Opinion ID: 186308
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Board's Finding Regarding Collusion

Text: 34 Noting that there was no evidence of any collusion or conspiracy involving the Union, the Chel LaCort Board left open the possibility that such evidence might be sufficient to show unusual circumstances. 315 N.L.R.B. at 1036-37 n. 5. The Homes argue that the Board erred in rejecting their claim in this case that the Union and the Association colluded to keep their negotiations a secret. See Decision, slip op. at 8, J.A. at 767. 35 The Board's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 29 U.S.C. § 160(e)-(f) (2000). Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Evergreen Am. Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F.3d 827, 837 (D.C.Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, we reverse for lack of substantial evidence only when the record is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find to the contrary. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's rejection of the Homes' claim of collusion. 36 At the outset, we note that, inasmuch as the employer in Chel LaCort was provided no notice of the commencement of negotiations, see 315 N.L.R.B. at 1036, it is clear that the collusion contemplated by that case entails something more than a mere failure (even if deliberate) to provide such notice. Since its decision in the instant case, the Board has clarified that [t]he `collusion or conspiracy' referred to by the Chel Board's dictum clearly contemplates actions by the union and the employer association that are deliberately intended to prevent an employer from exercising its right to withdraw. D.A. Nolt, Inc., 340 N.L.R.B. No. 152, 2003 WL 22970620, at  (Dec. 15, 2003). On the record before us, we hold that it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that the Association and Union did not deliberately collude to prevent the Homes from exercising their right to withdraw. 37 The evidence pressed by the Homes is unavailing. In arguing for a finding of collusion, the Homes principally point to the early start of negotiations, the occurrence of substantial negotiations prior to the formal negotiation sessions on January 23 and February 1, 2002, the Association's knowledge that some members may have been unaware of the negotiations, and the fact that the only participant in the negotiations on the Association's behalf was its executive director. These alleged facts, even if true, do not compel a finding of impermissible collusion, for the simple reason that a mere failure to provide notice, even if deliberate, is insufficient to find proscribed collusion. 38 The Board determined that the early commencement and quick pace of the negotiations resulted from the parties' concern that, after the terrorist attacks in New York on September 11, 2001, State money might be diverted to other purposes and inasmuch as much or most of the money derived especially by nursing homes comes from State funding, via Medicaid, it would be a good idea to finalize collective-bargaining agreements (together with discussion with State officials), so that the Union and the employers would be able to go to the State legislature to lobby, ahead of other supplicants, for allocations from the upcoming State budget. Decision, slip op. at 3, J.A. at 762. This finding was directly supported by testimony from the Union's attorney and executive vice president, as well as the Association's executive director. See Hr'g Tr. at 39, 108-10, 252-54, 276-79, reprinted in J.A. at 45, 114-16, 260-62, 286-89. In accepting this explanation, the Board reasonably concluded that the parties had not impermissibly colluded or conspired to deliberately prevent the Holmes from exercising their right to withdraw from the multi-employer bargaining unit.