Opinion ID: 595945
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Maria Thigpen Affidavits.

Text: 12 New Life asserts that the ALJ erred by admitting Maria Thigpen's affidavits into evidence because an insufficient foundation was offered and the affidavits contained inadmissible hearsay. 13
14 New Life asserts that Board Agent Shelley Coppock's testimony, which laid a foundation for the admission of the affidavits, should be struck because New Life was not provided with Coppock's statements which related to the taking of Thigpen's affidavits. New Life contends it was entitled to such statements under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. The Jencks Act is applicable to proceedings before the Board. Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. NLRB, 335 F.2d 749, 754 (9th Cir.1964); 29 C.F.R. § 102.118. The Jencks Act requires the disclosure of statements adopted by witnesses testifying for the government that relate to their testimony. Blackfoot Livestock Comm'n Co. v. Dept. of Agriculture, 810 F.2d 916, 922 (9th Cir.1987). Jencks Act determinations made by an ALJ are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Blackfoot, 810 F.2d at 923. 15 The ALJ reviewed in camera all of the investigative files of the Board to determine which material should be produced pursuant to the Jencks Act. He found [n]othing dealing with the taking of the affidavits or Shelley Coppock's testimony. 16 Because New Life failed to request that the documents reviewed by the ALJ be placed under seal and preserved in the record, we are unable to make an independent determination whether the ALJ correctly found that the agency's files did not contain material required to be produced under the Jencks Act. If petitioners wished review of the trial examiner's determination as to the nature of the report, it was incumbent upon them to see that a record was presented upon which review could be had, by requesting that the memorandum be submitted to the court under seal. NLRB v. Seine and Line Fishermen's Union of San Pedro, 374 F.2d 974, 982 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 913 (1967) (quoting Harvey Aluminum, 335 F.2d at 756). Since New Life failed to preserve the record for our review, we cannot say that the ruling was prejudicial even if we assume it was erroneous. Id. (quoting Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 116 (1943)). 17
18 New Life asserts that Thigpen's affidavits contain hearsay and were inadmissible. The ALJ found that the affidavits were admissible under Rule 804(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 1 Unfair labor practice hearings should be conducted, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence. Paris Bakers, 929 F.2d at 1434. At the hearing, Thigpen stated that she did not want to testify regarding whether David Marson refused to allow her to return to work. After the ALJ ordered her to testify, she stated that she could not remember anything regarding whether she asked Marson to allow her to return to work. We conclude that Thigpen was unavailable as a witness because she persist[ed] in refusing to testify ... despite an order of the court to do so. Fed.R.Evid. 804(a)(2); see also Fed.R.Evid. 804(a)(3) (witness who cannot remember the subject matter of his or her statement is unavailable). 19 Coppock testified that she interviewed Thigpen in Spanish. Thigpen told Coppock that she could not read Spanish or English. Accordingly, Coppock read Thigpen the contents of the affidavits verbatim before Thigpen signed them. As evidenced by Thigpen's initials, Coppock made corrections where Thigpen instructed her. Before Thigpen signed the affidavits, Coppock swore her to tell the truth. At the hearing, Thigpen testified that she believed that the statements contained in all three affidavits were true when she signed them. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the ALJ did not err in relying on Thigpen's affidavits. 20 New Life also objects to the Union's failure to call Michael Thigpen as a witness. This contention is devoid of merit. There is no evidence that Michael Thigpen was within the control of the Union. See NLRB v. Massachusetts Machine & Stamping, Inc., 578 F.2d 15, 20 (1st Cir.1978) (Where there is no evidence that a witness was peculiarly within the control of either party, no adverse inference arises from the failure of the Board to call the witness). New Life was free to call Michael Thigpen if it believed his testimony would be useful.