0 8
- 4 0 0 3
- a g , 0 8
- 4 4 5 6
- a g , 0 8
- 4 6 8 9
- a g ; 0 8
- 4 8 4 9
- a g ( t a n d e m) In te rn a tio n a l B ro th e rh o o d o f B o ile rm a k e rs , Ir o n S h ip B u ild e rs , B la c k s m ith s , F o rg e rs & H e lp e rs , A F L -C IO v . N atio n al L ab o r R ela ti o n s B o ard 1 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 4 S UM M ARY OR DER 5 6 RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HAVE P RECE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A 7 S UM M ARY ORDER F I LED ON O R AFTER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY 8 FE DERA L RU LE O F AP PE LLATE PROC EDUR E 3 2 . 1 AN D TH I S CO URT’ S LO CAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . W HEN 9 CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A DO CUM EN T FI LE D W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE 10 E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L AP P EN DI X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON 11 “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A C OP Y OF I T ON ANY 12 P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . 13 1 4 A tas t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es Courtof A ppeal s f

orthe Second Ci r cui t , hel d at 1 5 the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew 1 6 Y ork, on the 18 day of M ay, tw o thous and t en. th 17 1 8 P RES ENT : ROGER J
. M I NER, 1 9 J O H N M . W A L K E R J R .,

GE RA RD E
. L YNC H, 20 21 C i r cui tJudges
. 22

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 23 2 4 I N TER N A TI O N A L B RO TH ER H O O D O F 2 5 B O IL E R M A K E R S , IR O N S H IP B U IL D E R S , 2 6 B L A C K S M IT H S , F O R G E R S & H E L P E R S , A F L -C IO 27 P et i t i oner , 28 2 9 v. 30 3 1 N A T I O N A L L A B O R R E L A T I O N S B O A R D , 08- 4003- ag 32 R es pondent 33 34 and 35 3 6 M CB URNE Y C OR P OR AT I ON, 37 Interveno r. 38
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - 3 9 M CB URNE Y C OR P OR AT I ON 40 P et i t i oner / Cr os s -R es

pondent , 41 4 2 v. 43 4 4 N A T I O N A L L A B O R R E L A T I O N S B O A R D , 08- 4456- ag 45 R espon den t / Cross-P et i t i on er, 08- 4689- ag 46 47 and2 1 I N TER N A TI O N A L B RO TH ER H O O D O F 2 B O IL E R M A K E R S , IR O N S H IP B U IL D E R S , 3 BL AC KS M I T HS , F OR GE RS & HE L P E RS , AF L
- CI O, 4 Interveno r. 5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - 6 co ns olida ted for dis positionwi th 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - 8 I N TER N A TI O N A L B RO TH ER H O O D O F 9 B O IL E R M A K E R S , IR O N S H IP B U IL D E R S , 1 0 B L A C K S M IT H S , F O R G E R S & H E L P E R S , A F L -C IO P et i t i oner , 11 12 v. 13 14 N A T I O N A L L A B O R R E L A T I O N S B O A R D , 08- 4849- ag 15 R es pondent 16 17 and 18 19 2 0 BR OW N & RO OT P OW E R MANUF AC T UR ING, 21 Interveno r. 22
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - 23 24 M I CHAEL J. S TA PP , (A n g e la M . A tk in s o n , on the br i ef ) , B l ake & U hl i g, P. A
. , K ans as 2 5 C ity , K a n s a s , f

orP et i t i oner

/ I ntervenorI

nternat i onalB r otherhood of B oi lerm aker

s , I r on 26 Sh ip B u ilders, B lack sm ith s, Fo rg ers & Helpe rs, A F L -C IO 27 28 J EF F REY A. S CHWARTZ , E SQ ., (D io n Y . K o h le r, E s q ., on the br i ef ) , J a c ks onLewi s LLP, 2 9 A tla n ta , G e o rg ia , f orP et i t i oner

/ Cr os s -R es

pondent/ I ntervenorMcBurneyC or porat i on 30 31 H OWARD S. L INZY , (T h o m a s J . W o o d fo rd , on the br i ef ) , T he K ul l m an Fi rm , PL C , N ew 3 2 O rl e a n s , L o u is ia n a , f orI ntervenorB r ow n & R ootP ow erManuf actur i ng, I

nc. 33 34 D ANI EL B LI TZ and A MY G INN , (J ill A . G ri ff in , R o n a ldM e is b u rg , J o h n E . H ig g in s , J r., 3 5 J o h n H . F e rg u s o n a n dL in d aD re e b e n , on the br i ef ) f orR es pondent / Cr os s P et i t i oner 36 N

ati on al Lab or R elati on s B oa rd 37 3 8 Pet i t i ons t o r evi ew , and cr os s - pet i t i on t o enf or ce, Sept ember29, 2007 or der , and 3 9 pet i t i on t o r evi ew Sept ember28, 2007 or der , of the N at i onal L aborR el at i ons B oar d. 4 0 UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJUDGE D, 4 1 A N D D E C R E E D th a t th e p e tit io n s fo r re v iew a re D E N IE D in p a rt a n dD IS M IS S E D in 4 2 p a rt , a n dN L R B ’s c ro s s -p e titio n fo r e n fo rc e m e n t is G R A N T E D
.3 1 P et i t i on er I nternati on al B rotherhoo d o f B oil erm akers, Ir on S hip B uil ders, 2 B l acks m i ths , For ger s & H elper s , A FL
- C I O ( the “U ni on”) s eeks r evi ew of the Sept ember 3 28, 2007 and Sept ember29, 2007 deci s i ons and or der s of r es pondentthe N at i onal L abor 4 R elati o n s B o ard (th e “ N L R B ” o r th e “ B o ard ”) w h ich fo u n dp ri n cipa ll y that interve n o rs 5 B r ow n & R ootM anuf actur i ng, I nc. and M cB urney C orpor at i on ( “M cB urney”) had 6 r ef

us ed t o hi r e j ob appl i cant s on acc ountof thei runi on af

f i l i at i on i n vi ol at i on of 7 § § 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d( 3 ) o f th e Na t i o n a l Lab o rRe l a t i o n s Ac t( “ NLRA” ) , 2 9 U. S
. C. 8 §§ 158( a) ( 1) , ( 3) , i ns of aras thes e or deramended the r emedi alor der s of the A L J s and 9 m ade c ert ai n di r ect i ons w i th r es pectt o the conduc tof the compl i ance port i ons of the 1 0 p ro c e e d in g s . Se e B r o w n & R o o t M fg ., In c ., 3 5 1 N .L .R .B . 1 6 8 (2 0 0 7 ); McB u rn e y C o r p ., 1 1 3 5 1 N
. L
. R
. B
. 7 9 9 (20 0 7 ). M cB u rne y also p eti ti o n s for rev iew o f on e o f th e B o ard ’s 1 2 fi n d in g s a g a in s t it, a n dth e B o a rd s e e k s e n fo rc e m e n t o f i ts o rd e r a g a in s t M c B u rn e y . 1 3 T hes e appe al s w er e hear d i n t andem, and w e now cons ol i dat e them fordi s pos i t i on. 1 4 In its p e tit io n s, th e U n io n a ttac k s th e e v id e n tiary ru le a n n o u n c e db y th e N L R B in 15 O i lC api tolSheet Metal , I nc. , 3 4 9 N .L .R .B . 1 3 4 8 (2 0 0 7 ), as k in g th is C o u rt to in v a lid a te 1 6 the rul e or, i n the al t ernat i ve, t o en j oin the B oard fr om app l ying the rul e i n these act i on s, 1 7 w hi ch comm ence d bef or e the rul e cam e i nt o ef f ect . I n O i lC api tol , the N L R B c h a n g e dits 1 8 pr ocedur e f

ordet erm i ni ng i n compl i ance pr ocee di ngs the bac kpay l i abi l i ty of compani es 1 9 f ound t o have di s cr i m i nat or i l y f ai l ed t o hi r e uni on appl i cant s . W her eas pr evi ous l y the 2 0 B oar d appl i ed a pr es um pt i on thatbackpay s houl d be pai d t o al l w r ongf ul l y unhi r ed 2 1 appl i cant s f

orthe per i od runni ng f

r om the dat e of

di s cr i m i nat i on unt i l they r ece i ved a 2 2 val i d of

f erof empl oym ent , the B oar d i n O i lC api toldet erm i ned thats uch a pr es um pt i on4 1 w as notw arr ant ed i n the ca s e of “s al t s ” – uni on m ember s ( s om et i m es pai d by the uni on) 2 w ho appl y f

orj obs w i th non- uni on empl oyer s as partof a s tr at egy t o or gani ze the 3 empl oyer ’ s w orkf or ce. T he B oar d rul ed thati n f utur e compl i ance pr ocee di ngs , the 4 G ener al C ouns el “as partof hi s exi s t i ng bur den of

pr ovi ng a r eas onabl e gr os s backpay 5 a m o u n t du e , [w o u ldh a v e ] t o p re se n t af firm a tiv e e v id e n c e th a t th e sa lt[ ], if h ire d , w o u ld 6 have w orked f

orthe empl oyerf

orthe bac kpay per i od cl ai m ed. ” I d. a t 1 3 4 9
. 7 W e d o n o t r ea ch the m erit s o f th e U n ion ’s arg u m en ts ei ther tha t th e B o ard ’s 8 enac tm entof

the O i lC api tolrul e w as an i m perm i s s i bl e i nt erpr et at i on of the N L R A or 9 thatthe appl i cat i on of the rul e i n thes e ac t i ons w oul d be “mani f es t l y unj us t . ” See Ew i ng 10 v . NLRB , 861 F. 2d 353, 362 ( 2d C i r . 1988)
. A s the U ni t ed St at es C ourtof A ppeal s f

orthe 1 1 D i s tr i ctof

C ol um bi a has r ece nt l y r ecogni zed i n the di r ectappea l of the O i lC api tol 1 2 deci s i on, chal l enges t o the O i lC api tolru le b e fo re its ap p lic a tio n a re u n ri p e . See She et 13 Me ta lW

o rke rs I n t ’ lAs s ’ n , Lo c a l2 7 0, AFL- CIO v. NLRB , 5 6 1 F .3 d4 9 7 (D .C . C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 1 4 T o det erm i ne w hethera cha l l enge t o an admi ni s tr at i ve ac t i on i s r i pe f orj udi ci al 1 5 re v iew , w e e v a lu a te b o th th e fitn e ss o f th e iss u e s fo r ju d icia l d e c isio n a n dth e h a rd sh ip to 1 6 th e p a rt ie s o f w ith h o ld in g c o u rtc o n s id e ra tio n . N
. Y. C i vi lLi ber t i es U

ni on v. G r andeau , 1 7 52 8 F
. 3d 12 2, 13 1-32 (2d C i r. 20 08 ). In this case, bo th o f these fact ors w ei gh against 1 8 f i ndi ng the B oar d’ s announce d i nt ent i on t o appl y the O i lC api tolrul e i n thes e ca s es r i pe 1 9 f orr evi ew . Fi r s t , w hetherthe O i lC api tolrul e i s a perm i s s i bl e i nt erpr et at i on of the 2 0 N L R A by the B oar d, and eve n m or e s o w hetherthe appl i cat i on of the rul e i n thes e ca s es 2 1 w oul d be mani f es t l y unj us t , ar e notyets ui t abl e f oradj udi cat i on. T her e have been no5 1 compl i ance pr ocee di ngs i n ei theract i on, and, as the D
. C
. C i r cui tnot ed, “w e do notknow 2 w hetherthe new rul e w i l l have any i m pacton the ul t i m at e r emedy. ” Sheet Metal 3 W orkers , 561 F. 3d at501. Furtherm or e, s i nce w e do notknow w hats ortof evi dence the 4 B oard w i l l seek co ncerni ng the u nh i red w orkers or how i t s i nq uir i es w i l l dif ferfr om tho se 5 conduct ed underthe pr e- O il Ca p ito l r egi m e, w e cannotdet erm i ne w hetherthe appl i cat i on 6 of the rul e i n thes e ca s es w i l l be mani f es t l y unj us t . N ordo w e s ee undue har ds hi p t o the 7 p a rties in w ith h o ld in g c o n sid e ra tio n a t th is ju n c tu re . T h e U n io n w illstill b e ab le to 8 chal l enge the O i lC api tolru le a ft e r th e c o m p lia n c e p ro c e e d in g s h a v e ta k e n p la c e . See 9 N LR B v. Kat

z ’s D el i cates s en of

H ous ton Str eet

, I nc. , 80 F. 3d 755, 771 ( 2d C i r . 1996) 1 0 ( f

i ndi ng thata party can c hal l enge the B oar d’ s r emedi al or deraf t erthe compl i ance 1 1 p ro c e e d in g ). A c c o rd in g ly , the U n io n ’s p e tit io n s w illb e d ism iss e d , w ith o u t p re ju d ice to 1 2 any pet i t i on thatm ay be f i l ed af t ercompl i ance pr ocee di ngs ar e compl et ed. 1 3 I n i t s pet i t i on, M cB urney cha l l enges the B oar d’ s f i ndi ng thati tvi ol at ed §§ 8( a) ( 3) 1 4 and 8( a) ( 1) of

the N L R A by f

ai l i ng and r ef

us i ng t o hi r e thi rty- ei ghtuni on- af f i l i at ed 1 5 ap p lica n ts a t fo u r jo b site s. M c B u rn e y d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th e B o a rd ’s f in d in g s th a t it 1 6 vi ol at ed § 8( a) ( 1) by s urvei l l i ng the uni on or gani zi ng act i vi t i es of i t s empl oyees and 1 7 §§ 8( a) ( 3) and 8( a) ( 1) by changi ng the w ork as s i gnm entof an empl oyee i n r et al i at i on f or 1 8 h is u n io n o rg a n izin g a c tiv iti e s. T h e B o a rdh a s c ro ss -p e tit io n e dfo r e n fo rc e m e n t o f its 1 9 o rde r. 2 0 A s a f

i ndi ng of f act , the B oar d’ s det erm i nat i on thatM cB urney f ai l ed t o hi r e the 2 1 j ob appl i cant s on acc ountof ant i
- uni on ani m us i s conclus i ve, s o l ong as i ti s “s upport ed6 1 b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e o n th e re c o rd c o n s id e re da s aw h o le .” 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 6 0 (e ). W e 2 w il l r ev erse a fa ctua l f ind ing “o n ly ..
. if

, after l o o k ing at th e re co rd a s a w h o le, w e a re left 3 w i th the i m pr es s i on thatno r at i onaltr i erof f actcoul d r eac h the conc l us i on dr aw n by the 4 B oar d. ” Ka tz ’s D e lic a te s s e n , 8 0 F
. 3 dat 76 3 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 5 M cB urney cont ends thati templ oyed a ne utr al hi r i ng pol i cy and that , s i nce the 6 B oar d di d notques t i on the val i di ty of the pol i cy and di d nothave e vi dence thatthe 7 unhi r ed uni on appl i cant s w er e more qual i f i ed than the hi r ed non- uni on appl i cant s under 8 the p o li cy , the B o ard ’s co n clus ion that an ti -un ion an im u s co n tr ibu ted to the c o m p an y ’s 9 fa ilu re to h ir e th e u n io n ap p lic a n ts is n o t s up p o rt e db y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . 1 0 T h is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. U n d e r th e ap p lica b le le g a l sta n d a rd , as se t o u t in 11 F ES, a D i vis i on of

Therm o P ow er , 331 N
. L
. R
. B
. 9, 12 ( 2000) , the B oar d w as notr equi r ed 1 2 t o s how thatthe unhi r ed uni on appl i cant s w er e more qual i f i ed than the hi r ed non- uni on 1 3 ap p li ca n ts i n o rde r t o co n clud e tha t anti- u n ion an im u s co n tr ibu ted to the e m p loy er’s 1 4 deci s i on. M cB urney’ s r el i ance on i t s neutr alhi r i ng pol i cy w as a def ens e, and w as 1 5 s ever el y under cutby the f act s thatM cB urney di s r egar ded the pol i cy on numer ous 1 6 o c c a sio n s a n dth a t m o st o f th e u n h ire du n io n ap p lica n ts ra ted e q u a lly o r h ig h e r in 1 7 M c B u rn e y ’s p u rp o rt e dp re fe re n c e s y s te m th a n th e n o n -u n io n ap p lic a n ts w h o w e re h ir e d
. 1 8 Subst ant i al addi t i onal evi dence s upport s the B oar d’ s conclus i on, i ncl udi ng the f actthat 1 9 M cB urney’ s m anage m ent“f r equent l y m i s r epr es ent ed and mi s l ed uni on appl i cant s about 2 0 [its ] h ir in g p la n s a n dre p e a te d ly lie dto th e ap p lic a n ts ab o u t [its ] in te n tio n s to h ir e ,” 21 McBurney , 351 N
. L
. R
. B
. at814, a f i ndi ng thatM cB urney does notdi s put e. E xami ni ng7 1 the r ecor d as a w hol e, i ncl udi ng the B oar d’ s uncont es t ed f i ndi ngs thatM cB urney w as 2 gui l ty of

otherant i
- uni on unf

ai rl aborpr act i ces by s urvei l l i ng i t s empl oyees ’ or gani zi ng 3 act i vi t i es and r et al i at i ng agai ns tone of i t s empl oyees f

orhi s or gani zi ng ef

f ort s , w e cannot 4 c o n c lu d e th a t “ n o ra tio n a l tr ie r o f f a c t c o u ldre a c h th e c o n c lu s io n d ra w n b y th e B o a rd .” 5 F o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e dab o v e , th e Un i o n ’ s p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w a r e DI S M I S S E D, 6 w i thoutpr ej udi ce t o the U ni on r enew i ng i t s ar gum ent s conce rni ng O i lC api tolaf t erthe 7 c o m p lian c e p ro c e e d in g s h a v e b e e n c o n du c ted . M c B u rn e y ’s p e tit io n fo r re v iew is 8 D E N I E D and the N L R B ’ s cr os s - pet i t i on f orenf or cementof

i t s or derf

i ndi ng M cB urney 9 g u i l ty o f

u n f a i rl ab o rp r a c t i c e s i s GR ANT E D. 10 1 1 FOR TH E CO UR T: 1 2 C athe ri n e O ’H ag an W o lf e, C lerk o f C o u rt 13