Opinion ID: 687584
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legal Principles Applied to this Case

Text: 44 With only the plurality opinion remaining to justify the Board's result in this case, we are left with a position, rational or not, supported by only two of four Board members. It is thus clear that the Board as a whole has failed to articulate an appropriate legal standard for the resolution of this case. Because we cannot discern a Board position, we are compelled to remand the case for reconsideration. The Board must articulate a majority-supported statement of the rule that [it] will be applying now and in the future, United Food & Commercial Workers, 880 F.2d at 1436-37, in determining the applicability of section 502 in the context of occupational exposure to low-level radiation. 45 Board counsel objects to a remand, arguing that the agency's decision in this case is entitled to deference because the judgment dismissing the Union's complaint was supported by a majority of Board members. This contention is well wide of the mark, however, for, given its legal infirmity, the concurring opinion can count for nothing in this case. Lest we are misunderstood, we should state the obvious: Our decision in this case does not deprecate, but rather vindicates, the administrative process, as well as the Board's primary authority and responsibility for making federal labor policy. When, as here, the agency has failed to take a position, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the agency or attempt to surmise what the agency's position might have been. See Burlington Truck Lines, 371 U.S. at 169, 83 S.Ct. at 246 ([T]he purpose of th[is] rule is to avoid propelling the court into the domain which Congress has set aside exclusively for the administrative agency.) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). Rather, we insist that the agency, to which Congress has delegated principal policymaking authority, choose and clearly articulate its rule. See Acme Die Casting, 26 F.3d at 166 (while reviewing court will be bound [underChevron ] to accept any reasonable rule that the Board selects ... [, it is] the Board [which] must select the rule) (emphasis added); City of Kansas City, 923 F.2d at 192 (where agency has offered no interpretation of statutory provision, agency not entitled to deference on review, because [d]eference under Chevron ... can be accorded only to a judgment of the agency itself).