Opinion ID: 197361
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: setting the lights

Text: Telemundo operates a television station in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. In December of 1994, the Union (which appears in this venue as an intervenor) sought to be certified as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of a tiny group of Company employees known as technical directors (TDs). Telemundo opposed the effort, casting the three TDs as supervisors (and, thus, part of management). Agents of the Board conducted a representation proceeding at which evidence was taken. The record was closed in April 1995. On January 30, 1996, the regional director issued a decision finding the TDs to 2 be run-of-the-mill employees, not supervisors, and mandating an election (to take place on February 28, 1996) for a bargaining unit composed solely of the three TDs. On February 12, the Company sought reconsideration; it filed a request for review and annexed to the papers a letter dated May 15, 1995, in which it had informed the TDs' immediate superior, Rafael Corps, that his position technical supervisor (TS) was to be eliminated effective June 16, 1995. On February 28, the three TDs voted unanimously to join the Union. The Board denied the Company's request for review two days later and thereafter certified the Union as the bargaining unit's representative. It is common ground that employers cannot obtain direct review of unfavorable certification decisions. See American Fed'n of Labor v. NLRB, 308 U.S. 401, 409-11 (1940). Consequently, if an employer is dissatisfied with the outcome of a representation proceeding, the option of choice is to refuse to bargain and to raise any infirmity in the certification decision as a defense to the unfair labor practice charge that almost inevitably will ensue. See, e.g., Boire v. Greyhound Corp., 376 U.S. 473, 477 (1964); S.D. Warren Co. v. NLRB, 342 F.2d 814, 815 (1st Cir. 1965). So here: the Company stonewalled, the Union pressed an unfair labor practice charge, and the Company defended on the ground that the bargaining unit was inappropriate because the TDs were supervisors. As part of this defense, the Company asked the Board to pay special heed to (1) the letter eliminating 3 the technical supervisor's position, and (2) an affidavit executed well after the election by Elizabeth Rivera, a member of management, purporting to describe changes in the TDs' duties. The General Counsel moved for summary judgment. The Board obliged, rejecting the proffered affidavit, upholding the underlying certification, and ruling that the Company's refusal to bargain violated the Act. See Telemundo of P.R., Inc., 321 NLRB No. 133, slip op. (NLRB Aug. 16, 1996). These proceedings followed apace.