Opinion ID: 185893
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The ALJ's Review of the Record

Text: 50 Last, and certainly least, petitioner contends that the Board erred in holding that the ALJ had made an independent analysis of the factual and legal arguments in this case. We find no merit in this contention. Indeed, the record in this case makes it perfectly clear that the Board itself reviewed the record with care and reached well-informed judgments with respect to all of the challenged ULPs. The Board also properly discounted any missteps by the ALJ. On the record at hand, there is no serious doubt that the Board's findings, which are before the court on review, are supported by substantial evidence and are fully consistent with controlling law. 51 Petitioner's attempts to show otherwise are frail. For example, petitioner points out that the ALJ's reliance on the testimony of employee Paul Swisher to find that Supervisor Hildebrand had made antiunion threats made no sense. The ALJ had declared to counsel for both sides that Swisher was simply not a credible witness; yet, the ALJ relied solely on Swisher's testimony to find that Hildenbrand's statements violated § 8(a)(1). However, the Board found that Swisher's testimony remains discredited, and thus the evidence regarding statements made by Hildebrand is no longer competent to support the alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1). Casino Ready Mix, 2001 WL 1039902, at . The Board thus dismissed those allegations. 52 Petitioner also points out that the ALJ's decision incorporated substantial portions of the General Counsel's brief, suggesting that the ALJ's impartiality was subject to question. The Board specifically addressed this matter: 53 We observe that the judge's decision incorporates substantial portions of the Charging Party's post-hearing brief. While this practice may raise questions about the independence of a judge's analysis, it is not inherently prejudicial or otherwise reversible error. Based on a careful review of the record, we are satisfied that the judge provided an independent analysis of the factual issues and legal arguments in this case. Accordingly, we find that disregard of his findings is not warranted. See Waterbury Hotel Management LLC, 333 NLRB No. 60, slip op. 1, 2001 WL 252753 (2001), and cases cited there. 54 Casino Ready Mix, 2001 WL 1039902, at  n. 2. The Board's holding on this issue is supported in the record and perfectly reasonable. 55 Petitioner nonetheless argues that the Board's decision not to disregard the ALJ's findings was a departure from Waterbury Hotel, 2001 WL 252753, 2001 N.L.R.B. LEXIS 136 (Mar. 9, 2001). Petitioner notes that the Board in Waterbury Hotel stated that [i]t is the special function of the administrative law judge to prepare for the Board an independent and careful analysis of the factual issues and legal arguments in the case over which the judge presides. Id. at , 2001 N.L.R.B. LEXIS 136, at . The ALJ in Waterbury Hotel had, like the ALJ here, extensively relied on the General Counsel's brief in making his factual findings. In determining that the ALJ had performed the independent and careful review expected of him, the Board specifically pointed to a portion of the judge's decision that manifest[ed] full consideration of the record, witness credibility, and the posthearing briefs filed by both the General Counsel and the Respondent. Id. at , 2001 N.L.R.B. LEXIS 136, at . Moreover, the NLRB noted that the employer had cite[d] no specific basis, apart from the challenged decisional practice, to disbelieve the judge's declaration of a full and independent review. Id. Petitioner here argues that the NLRB departed from the teachings of Waterbury Hotel in this case, because the Board did not specifically point to any portion of the ALJ's decision to support its assertion that the ALJ had provided an independent analysis of the factual issues and legal arguments, and because the employer had provided specific reasons to disbelieve the ALJ's declaration of a full and independent review. 56 Petitioner's argument lacks merit. The major problem with petitioner's argument is that it reads far too much into Waterbury Hotel. The holding in that case did not set forth a mandated process of analysis, nor did it claim that the factors relied upon there were necessary to establish the independence of the ALJ's analysis. Instead, the Board resolves such questions on a case-by-case basis. Waterbury Hotel merely supplied an analysis of why, in that particular case, the Board determined that the ALJ had conducted a sufficient review of the record. 57 In the present case, we find that the Board dealt fairly with petitioner's challenges to the ALJ's review of the facts. The Board adopted the ALJ's findings only to the extent that they were consistent with the Board's Decision and Order. The Decision and Order reflects the Board's own independent review of the record, which the Board affirmatively states that it conducted. Casino Ready Mix, 2001 WL 1039902, at  n. 2. The Board's correction of the ALJ's mistake with respect to Swisher's testimony supports the Board's claim that it conducted an independent review. Moreover, the Board's opinion carefully discusses the disputed ULPs and the factual predicates for each. Id. at -. In short, we can find no merit in petitioner's argument.