Opinion ID: 6500057
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relatedness of Proceedings

Text: Against this conclusion, Bannum makes two arguments. First, Bannum contends that the Board erred in applying the rule against relitigation because the representation proceeding was not related to the subsequent unfair-labor-practice proceeding. As a general matter, Bannum is right to emphasize relatedness. “The no-relitigation rule, as formulated in the Board’s case law and rules, bars relitigation of a waived issue only in an unfair labor practice proceeding that is ‘related’ to the proceeding in which the waiver occurred.” Thomas-Davis Med. Ctrs., P.C. v. NLRB, 157 F.3d 909, 913 (D.C. Cir. 1998). What this means here is that if the unfair-laborpractice proceeding in the present case were unrelated to the representation proceeding at issue, then the Board may have abused its discretion in applying the rule against relitigation. Yet just as Bannum never requested review of the Regional Director’s decision in the representation proceeding, the company also never raised arguments about relatedness to the Board in the unfair-labor-practice proceeding. Bannum did not make this objection to the ALJ in that proceeding, see A.R. at 640–50 (Mot. to Dismiss), did not present the issue in its brief to the Board, see App. R. 31 (Bannum Br. in Support of Exceptions), and did not file a motion for Nos. 21-2664/2690 Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC v. NLRB Page 10 reconsideration with the Board to preserve the matter. By not raising this issue before the Board at all, Bannum has once again limited our ability to examine its arguments, this time for a statutory reason. As the Act makes clear, “[n]o objection that has not been urged before the Board . . . shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). Therefore, barring “extraordinary circumstances,” we may not consider the relatedness question. See Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645, 665 (1982). And Bannum has presented no such circumstances here.