Opinion ID: 613557
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judicial interpretation of the NLRA

Text: Next, we must decide how we should proceed, taking into account that this controversy is more than fifteen years old and that the Board is deadlocked on the merits. Were we to remand this case with the same instructions that we have given to the Board twice before, it would likely mean that a case long overdue for a final decision on the merits would continue to remain without one. Without a change in the composition of the Board, [7] the Board will continue to be unable to form a majority that can provide a reasoned explanation for a rule either extending or limiting a dues-checkoff exception in right-to-work states. Despite these concerns, we also remain mindful of the deference due the NLRB. The Board has the primary responsibility for developing and applying national labor policy. NLRB v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., 494 U.S. 775, 786, 110 S.Ct. 1542, 108 L.Ed.2d 801 (1990). Indeed, the Supreme Court has cautioned: If the record before the agency does not support the agency action, if the agency has not considered all relevant factors, or if the reviewing court simply cannot evaluate the challenged agency action on the basis of the record before it, the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation. The reviewing court is not generally empowered to conduct a de novo inquiry into the matter being reviewed and to reach its own conclusions based on such an inquiry. Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744, 105 S.Ct. 1598, 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985) (emphasis added). The court of appeals' role is thus normally limited to evaluating whether the Board's rules are rational and consistent with the Act. See United Food & Commercial Workers Union, 307 F.3d at 766. Accordingly, only in rare circumstances will we address the merits of a case where the agency has failed to do so. See Earth Island Inst. v. Hogarth, 494 F.3d 757 (9th Cir.2007) (vacating a finding of no adverse impact by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) where the agency had failed twice to perform statutorily required environmental studies); Sierra Club v. EPA, 346 F.3d 955 (9th Cir.2003) (vacating an order by the Environmental Protection Agency and ordering a specific finding where the administrative record was fully developed and conclusions following from the record were clear); Ariz. Electric Power Coop., Inc. v. United States, 816 F.2d 1366, 1376 (9th Cir.1987) (vacating a decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and remanding with specific instructions [b]ecause of the history of recalcitrance displayed by the ICC). Our cases directing agency action have often responded to an agency's stubborn refusal to follow our mandate or statutory provisions. For instance, in Earth Island, we vacated an environmental finding by the NOAA rather than remand for further study because of the agency's intransigence in twice failing to conduct statutorily required studies. 494 F.3d at 770. Similarly, in Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, we ordered the ICC to review power rates under Coal Rate Guidelines when the agency's prior refusal to do so demonstrated a history of recalcitrance, including the ICC's failure to abide by representations the agency made to this court and reliance on a mistaken interpretation of applicable statutes. 816 F.2d at 1376. While we cannot say that the NLRB has been guilty of similar practices in this case, the Board's inability to resolve the issue repeatedly presented to it and its failure to produce a reasoned ruling is no less frustrating to the timely, final disposition of the dispute between the Employers and the Union. Weighing the Board's consistent failure to provide a reasoned disposition against the deference we owe the NLRB in dictating labor policy, we conclude that this case presents the rare circumstance in which another remand would be inappropriate. Fla. Power & Light, 470 U.S. at 744, 105 S.Ct. 1598. The Board conceded at oral argument that we can only speculate whether the Board would be able to break its deadlock and reach a different decision were we to remand the case for a third time. Therefore, given the amount of time that this case has been pending before the Board and the Board's continued inability to provide a rational justification for the rule it proposes, we are convinced that a third remand would be futile, or at least that the likelihood of continued deadlock outweighs the speculative benefit of providing the Board with one more opportunity to comply with our prior orders. We therefore turn finally to the question we put to the Board in LJEB II, namely, whether dues-checkoff in right-to-work states is subject to unilateral change, or whether, under such circumstances, dues-checkoff is a mandatory subject of bargaining. 540 F.3d at 1082. We note first that section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA, providing that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively with a union, is silent regarding the treatment of dues-checkoff in right-to-work states after the expiration of a CBA. Section 8(d), governing the obligation to bargain collectively in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment is also silent as to dues-checkoff. The text of the statute is therefore ambiguous regarding whether dues-checkoff is a mandatory subject of bargaining in right-to-work states. As we have said, when a statute is ambiguous, we may not substitute our own interpretation of the statute for that of the Board. See United Food & Commercial Workers Union, 307 F.3d at 767. Therefore, had the Board provided a reasoned analysis for a rule excluding dues-checkoff from the unilateral change doctrine in the absence of union security, we would be required to defer to that rule so long as it was rational and consistent with the NLRA. Id. Because the Board was unable to provide a reasoned explanation for the rule, however, we are forced to interpret the statute as if the Board had not spoken at all. [8] In comparing this case to the facts of Bethlehem Steel, we conclude that there is no justification for carving out an exception to the unilateral change doctrine for dues-checkoff in the absence of union security. The Supreme Court has long recognized that automatic dues-checkoff is a powerful tool under a union security agreement for a union to combat the problem of `free riders,' i.e., employees who receive the benefits of union representation but are unwilling to contribute their fair share of financial support to such union. NLRB v. Gen. Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734, 742-43, 83 S.Ct. 1453, 10 L.Ed.2d 670 (1963). Where a union security agreement is present, as in Bethlehem Steel, automatic dues-checkoff is forced upon all employees whether they wish to be part of the union or not. This arrangement serves to keep a union funded even though individual workers might otherwise choose to enjoy the benefits of a union-negotiated CBA without paying union dues. In a right-to-work state, on the other hand, dues are deducted from an employee's paycheck only if the employee specifically requests the employer to do so. Dues-checkoff is thus not a benefit to the union forced upon employees, but rather is a benefit to those employees who choose to be part of the union and also choose a checkoff. This distinction is crucial. In Bethlehem Steel, the dues-checkoff arrangement was compelled under the terms of the CBA just as the employees' membership in the union had been compelled pursuant to the union security agreement in the CBA. In this case, however, union membership was not a condition of employment, and each employee whose dues were being checked off signed a request that the Employers deduct dues from their pay and submit the dues to the Union. Thus, unlike in Bethlehem Steel, where the unilateral cessation of dues-checkoff merely terminated a contractual arrangement that individual employees and employers alike were compelled to accept, the unilateral cessation of check-off by the Employers in this case stripped employees of a contractual right that they had expressly exercised by requesting dues-checkoff. Without expressing an opinion on the wisdom of the rule of Bethlehem Steel, we see why the Board would treat dues-checkoff in the same manner as union security where both are present. As the Board has stated, [t]he exception ... permitting unilateral abandonment of union-security and checkoff arrangements after contract expiration is based on the fact, noted in Bethlehem Steel, that `[t]he acquisition and maintenance of union membership cannot be made a condition of employment except under a contract which conforms to the [NLRA].' Ind. & Mich. Electric Co., 284 N.L.R.B. 53, 55 (1987) (quoting Bethlehem Steel, 136 N.L.R.B. at 1502). In other words, if union security provisions are limited by statute to the duration of an existing CBA, dues-checkoff provisions that implement[] the union-security provisions are limited in the same manner. Bethlehem Steel, 136 N.L.R.B. at 1502. Where the dues-checkoff provisions do not implement union security, however, but instead exist as a free-standing, independent convenience to willingly participating employees, the reasoning of Bethlehem Steel loses its force. We see nothing in the NLRA that limits the duration of dues-checkoffs to the duration of a CBA in the absence of union security. Moreover, other statutory provisions suggest the opposite. For instance, the Labor-Management Relations Act provides that a written assignment [for dues-checkoff] shall not be irrevocable ... beyond the termination date of the applicable collective agreement. 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(4). This provision would be surplusage if Congress believed that dues-checkoff automatically terminated upon the expiration of a CBA. See Nw. Forest Res. v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 834 (9th Cir.1996) (We have long followed the principle that `[s]tatutes should not be construed to make surplusage of any provision.') (citation omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that in a right-to-work state, where dues-checkoff does not exist to implement union security, dues-checkoff is akin to any other term of employment that is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Because each affected employee individually requested dues-checkoff, the Employers' actions in this case were an unlawful termination of a bargained benefit to employees, not merely the cessation of a provision that automatically terminated along with the CBA and union security. The Employers' unilateral termination of dues-checkoff in this case was thus in effect a refusal to negotiate... which reflect[ed] a cast of mind against reaching agreement. Katz, 369 U.S. at 747, 82 S.Ct. 1107. In ceasing dues-checkoff without bargaining to impasse, the Employers therefore violated section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA.