Opinion ID: 184898
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Record Before the Board

Text: Representation proceedings before the Board are not subject to direct judicial review because they do not result in afinal agency order. See, e.g., Family Serv. Agency SanFrancisco v. NLRB, 163 F.3d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1999); 29 U.S.C. s 160(e)-(f). An employer seeking review of the record in a representation proceeding must refuse to bargainwith the union, suffer an unfair labor practice charge, and inchallenging the charge rely on the objections and corresponding evidence raised in the representation proceeding. That iswhat Wackenhut has done in this so-called technical refusalto-bargain proceeding. Therefore, we review the record inthe representation proceeding in order to determine whetherthe Officers' Association was properly certified and whetherWackenhut properly refused to bargain with the association. At the pre-election hearing on the affiliation issue, theBoard's hearing officer took testimony from Dennis Murray,the vice president of the Officers' Association, and Mel Sakata, the agent for the Carpenters who served as the association's agent and then advisor.3 See J.A. at 221 (testimony ofSakata) (stating he is a member and agent of Carpenters). The testimony showed that Sakata first met Pascual Oliveres,Jr., who became the president of the association, at a gathering of Wackenhut police officers in July 1997. See id. at 204. Oliveres introduced Sakata to Murray and other guards onJuly 27, 1997, at an organizational meeting of Wackenhutguards employed by the transit authority. See id. at 168. Murray recalled that Sakata attended five or six early meetings, which were held rent-free at the Carpenters' meetinghall, and that the Officers' Association held an additional fouror five that were not at the Carpenters' hall and that Sakatadid not attend. See id. at 174-76. At the meetings Sakataattended, Murray recalled, Sakata's role consisted of answering questions posed by the union members. See id. at 174; see also id. at 211 (testimony of Sakata). Sakata obtainedcopies of other unions' constitutions and bylaws--specifically,those of the Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Officers' Association--for the Santa Clara County Officers' Association's drafting committee to use. See id. at 181. According to Sakata,on August 3, he helped the association fill out its LM-1Organizational Report for filing with the Board. See id. at __________ 3 Wackenhut does not challenge the testimony of Murray andSakata. 144. On the form, Sakata simply indicated the sections of theassociation's bylaws and constitution that govern certain union practices and procedures; he did not sign the formhimself (it was signed by the association's president andsecretary). Sakata was, however, named in the form as theperson authorized to receive mail for the association because,according to Murray, he was kind enough to volunteer toreceive mail for us, and the 11-guard association did nothave its own office or post office box. See id. at 179-80.4 Sakata also filled out a representation petition for theguards--he checked off boxes on a type-written form--andsent it to the guards' law firm for filing. See id. at 247. Ataround this time (some time in early August), the associationgave Sakata a permission card to act as an agent. See id.at 170-71. It does not appear that Sakata's role as an agentwas ever formally defined, but the tasks Sakata actuallyperformed included sharing the Carpenters' office supplies,meeting facilities and staff with the Officers' Association, seeid. at 195, hand[ing] out union authorization cards, see id. at202,5 and referring the association to the Carpenters' lawfirm, which now represents the association pro bono, see id. at199. In addition, Sakata sent letters on Officers' Associationletterhead to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisorsand to the transportation authority, notifying them of theorganization effort and requesting that Wackenhut allow theassociation to engage in lawful organizing activities. See id.at 217-22.6 Murray testified that he did not know thatSakata had actually written letters to these bodies, but heacknowledged that Sakata had been authorized to contact __________ 4 Sakata testified that he received mail at the Carpenters' officefor the Officers' Association, but that he does not open it and readit. See J.A. at 231. He also received service of a subpoena ducestecum for documents pertaining to the association in conjunctionwith the Board proceedings in this case. See id. at 232. 5 The record contains no elaboration as to whether Sakata handedout union cards individually to guards or whether he provided themto the association at a meeting. 6 It does not appear that these letters are part of the record, buttheir existence is not disputed. them to warn[ ] them so that they wouldn't be caught offguard if [the unionization drive] became an issue. Id. at 186. Finally, Sakata composed a letter dated August 12, 1997,from the association to Wackenhut that asked the company torecognize the Officers' Association as the collective bargainingunit for 11 security guards. See id. at 105. As he wasauthorized to do, Sakata signed the letter as the association'sagent. In sum, Sakata testified that he performed whatever services the association requested of him, see id. at 205, and thatit would please [him] very much to continue to help theassociation through collective bargaining, see id. at 208. Murray described Sakata's role as giving us advice on theprocess that we needed to go through to get recognition. Id.at 168. Murray also stated in uncontested testimony thatSakata would not participate in collective bargaining because[w]e have a bargaining committee that includes myself, andthat would really be our job. Id. at 172. Based on this record, the Regional Director found that: (1)Sakata provided substantial unpaid assistance to the association; (2) Sakata obtained free meeting space and authorizedthe association to use the Carpenters' mailing address andtelephone number; (3) Sakata obtained authorization cardsfor the association to use; (4) Sakata wrote on the association's behalf to Wackenhut and other local political figures; (5) Sakata assisted the association with drafting its constitution and bylaws and filing its initial LM-1 statement; and(6) the association planned to continue to use Sakata in thenear future, including for the possible negotiation of an initialcollective bargaining agreement with the Employer. See id.at 120-23.7 The Regional Director applied the doctrine that aguards' union in its formative stages may receive assistance __________ 7 Our perusal of the record does not lead us to conclude thatSakata helped to write the association's constitution and bylaws,and it does not appear that this is the intended meaning of the fifthfinding that Sakata assisted the association in drafting the documents. Rather, it is clear, as outlined above, that Sakata's involvement was limited to obtaining copies of other such documents forthe association to use. The Board in its brief confirms that this is from a non-guards' union without creating a forbidden affiliation, and concluded that the two unions were not indirectlyaffiliated within the meaning of the Act. In the present case, there is no question that Sakata played an important part in the initial formation of the [Officers' Association] and continues to play a significant part in its current organizing activities among the Employer's armed security personnel. However, I also note that Sakata's assistance to the [association] was provided at a time when the [association] was plainly still in its formative stages. The [association] had come into being just about a month prior to the hearing and its officers and directors have little, if any, experience in organizing or administering a union. In addition, the [association's] organizing activities among the Employer's armed guards appears to be its first venture in the area and its current membership also appears very small, probably under a dozen members. Id. at 122. After the election in which the association prevailed, theBoard, in two separate orders, considered four other incidentsraised by Wackenhut that allegedly showed indirect affiliationbetween the Officers' Association and the Carpenters. In itsNovember 10 motion for reconsideration of the Board's denialof review of the Direction of Election based on new evidence,Wackenhut asked the Board to consider two incidents that __________ the correct interpretation of this finding. See Brief for CrossPetitioner (Board's Br.) at 14. In addition, we do not take finding 6 to mean that the recordshowed Sakata would actually negotiate a future collective bargaining agreement. We believe the Regional Director meant, and therecord reflects, that Sakata was to be available for advice duringthe bargaining period. Indeed, later in his decision, the RegionalDirector observed that the association established a number ofcommittees, including a bargaining committee, which will makedecisions for it, and none on which Sakata sits, J.A. at 123,indicating that the Regional Director believed Sakata's role incollective bargaining would be merely advisory. occurred around or after the time of the election and thatWackenhut had not been able to raise prior to the election. First, Wackenhut contended that before the election, Sakatacontacted a regional Board official to protest Wackenhut'sExcelsior list of employees eligible to vote, and that duringthe election he questioned a Board agent about the authorityof a Wackenhut representative to tally ballots. See id. at281-82, 285. Second, outside of the polling area on the day ofthe election, Sakata told a Wackenhut manager that it wastime to sit down and bargain to  'get these guys an increase.'  Id. at 287 (affidavit of Max Marcel, Wackenhutoffice manager). Wackenhut raised a third incident in itssupplemental filing with the Board on December 3, 1997: aletter dated November 18, 1997 that Sakata sent to Wackenhut as the association's special advisor and agent, inwhich Sakata asked the company to designate a bargainingagent. See id. at 304. In its March 16, 1998 order, theBoard reviewed all three of these additional incidents butdenied reconsideration of its refusal to review the Direction ofElection. Regarding the first two incidents, the Board concluded that [t]here is no indication that Petitioner [theOfficers' Association] has chosen Sakata as its negotiator; that the Petitioner has given Sakata authority to formulateany bargaining proposals; that Sakata has, in fact, put together any proposals; or that Petitioner no longer intends torely on its bargaining committee. Id. at 305 (March 16,1998, denial of reconsideration of denial of review). Addressing the third incident (raised in Wackenhut's December 3letter), the Board concluded that [t]here is no indication inthe letter that Sakata would be involved in the negotiations. Further, according to the Petitioner, its vice president sent aletter dated November 28, 1997, to the Employer stating thatSakata is 'no longer authorized to act as an agent of the[Petitioner]' and would 'continue to serve only as an advisor.' The letter also designates the Petitioner's vice president asthe 'duly authorized agent and spokesperson of the [Petitioner].'  Id. at 305-06.8 __________ 8 This letter does not appear in the record, but Wackenhut doesnot challenge its existence. Finally, in its May 6, 1998 order denying Wackenhut'srequest for review of the Regional Director's certification, theBoard considered a fourth incident, which Wackenhut raisedfor the first time in its April 13 request for review of theRegional Director's certification decision. On March 17, 1998,according to the company, Sakata was present at an unemployment hearing on a claim filed by a member of theassociation's bargaining unit. Sakata reportedly sat a footaway from the former employee and they whispered to eachother and exchanged notes. Id. at 522. The Board declinedto reverse the Regional Director's decision based on thisincident, finding that the Employer presents no evidencethat Sakata was acting as an agent for the Petitioner. Id. at532. II. Additional Proffered Evidence of Affiliation These events formed the record that the Board consideredwhen it ordered Wackenhut to the bargaining table. See J.A.at 1814. However, Wackenhut argues that during the representation proceeding, the Board erred in declining to considerthree additional incidents showing indirect affiliation. Wackenhut raised this new evidence in its April 13 requestfor review of the Regional Director's certification. The Boarddeclined in its May 6, 1998 order to consider the evidencebecause it was raised in an untimely fashion. Wackenhutcontended that on December 3, 1997, Sakata met and conferred with voting unit members before a state labor commission hearing on a wage-and-hour claim; that on January 27,1998, Sakata appeared at a Wackenhut office and asked to seethe personnel file of a discharged voting unit employee; andthat on February 5, 1998, Sakata appeared at a transitauthority meeting and informed the transit representativesthat the association would strike if Wackenhut refused tobargain. See id. at 522-31. We find that the Board was well within its authority indeciding that these incidents should have been raised prior tothe Board's March 16, 1998 denial of reconsideration of theDirection of Election and the Regional Director's March 17, 1998 certification order. As the Board found in its May 6order, [t]he Employer had the opportunity and the obligationto present the new evidence it wished to have considered bythe Board during those proceedings, and it has failed toexplain the reason it did not previously adduce these facts. Id. at 532. The Board noted that while the NLRB Casehandling Manual allows some latitude for parties to submit lateradduced evidence in support of post-election objections, it alsostates, An objecting party normally should not be permittedto 'piecemeal' the submission of evidence but should berequired to disclose promptly all the evidence in support ofhis/her objections. Absent the timely receipt of evidence, theRegional Director should overrule the objections. NLRBCasehandling Manual s 11292.5; see also 29 C.F.R.s 102.69(a)-(c). Thus, the Regional Director has some discretion to consider late evidence but is not required to accept it(in fact, he is discouraged from so doing), and by the sametoken, barring extraordinary circumstances, the Board iscertainly not required to order the Regional Director toaccept it. In this case, the Board acted reasonably in refusing to reconsider a final ruling on post-election objectionsbased on conduct that occurred well before the final rulingissued. Cf. Kwik Care Ltd. v. NLRB, 82 F.3d 1122, 1126-27(D.C. Cir. 1996) (upholding Regional Director's reasonableuse of discretion in conducting a mail-ballot election, based onthe procedural guidance contained in the Casehandling Manual). Wackenhut urges us to read the Casehandling Manual asapplying only to late-filed evidence in support of objections tothe way an election was conducted. Therefore, it says, theManual should not bar Wackenhut from later presentingevidence, such as these additional incidents, that is relevant tothe association's general eligibility for certification and not toelection-related conduct. However, even assuming that thedistinction between objections to the association's qualifications and objections to its electoral conduct is relevant forthis purpose, and thus that the Board was free to allowWackenhut to file supporting evidence even after a finaldecision had issued denying the objections, we would still find that under these circumstances the Board was justified inruling Wackenhut was too late in its proffer.9 The incidentsWackenhut seeks to raise occurred one to four months beforethe Board and the Regional Director issued their final orders,and the company does not argue that it lacked knowledge ofthe incidents before March 16 (Board's order denying reconsideration of denial of review of Direction of Election) andMarch 17 (Regional Director's certification of representative). The Board's rules do not require it to reopen the proceedingbased on evidence that could have been, but was not, presented so long before the orders issued. Wackenhut also argues that re-raising these three incidentsin this unfair labor practice proceeding entitles the companyto an evidentiary hearing in this proceeding. Again, theBoard correctly rejected this argument. It is wellestablished that only newly-adduced evidence that was unavailable during the representation proceeding, or a specialcircumstance, entitles a party to a new hearing during arelated unfair labor practice case. See Pittsburgh Glass Co.v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 161-62 (1941); 29 C.F.R. s 102.67(f). Board rules prohibit relitigating an issue that was, or couldhave been, raised in the representation proceeding. Denial ofa request for review shall constitute an affirmance of theregional director's action which shall also preclude relitigatingany such issues in any related subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding. 29 C.F.R. s 102.67(c). A technical refusalto-bargain case is a related unfair labor practice proceedingunder this rule. See Family Serv. Agency, 163 F.3d at 1381(listing cases). Furthermore, as discussed above, these threeincidents were raised in the representation proceeding (and,therefore, were not newly adduced), and the Board properlydenied reconsideration of its final orders based on them. __________ 9 Wackenhut also argues, Petitioner's Brief (Pet. Br.) at 38, thatthe new evidence was not submitted in support of its post-electionobjections, but was actually submitted in support of its Request forReview of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and Certification. This argument is ill-conceived, given that the supplemental certification order was, in fact, the ruling on Wackenhut'sobjections. Wackenhut is thus barred from what amounts to a secondtrial based on this evidence. See Coin Devices Corp., 325N.L.R.B. No. 75, 1998 WL 136113 (1998).10 Wackenhut also argues that the Board erred in refusing toconsider a fourth incident that occurred on May 7. Wackenhut raised this incident for the first time in the unfair laborpractice proceeding. We find that in its decision grantingsummary judgment to the General Counsel, J.A. at 1814, theBoard correctly determined that the incident, in which Sakataallegedly helped to organize guards' pickets, is irrelevant tothis refusal-to-bargain case. Wackenhut refused to bargainwith the association by letter dated May 4, 1998, and conductoccurring after the company refused to bargain is simply notgermane to this proceeding. See id. at n.2 (proper procedureis to file a petition to revoke certification).