Opinion ID: 185101
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Eligibility formula

Text: 11 Ordinarily the Board uses a simple formula to determine who is eligible to vote in a representation election: Employees in the bargaining unit are eligible to vote if they were employed on the date of the election and during the payroll period ending immediately prior to the Decision and Direction of Election. Saltwater, Inc., 324 NLRB 343, 343 n.1 (1997);see American Zoetrope Productions, Inc., 207 NLRB 621, 622 (1973). In this case the Board adopted an eligibility formula that excluded some seasonal workers who would have met the standard eligibility test. The Company raises four challenges to the special eligibility formula the Board used in this case:it conflicts with Board precedent because (1) it disenfranchises workers who would have been eligible under the standard test, and (2) the Board does not ordinarily apply an eligibility formula to seasonal workers; and it is unreasonable because (3) it disenfranchises employees with a continuing interest in the unit, and (4) it conflicts with the Regional Director's own description of the standard for voter eligibility as set forth in his Decision and Direction of Election and in the Notice of Election. 12 As we have noted previously, the Board uses an eligibility formula in order to limit the franchise to those employees who work with sufficient continuity and regularity ... to establish [a] community of interest with other unit employees. B B & L, Inc., 52 F.3d at 370; see also Trump Taj Mahal Associates, 306 NLRB 294, 295 (1992) enforced, 2 F.3d 35 (3d Cir. 1993). Because each employment situation is different, the Board has an obligationto tailor [its] general eligibility formulas to the particular facts of the case, B B & L, Inc., 52 F.3d at 370 (quoting American Zoetrope, 207 NLRB at 623); no single eligibility formula must be used in all cases. Saratoga County Chapter NYSARC, Inc., 314 NLRB 609, 609 (1994). Determining which employees share a community of interest sufficient to entitle them to vote in a representation election entails, therefore, an inquiry with multiple facets. For example, the Board has stated that when assessing the expectation of future employment among seasonal employees it considers: 13 the size of the area labor force, the stability of the Employer's labor requirements and the extent to which it is dependent upon seasonal labor, the actual reemployment season-to-season of the worker complement, and the Employer's recall or preference policy regarding seasonal employees. 14 Maine Apple Growers, Inc., 254 NLRB 501, 502-03 (1981).In this case the Regional Director adopted a special eligibility formula specifically in order to limit the franchise to seasonal employees with a substantial and continuing interest in the unit. 15 1. The Company's first challenge to the eligibility formula used in this case is that the Board has never before used a special formula when the effect would have been to disenfranchise workers eligible to vote under the standard test. Although it is true that the Board usually adopts a special eligibility formula in order to extend the franchise to employees who would not otherwise be eligible to vote, see, e.g., Steiny & Co., 308 NLRB 1323, 1324-27 (1992) (and cases cited therein), it is not true that the Board has never used such a formula to narrow the franchise. 16 In American Zoetrope, for example, the union sought to represent a bargaining unit composed of all editorial employees, including film editors, sound editors, assistant editors, and negative cutters employed by a film company. 207 NLRB at 622. Employees in the unit worked only sporadically; they were hired for a particular production, sometimes only for a day's work, and then recalled when and if future work became available. Id. The union asked the Board to determine eligibility to vote using the standard test, but the Board declined. Finding that a history of reemployment was the only credible evidence that any particular employee had a reasonable expectation of future employment--and hence a continuing interest in the bargaining unit--the Board limited the franchise to employees who were employed by the Employer on at least two productions during the year preceding [the Board's decision] and were not terminated or voluntarily released prior to completion of the last job for which they were employed. Id. at 623; see also Medion, Inc., 200 NLRB No. 145 (1972) (adopting a similar formula). Obviously, an employee who met the standard eligibility test of employment on the day of the election and during the preceding payroll period might not have passed the special test used in American Zoetrope because it required work on at least two productions in the preceding year. Therefore, the special eligibility formula the Board used in this case is not a break with precedent, and cannot be faulted on the basis of an argument that proceeds from the contrary premise. See NLRB v. Western Temporary Services, Inc., 821 F.2d 1258, 1262 (7th Cir. 1987) (upholding eligibility formula allowing part-time employees to vote only if worked at least an average of four hours per week during the six months immediately preceding the election eligibility date); DIC Entertainment, LP, 328 NLRB No. 86 (1999) (allowing part-time employees in entertainment industry to vote if worked on two productions for total of five days in year prior to direction of election or for total of 15 days in year prior to direction of election); Steiny & Co., 308 NLRB at 1325 (citing American Zoetrope with approval as example of valid eligibility formula); Artcraft Displays, Inc., 263 NLRB 804 (1982) (seasonal part-time employees eligible to vote if workedminimum of 15 hours during quarter spanning seasonal peak or had accumulated 1,000 seniority hours, were working or available to work and were on seniority list). 17 2. The Company next argues that while the Board may have applied a special eligibility formula in short term, sporadic and intermittent employment situations, the Board has not (except in rare instances, which the Company attempts to distinguish), applied such a formula to seasonal workers, by which the Company means full-time regular employees who are utilized during clearly defined periods of peak operations that recur the same time(s) from year-to year. Assuming the Company does not, in fact, employ its seasonal workers on a short term, sporadic, or intermittent basis, however, its legal argument fails because, as the Regional Director noted, the Board has indeed applied special eligibility formulae to regularly employed seasonal workers before; therefore its adoption of the formula in this case does not conflict with Board precedent. 18 Consider, for example, Daniel Ornamental Iron Co., 195 NLRB 334 (1972). Whenever the employer there could not meet customers' demands using its regular staff, it hired part-time workers from a pool of 27 who regularly performed such work for the employer. See id. Having included the part-time workers in the bargaining unit, the Board eschewed the standard eligibility test and limited the vote among the part-time employees to those who had worked a minimum of 15 days in either of the two 3-month periods immediately preceding the date of issuance of the direction of election.Id. at 334-35. The Board explained: 19 The Employer's principal customers are in the housing and construction industries, and because of the seasonality of those industries business usually experiences as lack period in the fall of the year, beginning in September or October, during which period [the Employer's]need for the part-time welders drops sharply. In cases involving year-round operations with fluctuating need for extra or on-call employees, the Board has found it equitable to include in the unit ... all extra or part-time employees [who meet the eligibility formula quoted above].... 20 Id. at 334. Like the employer in Daniel Ornamental, Sitka employs a core group of workers year round and hires extra production employees for the seasonal peaks. However the Company may wish to characterize its seasonal employees, it has not distinguished them from those in Daniel Ornamental. See also Trump Taj Mahal Associates, 306 NLRB at 295 (applying eligibility formula to temporary employees whom employer regularly called and who had averaged a substantial number of work hours since the opening of employer's facility); Artcraft Displays, Inc., 263 NLRB at 804 (applying eligibility formula to regularly employed seasonal workers). Accordingly, we reject its second challenge to the eligibility formula. 21 3. The Company next argues that the special eligibility formula is unreasonable because it disenfranchises employees who have a reasonable expectancy of recall. In fact, the Regional Director found that of the 114 seasonal employees listed on the Company's employment roster as of August 17, 1997, only 37 had worked in either of the two previous years.Of those 37, all but five were eligible to vote under the formula the Board used in this case. Based upon these facts, the Regional Director concluded that the eligibility formula would accurately enough limit the franchise to seasonal employees who had demonstrated a continuing interest in the unit. In light of this evidence, we cannot say that the Board abused its discretion by adopting the eligibility formula in this case. 22 4. Finally, the Company argues that the eligibility formula is unreasonable because it conflicts with the Regional Director's description of the voter eligibility criterion in his own Decision and in the Notice of Election. As the Company purportsto read them, the Decision and Notice granted the franchise to all production employees, including both seasonal employees who were employed on the date of the election and during the previous payroll period--as provided by the standard criterion--and seasonal employees who met the special eligibility formula crafted for this case. 23 In its opening brief before this court the Company merely refers to this argument; only in its reply brief does it actually argue the point. As a result the Board, in its brief, understandably does not respond to the argument. In order to prevent this sort of sandbagging of appellees and respondents, we have generally held that issues not raised until the reply brief are waived. Board of Regents of University of Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214, 1221 (1996) (citations omitted). So we hold again.