Opinion ID: 2806256
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Board’s Factual Finding

Text: In 2012, the Teamsters petitioned the Board, seeking a certification that it was the pilots’ bargaining representative. During the Board’s investigation, it determined that no party represented the pilots. The effect of the finding was that when the pilots voted, they had the option of voting for the Teamsters, of writing in other candidates, or to remain unrepresented. See National Mediation Board, Representation INT’L BHD. OF TEAMSTERS V. ALLEGIANT AIR 15 Manual § 13.201.2 If the Board had found that AAPAG represented the pilots, the ballot also would have included the option of voting for AAPAG, but that was not the case. Allegiant contends we do not have jurisdiction to review the Board’s finding that the pilots were unrepresented. Different rules apply when we directly review a Board action and when an independent claim raises issues the Board has already addressed. In the former situation, judicial review is limited to ensuring the Board acted constitutionally and within the scope of its statutory authority. Horizon Air Indus., 232 F.3d at 1132. For example, if AAPAG had challenged the Board’s certification of the Teamsters on the grounds that the Board had wrongfully kept AAPAG off the ballot, then our review would be limited to taking a “peek at the merits” to ensure that AAPAG’s exclusion was constitutional and the Board did not exceed its statutory authority. Id. But in the latter case, when a party brings a claim that does not challenge a Board action but nonetheless raises an issue the Board has already addressed, courts apply principles of estoppel. Courts “have long favored application of the common-law doctrines of collateral estoppel (as to issues) and res judicata (as to claims) to those determinations of administrative bodies that have attained finality.” Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 107 (1991). “When an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the courts have not hesitated to apply res judicata to enforce repose.” Id. (quoting United States v. Utah Constr. & 2 The representation manual is available on the Board’s website, http://www.nmb.gov/documents/representation/representation-manual.pdf. 16 INT’L BHD. OF TEAMSTERS V. ALLEGIANT AIR Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422 (1966)). We have previously found that Board determinations have preclusive effect when made in proceedings that satisfy due process and when the findings were supported by substantial evidence. Bldg. Material & Constr. Teamsters Local No. 216 v. Granite Rock Co., 851 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). In the present case, we are not reviewing any administrative action. No party has asked us to invalidate the Board’s certification of the Teamsters as the pilots’ representative. Rather, the case presents claims independent of the Board’s certification and involve the legality of Allegiant’s changes to the Work Rules. And resolving whether Allegiant’s policy changes were legal turns in part on whether AAPAG was the pilots’ previous RLA representative—a factual determination the Board has already answered in the negative. The question, then, is whether the Board’s finding is entitled to preclusive effect. Allegiant did not argue in its opening brief that the Board’s determination should have preclusive effect. Rather, Allegiant framed its argument as being solely about jurisdiction. In its answering brief, the Teamsters asserted that principles of collateral estoppel should not prevent the Court from revisiting AAPAG’s representation status. And, in its Reply, Allegiant acknowledges that it did not raise the argument of collateral estoppel, but states “IBT’s contention that collateral estoppel would not apply . . . has no merit.” Allegiant cites no authority applying preclusion principles in any analogous situation and, other than the quoted conclusory statement, it does not address the issue of estoppel. We have discretion to consider an issue raised in a reply brief where, as here, an appellee raised an issue in its brief. United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). But INT’L BHD. OF TEAMSTERS V. ALLEGIANT AIR 17 because Allegiant’s Reply does not cite relevant authority or otherwise press the point, we find the argument waived.3 For these reasons, we hold that the district court properly asserted jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute.