corr ectthatD el l a V el l a’ s conductr es ul t i ng i n the cont empt act i on o cc u rred m o re tha n six y ea rs prior to the cu rren t i n cide n t. H o w ev er, D ell a V ell a’s21

m i s conductw i thi n t hr ee y ear s of r es ol vi ng the cont empt act i on i ndi cat es thathe r emai ns undet err ed i n hi s di s r egar d forthe A ct . W e al s o not e thatthe U ni on cont i nued t o pl ace D e lla V e lla in c h a rg e o f p ic k e tin g a c tiv itie s d e s p ite h is h is to ry o f v io la tio n s o f

th e A c t. G iv e n th is h isto rya n d th e lim ited n a tu re o f o u r re v iew , w e f

in d th a t th e B o a rd w a s w ith in its d is c re tio n to im p o s e a b ro a d re m e d ia l o rd e r u p o n th e U n io n . III . Forthe r eas ons s etfor th above, w e fi nd thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B oar d’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe U ni on vi ol at ed Sect i on 8( b) ( 1) ( A ) of the A ct . W e furt her fi nd thatthe B oar d act ed w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on w hen i ti m pos ed a br oad r emedi al or der upon the U ni on. T he B oar d’ s appl i cat i on forenfor cementof i t s or deri s s ued aga i ns tt he U n io n w ill b e g ra n te d .