Opinion ID: 184898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Affiliation Issue

Text: Under well-established principles of deference, we mustuphold the Board's determination unless it has 'acted arbitrarily or otherwise erred in applying established law to thefacts at issue.'  Pittsburgh Press Co. v. NLRB, 977 F.2d652, 654 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (quoting North Bay Dev. Disabilities Servs. v. NLRB, 905 F.2d 476, 478 (D.C. Cir. 1990)(citation omitted)). We affirm the legal conclusions of theBoard if they are reasonably defensible. Ford Motor Co. v.NLRB, 441 U.S. 488, 495-97 (1979). In reviewing theBoard's findings of fact, we may not displace the Board'schoice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the __________ 10 Insofar as Brinks, Inc. of Fla. v. NLRB, 276 N.L.R.B. 1 (1985),appears to hold that the mere re-raising of an issue in a technicalrefusal-to-bargain proceeding in which the employer claims that theunion has violated section 9(b)(3) of the LMRA is a specialcircumstance sufficient to warrant a new hearing, it appears to beinconsistent with mainstream Board precedent. See, e.g., id. at 2(Member Hunter, concurring in the judgment); Coin Devices Corp.,325 N.L.R.B. at nn.1 & 2; Dunbar Armored, Inc., 326 N.L.R.B. No.139, 1998 WL 700003 (1998); Santa Clara Co. Pub. Safety Officers'Ass'n, 325 N.L.R.B. No. 201, 1998 WL 398268 (1998). court would justifiably have made a different choice had thematter been before it de novo. Universal Camera Corp. v.NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951). As a threshold matter, Wackenhut contends that theBoard's tolerance for the aid, assistance and support of nonguard unions towards fledgling guards' unions violates theAct's unambiguous prohibition of indirect affiliation between the two kinds of unions, and its line of cases reflectingthat tolerance should be overturned as violating the plainmeaning of section 9(b)(3) of the Act. Wackenhut's argumentfor invalidating the Board's long-standing precedent underChevron step one, see Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984), isunpersuasive. Chevron step one requires us to set aside an agency'sinterpretation of a statute if the interpretation violates Congress' clear and unambiguous directive. The meaning of theterm indirect affiliation is far from clear and unambiguous. To affiliate is to join as a member, or to connect orassociate oneself: combine. Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 35 (1981). The terms directly and indirectly areoften juxtaposed to mean (1) officially as opposed to unofficially, as in,  'I am not affiliated directly or indirectly withthe Communist Party,'  Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183,185 n.1 (1952) (Oklahoma's loyalty oath), or (2) a first degreerelationship, such as an individual's ownership of stock, asopposed to a more attenuated one, as when an individualowns stock through a corporate form. See, e.g., InvestmentCompany Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. s 80a-2(a)(3) (barring directand indirect owners of stock from certain activities). Anindirect affiliation, it follows, can take a variety of guises,requiring a fact-intensive inquiry as to whether an associationor two entities, while not official or formal, nonetheless isclose enough so that one of the entities must be realisticallyviewed as connected to or dependent on the other. In short,indirect affiliation is hardly a self-administering concept. We proceed, therefore, under Chevron step two to determinewhether the agency's answer is based on a permissibleconstruction of the statute, Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, giving particular weight to the Board's interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it is charged with administering. Pittsburgh Press Co., 977 F.2d at 655. In this case, we find theBoard's interpretation of the phrase was reasonable. TheBoard has repeatedly held that a union is indirectly affiliatedwith another if it is not free to formulate its own policies anddecide its own course of action independently. International Harvester Co., 145 N.L.R.B. 1747, 1749 (1964). [M]utualsympathy, common purpose, and assistance between suchunions is not, standing alone, sufficient to show an indirectaffiliation. Id. When a guards' union is in its formativestages, and has received logistical and clerical assistance andsundry advice from other established unions, the Board hasdetermined that the spirit of the Act--to insure that theemployer maintains a faithful pool of employees to protect itsbusiness and property--is not violated. In sum the Board'sinterpretation of the term indirectly affiliated, as reflectedin its cases, requires a substantive bond that binds the twounions in management and policy, so that the guards' unioncannot determine its own course without approval of the nonguard union; that interpretation is an entirely reasonableone. Wackenhut argues more specifically that the Board erredin applying its formative stage precedent to the facts in thiscase. In what admittedly is a close case, we ultimately deferto the Board's conclusion that the duration and extent ofSakata's involvement with the Officers' Association did notamount to an indirect affiliation between the Carpenters andthe guards. Our deference is based in part on the extremelyfact-intensive nature of this inquiry and on the Board's extensive experience in examining the relative independence ofguards' unions. Cf. International Harvester, 145 N.L.R.B. at1749 (listing facts shown to be dispostive of affiliation issue). The Regional Director concluded that Sakata played animportant part in the initial formation of the Union andcontinues to play a significant part in its current organizingactivities among the Employer's armed security personnel. J.A. at 122. However, the Regional Director continued,Sakata's assistance to the Union was provided at a time when the Union was plainly still in its 'formative stages.' TheUnion had come into being just about a month prior to thehearing and its officers and directors have little, if any,experience in organizing or administering a union. Id. There is always a lurking question, of course, in these cases,of how long a formative stage should last. Although Boardprecedent on this issue is a bit fuzzy, we agree that in thiscase at the time of the pre-election representation hearing,the Officers' Association was in its formative stage. Theassociation convened its first meeting at the end of July, held10 or so further organizational meetings, and obtained authorization cards and filed the necessary organizational documents with the Board. The pre-election hearing was held ascant two months after the officers first began discussingtheir own union, before it had begun to collect dues orattempt to bargain. See, e.g., U.S. Corrections Corp, 325N.L.R.B. No. 54, 1998 WL 65903 (1998) (no unlawful affiliation when business agent of non-guard union assists guards'union through collective bargaining but ceases assistance inthe midst of bargaining); Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., 142N.L.R.B. 53 (1963) (no unlawful affiliation when non-guardunion representative served as conduit between internationalguards' union and fledgling local; guards' international unionrelied on non-guard organizer and had no direct contact withguards until two days before representation hearing; nonguard representative obtained authorization cards and distributed them, and announced at organizational meeting twodays before representation hearing that he could no longerrepresent them); Federal Servs. & Indep. Guard Ass'n ofNev., 115 N.L.R.B. 1729 (1956) (no affiliation when officers oftwo non-guard unions served as officers of and negotiators forguards' union in first two months' of guards' union's existence). We hold further that it was reasonable for the RegionalDirector to conclude that Sakata's help did not compromisethe new union's independence. See J.A. at 123 (there is noevidence in the record which indicates or even suggests thatthe Union, once it passes its formative stages and attainssome degree of maturity, will not act freely and independent- ly of Sakata). The Regional Director noted that the association had established a number of committees, including abargaining committee, which will make decisions for it, andnone on which Sakata sits, id., and that Sakata's assistancewas largely logistical and clerical in nature. See id. Thissets the case apart from those previous Board cases in whichguards' unions received more substantive aid and for longerperiods of time--thus calling into serious doubt their abilityto exercise freedom and independence in formulating theirown policies and deciding their own courses of action. SeeMagnavox, 97 N.L.R.B. at 1113. For example, in Brinks,Inc., 274 N.L.R.B. 970 (1985), the Board refused to certify asa guards' bargaining representative a union whose mainforce and secretary-treasurer was an officer of the Teamsters' local and a member of the regional Joint Council ofTeamsters. This individual drafted the guards' bylaws andauthorization cards, which the Board found were identical tothose of the Teamsters' local, and presided over the guards'only meeting. Similarly, in Stewart-Warner Corp., 273N.L.R.B. 1736 (1985), a case on which Wackenhut heavilyrelies, a guards' union was denied certification where a Teamsters' local (Local 714) had begun organizing guards at aplant but, realizing it could not admit guards and non-guardsto the same union, recruited a guard to continue the organizing efforts. [ ] Petitioner's president was a longtime friend of officers and agents of Local 714 and was sought by Local 714 to continue organizational efforts among the Employer's guards immediately after Local 714 withdrew its own petition. Local 714 prepared the showing of interest petition circulated among the Employer's guards, including therein language which waived dues until a collective-bargaining agreement was obtained by Petitioner. In addition, Local 714 obtained employee signatures on this petition and prepared the representa- tion petition which was filed by Petitioner with the Board. Id. at 1737. Accord Bally's Park Place, Inc., 257 N.L.R.B.777 (1981) (indirect affiliation where business manager of guards' union attended and participated in non-guards' union's weekly business meetings, and guards' union participated in picketing at non-guards' union site); The WackenhutCorp., 223 N.L.R.B. 1131 (1976) (indirect affiliation foundwhere same individual served as secretary-treasurer ofguards' union and assistant to the president of non-guards'union, guards' union's president was employed by non-guards'union and negotiated the collective-bargaining agreement,two officers of non-guards' union had check-signing authorityfor guards' union, and shared office and secretarial staffcontinued for six years); Mack Manuf. Corp., 107 N.L.R.B.209 (1953) (indirect affiliation where local CIO committeemanconducted all of the actual organizing and soliciting andwitnessed guards' authorization cards, and meetings wereheld in CIO's building). This case is more like The MidvaleCo., 114 N.L.R.B. 372 (1955), in which the non-guard union'sinvolvement in the guards' union's affairs involved principallyadvice as to organizational strategies, a shared lawyer, ashared meeting room for one organizational meeting, mimeographed authorization cards provided by the non-guards'union, and attendance by guards at a meeting of the nonguards' union. Although Sakata participated in a half dozenmeetings of the guards' union that occurred in the Carpenters' offices, that does not seem enough to us to displace theBoard's choice, Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 488; thetestimony showed that Sakata provided more advice thandirection at these meetings. See J.A. at 174, 211 (testimonyof Murray; Sakata). We are cognizant that utilization of the formative stagedoctrine should not immunize any new guards' union thatreceives help from a non-guards' union; rather, the facts ofeach case require careful attention. We caution that two ofthe Regional Director's conclusions, while supported by therecord in this case, could be applied in another case to nudgethe formative stage doctrine from a fact-bound analysis to abroader exemption that would cover most new guards' unions. First, the Regional Director supported his ruling on certification with observations that the union was new, inexperienced,small, and without financial or other resources, suggesting its critical need for experienced help in getting started. See J.A.at 122. However, a different reading of similar facts wasadopted in Stewart-Warner, 273 N.L.R.B. at 1738, in whichthe Board noted that a new, inexperienced, small and poorguards' union could easily be overborne by an experiencednon-guards' union. Second, the Regional Director here reliedon the fact that the association was not created as a proxyfor the Carpenters, and that Sakata had no veto authorityover the association's decisions. J.A. at 123. But as theEleventh Circuit has noted, section 9(b)(3) of the Act prevents 'affiliation,' not merely 'control.'  NLRB v. Brinks,Inc. of Fla., 843 F.2d 448 (11th Cir. 1988). Nonetheless, weagree that at the end of the day, the record supports theconclusion that the two unions in this case are not affiliated,such that the guards' union cannot act independently andmake its own policy choices. Credible testimony showed thatSakata's filling out of the LM-1 petition, obtaining of samplebylaws and constitutions, attendance at meetings and answering questions, and distribution of authorization cards were alldone at the behest of the guards, who never gave him carteblanche to act on their behalf but rather asked him to provideparticular advice and certain clerical services. In additionthere is uncontroverted evidence showing that the union hadbeen in existence for only two months before the hearing,that Sakata's role was primarily advisory, and that Sakatawas the only non-guard providing assistance, lend substantialsupport to the Regional Director's conclusion of no indirectaffiliation.11 Cf. Brinks, Inc., 274 N.L.R.B. at n.4 (indirectaffiliation found where close affiliation between two unions, __________ 11 Wackenhut argues that strong evidence in its favor lies in aclaim made by the Officers' Association lawyer during the representation hearing that Sakata's communications with the lawyer wereprotected by attorney-client privilege. See J.A. at 236-37. We donot find this claim of privilege to be dispositive of Sakata's relationship with the union for purposes of this case. The determination ofwho can claim attorney-client privilege on behalf of an organizationand in what situations is a highly fact-specific inquiry, and it isnatural that the union would seek to invoke it for any advisor oragent who communicated with its lawyer about union business. including a common officer, existed for at least 10 monthsbefore hearing). We also conclude that the Board did not err in its rulingson the past election incidents raised by Wackenhut. In itsMarch 16 order denying reconsideration of the Direction ofElection, the Board considered evidence of three additionalincidents that occurred between Sakata and the guards' association post-election: that Sakata contacted the Board aboutelection procedures; that Sakata orally told a Wackenhutmanager after the election to start bargaining with the association; and that Sakata sent Wackenhut a letter asking thecompany to designate a bargaining agent. The Board concluded that none of these events indicated that Sakata wasdirecting the union, instead of vice versa, and we agree. Weobserve, in addition, that Sakata did not represent himself asthe association's bargaining agent; his function was moreakin to shepherding a new union through its post-election,adolescent pangs. Again, we decline to displace the Board'schoice between two fairly conflicting views, Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 488, and we sustain the Board's conclusionshere as reasonably defensible. Finally, the Board reasonably found that Sakata's involvement as the union's agent stopped as of November 28, 1997,the date of the Officers' Association letter to Wackenhutannouncing that the association's vice-president would henceforth serve as its agent. See J.A. at 305 (March 16 orderdenying reconsideration of decisions denying review of Direction of Election). The Board has consistently held that noindirect affiliation exists even where involvement of a nonguards' union in a guards' union affairs has been extensivebut stops at the conclusion of the union's formative stage. See, e.g., International Harvester, 145 N.L.R.B. at 1749 (TheBoard has refused to find indirect affiliation where, on therecord, it appeared that the assistance and advice once received by the guard union from the nonguard union had, infact, terminated.); Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., 142N.L.R.B. 53 (1963) (no indirect affiliation when no prospect offuture assistance, where union representative from smelters'union once served as liaison between local and international guards' union); Federal Servs., 115 N.L.R.B. at 1730 (noindirect affiliation when help from non-guards' union officersceased after formative stage). Recently, in U.S. CorrectionsCorp., 325 N.L.R.B. No. 54, 1998 WL 65903 (1998), the Boardfound that even though the business agent for a non-guardlocal participated in collective bargaining on the guards'behalf and helped to conduct their organizational efforts for 8months, there was no indirect affiliation at the time theemployer filed a petition to revoke the union's certification. By then, the non-guard business agent had announced that hewould no longer take part in collective bargaining, and theBoard declined to revoke the certification because any prioraffiliation had terminated. A reviewing body will of course look behind a professedintention to cease assistance to a guards' union to ensure thatit is bona fide. See Bally's Park Place, Inc., 257 N.L.R.B.777 (1981) (considering conflicting evidence regarding whether an indirect affiliation had actually ceased). In this case,the Board considered the only timely presented piece ofevidence presented by Wackenhut that pertained to Sakata'sactivities after the November 28 letter from the Officers'Association stating that Sakata would no longer serve as theassociation's agent: Sakata's attendance at an unemploymenthearing with a former guard employee. The Board concluded, and we agree, that by itself this incident does not amountto enough to show that Sakata was still acting as an agent forthe association. See J.A. at 532 (May 6, 1998, order denyingreview of Regional Director's certification decision).12