Opinion ID: 186281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 Pearson distributes and sells reference materials and educational books. In 1997, the company — then Macmillan Publishing, Inc. — operated two distribution warehouses in Indianapolis: one at Northwest Boulevard and one at Rockville Road. In June of that year, the union petitioned the Board to represent all full-time and all regular part-time warehouse and distribution center employees at both facilities. Because the company planned to consolidate and transfer its operations to Lebanon, Indiana, it argued that holding an election would not effectuate the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The NLRB's Regional Director found that the intended relocation did not render an immediate election inappropriate and ordered an election. 3 The Board denied the company's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election. The union held the election in August. The initial results revealed a sufficient number of challenged ballots to affect the results of the election, and the Regional Director ordered that a hearing be held to resolve the status of the challenged ballots. While the election's outcome was unknown, the union filed eight objections to the election and the company filed four. The Regional Director shelved these objections pending determination of the election's outcome. 4 Two weeks prior to the first election, the company had announced an hourly-wage increase of $1.10 — and later $1.25 — in connection with the move to Lebanon. One week before the election the company distributed a leaflet stating: 5 WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE? How about: $2,522.00 next year!... Without a union, Macmillan will be free to proceed ahead with the announced wage increases for the Lebanon move. With a union, since all wages and benefits would be subject to negotiation, no one can predict what the final package would be. WHY TAKE THE RISK? VOTE NO! (emphasis in the original). 6 When the company won the election by three votes, it withdrew its objections and the Regional Director — without passing on the rest of the union's objections — found that the company had circulated an improper leaflet to employees. The union claimed the flyer threaten[ed] employees with the loss of the promised wage increase ... if they selected the union as their bargaining representative. 7 The Regional Director sustained this objection. He explained that during a union campaign, an employer should decide the question of granting or withholding benefits as it would if a union were not in the picture. Further, he stated that the leaflet violates this principle by leaving it in the minds of the employees that they will lose the previously announced raise ... if the union is voted in. The Regional Director concluded that the company's mention, later in the document (in much smaller print) that all wages and benefits are subject to negotiation does not cure the clear implication that the employees will not get their promised raise if the union is voted in. The Board denied the company's request for review of the Regional Director's decision. 8 The union won the second election in June 1998, by six votes. The company filed objections challenging the Regional Director's previous decision raising issues that had already been reviewed by the Board. The Regional Director denied the objections and certified the union as the collective bargaining representative. The Board again denied the company's request for review of the Regional Director's decision. 9 After the Board certified the union, the company refused to bargain or provide the union with requested information. The union charged that the company was engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5) and (1). On October 30, 1998, the Board issued a Decision and Order finding that the company had violated the Act as charged. 10 This Court reviewed the Board's original decision in Macmillan Publishing Co. v. NLRB, 194 F.3d 165 (D.C.Cir.1999). There, the company argued both that the first election was premature, and that the Regional Director improperly overturned the first election because of the flyer. 11 We held that the company could not successfully challenge the order on the ground that the first election was premature because of the impending transfer to a new facility. The Board's bargaining order resulted from the second election, which the union won, not the first election, which the union lost. The company's move to Lebanon had already taken place by the time of the second election. Indeed, the Regional Director's predictive judgment before the first election — that the workforce at the old locations would be a substantial and representative complement of the workforce at the new location — had proved accurate. Id. at 166. 12 However, we held that the Regional Director's decision to overturn the results of the election — on the basis of the flyer — did not rest on sound legal principles, and thus was arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 168. Rather than citing to Board authorities discussing the issue of when employer communications during union election campaigns are threatening and coercive, the Regional Director instead relied on the concept that an employer should act as if a union were not in the picture. We held that no such principle governs employer communications during such elections. Id. 13 On remand, the Board ordered a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on all of the union's objections to the first election. At the hearing the union stated that it was prepared to go forward on only four of the original eight objections. 14 After a three-day hearing, the ALJ issued a decision recommending that the Board sustain three of the union's four objections, set aside the first election, and reaffirm the union's certification based upon its success in the second election. 15 On review, the Board affirmed the ALJ's decision to set aside the results of the first election and — based upon the union's second election victory — reaffirmed its certification of the union and ordered the company to bargain. Pearson Education, et al., 336 NLRB No. 92 (2001) (the Decision and Order). The company moved to reconsider the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, which the Board denied. This petition for review followed.