Opinion ID: 695137
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interruption

Text: 19 The Board also failed to consider the hiatus in production between the Phoenix shutdown and CitiSteel's startup and the accompanying negative impact on the workers' expectation of rehire. [T]he occurrence of a lengthy hiatus may well weigh against the reimposition of bargaining obligations when operations are set to resume. We note that in such circumstances, employees naturally have slim, if any, expectations of recall and their attitudes toward representation may well be affected adversely. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, Local 152 v. NLRB, 768 F.2d 1463, 1472 (D.C.Cir.1985) (citations omitted). The record establishes such an interruption, further precluding a finding of successorship under the Golden State Bottling test. 20 The gap in production between Phoenix and CitiSteel lasted two years during which the prospects for the reopening of the mill were speculative at best, as evidenced by the ALJ's failure to find that the ongoing negotiations for the sale of the mill or its assets gave rise to any expectations on the part of the Phoenix employees. Id. at 829, 1993 WL 394299. 8 The national security concerns arising from the sale to Chang and the need for special legislation to allow the mill to reopen cast doubt on the mill's future even after Chang agreed to buy it. Indeed, the most powerful evidence of the workers' view of the prospects for the mill came from the Steelworkers itself--its decision to close (and later sell) the union hall and Brodzinski's departure to seek work elsewhere. The union leadership obviously saw dim possibilities at best for the plant's reopening and the rank-and-file workers had nothing other than newspaper stories described by the ALJ as too factually inadequate to reflect any probabilities adequate to give rise to any expectations of rehire. Id. at 830, 1993 WL 394299. 21 The Board and the ALJ largely discounted the relevance of the hiatus on the basis of the statement in Fall River that a hiatus is relevant only when there are other indicia of discontinuity. 482 U.S. at 45, 107 S.Ct. at 2237; 312 N.L.R.B. at 816, 1993 WL 394299. As our review of the evidence demonstrating substantial change at the mill makes clear, however, the record contains abundant other indicia of discontinuity to make the impact of the hiatus on the workers' expectation of rehire relevant.