Opinion ID: 3162569
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: failure to transfer for alleged ex parte

Text: COMMUNICATIONS Salem next challenges the GC’s failure, on review from the HO’s similar failure, to transfer the representation hearing to another region in light of the alleged ex parte communications. The Board’s regulations prohibit ex parte communications. 29 C.F.R. § 102.126(b) (“No Board agent . . . participating in [relevant proceedings], shall . . . make or knowingly cause to be made any prohibited ex parte communications about the proceeding to any interested person outside this agency relevant to the merits of the proceeding.”). Board regulations also grant the GC power to transfer the case “in order to effectuate the purposes of the [NLRA].” Id. § 102.33(a). The GC’s failure to transfer was reasonable under the circumstances. Salem did not make specific allegations of ex parte communications, see Gen. Counsel’s Denial of Hosp.’s Mot. to Transfer at 2 (July 27, 2010) (“Initially, outside of unsubstantiated claims, your communication references no evidence of such ex parte meetings.”), and the GC’s own investigation found that “neither the Hearing Officer nor his supervisor engaged in any.” Id. In fact, the “Hearing Officer’s contact with the Employer’s nurses, except for an against supervisory status if there is conflicting evidence. See Phelps Cmty. Med. Ctr., 295 NLRB at 490. 19 occasional pleasantry, was limited to those times when they were testifying on the record.” Id. Salem faults the GC for failing to request its evidence of ex parte communications but cites no regulation or policy that requires the GC to affirmatively seek evidence. Moreover, Salem had the opportunity to present its evidence, both in its petition for transfer before the GC and in its earlier motion before the HO. But the petition contained only conclusory assertions, see Salem’s Mot. to Transfer at 1 n.1 (“It was apparent during the hearing (specifically on June 4, 2010) that . . . [the HO] had met privately with the Union’s two attorneys and at least [one CN] . . . regarding various issues related to the petition.”), and the same was true at the hearing. See Representation Hr’g Tr. at 618 (“I would imagine that there are Board agents . . . who are bound by certain ethical consideration, in terms of meeting with a supervisor of this Employer in my absence. And I just want the Regional Office to understand, if that is something which is in play here . . . I would recommend that serious thought be given to whether or not to modify that behavior.”). In any event, Salem does not claim that it was prejudiced by the decision not to transfer. Indeed, “ex parte communications, even when undisclosed during agency proceedings, do not necessarily void an agency decision.” Prof’l Air Traffic Controllers Org. v. FLRA, 685 F.2d 547, 564 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Rather, a party must show that “as a result of improper ex parte communications, the agency’s decisionmaking process was irrevocably tainted.” Id. Because Salem has not shown prejudice, we conclude that neither the HO nor the GC abused his discretion.17 17 In its brief Salem argued that the alleged ex parte communications meant that the HO had prejudged the CNs’ status. 20