Opinion ID: 464791
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Department's Statement of Reasons

Text: 22 Although the Department had not previously submitted any detailed statement of reasons for its inaction to the UAW, such a statement was now included as an addendum to its motion for dismissal, or in the alternative, summary judgment. In its motion the DOL argued (a) that the Workers' Defense League and Center to Protect Workers' Rights lacked standing altogether to bring the action, and that the UAW lacked standing with respect to counts two and three of the amended complaint dealing with the Tate Firm's reporting and the DOL's general pattern of practice, (b) that the Department's enforcement authority is committed to agency discretion by law, and thus, not subject to judicial review, and (c) that its decision as set out in its Statement of Reasons 3 was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 23 In its Statement of Reasons, the Department explained that the Secretary's decision not to take enforcement action was based on a combination of factors including: findings that many of the UAW's allegations were not substantiated; 4 determinations that some of the activities were not reportable under established current law; 5 a decision that the pursuit of these actions would not be the best expenditure of the agency's resources since the NLRB had already publicized the challenged activities through their unfair labor practice proceeding; an assessment that some of the requested enforcement action would be impracticable; 6 and an announcement that the Secretary was now interpreting the statute as no longer requiring reporting of two of the activities involved in the case. 24 First, with respect to the Union's allegation that Kawasaki and the Tate Firm had failed to report the Tate Firm's activities to persuade supervisors in the Kawasaki plant to work against unionization, the Secretary held that it was now interpreting such activity to come within the advice exception of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 433(c). He stated that: 25 An activity is characterized as advice if it is submitted orally or in written form to the employer for his use, and the employer is free to accept or reject the oral or written material submitted to him.... Thus, with respect to the consultant, although the law firm advised the employer (including supervisors ) regarding anti-union activities during the UAW organizing campaigns, these activities did not constitute persuader activities under the Act, and do not require reports by the consultant. 26 J.A. at 61 (emphasis added). 27 Second, the Secretary addressed the Union's allegations that Kawasaki failed to report that it paid supervisors to discourage unionization. The Secretary first conceded that: 28 Early in the administration of the Act it had been considered that a prorated share of regular salaries and wages paid to supervisors or other employees who engaged in conduct referred to in sections 203(a)(2) and (3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 433(a)(2) and (3), might be reportable by the employer. This was known as the split income theory. 29 J.A. at 63. He then went on, however, to announce a new interpretation of the statute: 30 In recent years, a large number of complaints were filed with the Secretary on this theory, and an examination of the many different fact situations presented by these complaints caused the Department of Labor to re-examine the split income theory and its relationship to section 203(e) of the Act. Reviewing legislative history, it was found that [u]nder section 203(e) ... none of the reporting requirements are applicable when the services are rendered by a regular officer, supervisor, or employee of the employer. (Barry Goldwater, Analysis of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, Cong.Rec. 19749-62, Oct. 2, 1959). Given the ambiguity of the language of section 203(e) together with the purpose of the Act to expose hidden amounts of money spent by the employer in his attempts to convince his employees not to unionize, and given that wage payments are known facts, it is the Department's view that employers are not required to report regular wages paid to regular supervisors and other employees. 31 Id. (emphasis added).