Court Opinion

ID: 2964075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:03.513908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:49.986320
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1966

                       PEGASUS BROADCASTING OF SAN JUAN, INC.,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                           NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

                UNION DE PERIODISTAS Y ARTES GRAFICAS Y RAMAS ANEXAS,
                     AFFILIATED TO THE NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO,

                                     Intervenor.
                                 ____________________

                     ON PETITION FOR REVIEW AND CROSS-APPLICATION
                          FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE
                            NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Stahl, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Radames A. Torruella with whom McConnell  Valdes was on brief  for
            ____________________           _________________
        petitioner.
            David  A.  Fleischer, Senior  Attorney,  with  whom  Frederick  L.
            ____________________                                 _____________
        Feinstein,  General Counsel,  Linda Sher,  Associate  General Counsel,
        _________                     __________
        Aileen A.  Armstrong, Deputy  Associate General Counsel,  and National
        ____________________                                          ________
        Labor Relations Board were on brief for respondent.
        _____________________
            Ginoris Vizcarra  De Lopez-Lay and Lopez-Lay  Vizcarra & Porro  on
            ______________________________     ___________________________
        brief for intervenor.
                                 ____________________

                                    April 22, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.   This is a petition
                               ____________________

            to  review an  order of  the  National Labor  Relations Board

            brought  by Pegasus  Broadcasting  of San  Juan, Inc.,  d/b/a

            WAPA-TV  (the Company),  with the usual  cross-application by

            the  Board for  enforcement of  its order.   The  Company was

            charged with  violation of sections  8(a)(5) and  (1) of  the

            National Labor  Relations Act  (Act), 29  U.S.C.    158(a)(5)

            and (1), by withholding granting wage increases.   We enforce

            the order.

                                 The Unfair Practice
                                 ___________________

                      The Board found  that for 18 years the  Company had

            granted annual  merit-based salary increases to its reporters

            based  on individual  evaluation, effective  January of  each

            year.  In January of 1990-92 the individual raises had varied

            between 3%  and 8%.  In 1993  the Company, instead, granted a

            flat 1%.  The Board chose to regard this as  a continuance of

            the practice.  In  January of 1994, however, the  Company had

            begun  negotiations  for   its  first  collective  bargaining

            agreement  (CBA)   with  a   newly  certified  union,1   and,

            allegedly believing  that to  do otherwise would  violate the

            Act, it  unilaterally discontinued all merit  wage increases.

            It  did not  notify the  union, nor  did it  indicate it  was

                                
            ____________________

            1.  In  February of  1993 the  Union de  Periodistas y  Artes
            Graficas y Ramas Anexas, Local 225, The Newspaper Guild, AFL-
            CIO, CLC,  was certified to  represent all  of the  Company's
            reporters   and  reporter-anchor  persons   employed  at  its
            television facilities in Puerto Rico.

                                         -2-

            merely  temporarily suspending the program during bargaining.

            In  May, 1994, during bargaining, the union filed the present

            charge.

                      If this  were a novel matter we  might have initial

            sympathy  with the  Company's view  that it  was between  the

            devil and the  deep blue.   It claims  to have suspended  its

            annual merit increases  because awarding discretionary  merit

            pay increases during bargaining seemed  to it to fall  within

            the prohibition  on making changes with  respect to mandatory

            bargaining  matters, in  violation of  section 8(a)(5).   See
                                                                      ___

            NLRB  v. Katz,  369 U.S.  736, 745-46  (1962).   Indeed, with
            ____     ____

            unilateral  discretion, there  would seem  room  for improper

            maneuvering.   Id.  at 746-47.   However,  Katz distinguished
                           ___                         ____

            between  merit  increases that  are  part  of an  established

            practice of granting annual merit reviews, and those that are

            not,  id.  at  746, ruling  that  granting  the  latter is  a
                  __

            violation of the Act.   Id.  Here, the Board found  that even
                                    ___

            though the  amounts of  the increases were  discretionary, it

            was  abandonment of  the practice  itself that  was forbidden

            under the Act.   Pegasus Broadcasting of San Juan,  Inc., 317
                             _______________________________________

            N.L.R.B. No. 165 (July 20, 1995).

                      The record adequately supports the Board's finding,

            and we have no reason to disagree with it.  Rather, we are in

            full accord with the recent similar case of Daily News of Los
                                                        _________________

            Angeles  v. NLRB, 73 F.3d 406, 410  (D.C. Cir. 1996).  See 29
            _______     ____                                       ___

                                         -3-

            U.S.C.      158(a)(5) and  (d); Katz,  369  U.S. at  743 (any
                                            ____

            unilateral  change  to  a  mandatory  subject  of  bargaining

            violates the  Act, despite good  faith).  We  have previously

            indicated  that a perception of  the law such  as the Company

            claims  to  have  had  is  incorrect.    See  General  Motors
                                                     ___  _______________

            Acceptance  Corp. v. NLRB, 476 F.2d 850, 854 (1st Cir. 1973).
            _________________    ____

            The  Company  could have  avoided  its  alleged conundrum  by

            freely  offering  January  1,  1994 merit  increases  at  the

            bargaining  table,  rather   than  taking  unilateral  action

            without  notice to the union.   See generally  Daily News, 73
                                            ___ _________  __________

            F.3d 406.2  See also Eastern  Maine Medical Ctr. v. NLRB, 658
                        ___ ____ ___________________________    ____

            F.2d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 1981) (withholding wage increase).

                                      The Remedy
                                      __________

                      Pursuant to its authority under 29 U.S.C.   160(c),

            the  Board  ordered  a  multi-faceted  remedy  directing  the

            Company   to,  inter   alia,  (1)   cease  and   desist  from
                           ____________

            unilaterally   withholding  the  merit   wage  increases  and

            "interfering,  restraining or  coercing  employees" in  their

            exercise of rights  guaranteed by section  7 of the  National

            Labor  Relations Act, (2)  make whole each  employee "for any

            loss of  earnings suffered because of  [the Company]'s having
                                
            ____________________

            2.  We note  that Daily  News covers  individual raises.   73
                              ___________
            withheld such increase," with interest, to be computed during
            F.3d at  413.   For  raises  across the  board,  see NLRB  v.
                                                             ___ ____
            Blevins Popcorn Co., 659 F.2d 1173, 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
            ___________________
            "the  compliance stage  of  this proceeding,"3  and (3)  post

            3.  Such a  bifurcated procedure is  common and has  met with
            approval.  See, e.g., Holyoke Visiting Nurses Ass'n. v. NLRB,
                       ___  ____  ______________________________    ____
            11 F.3d 302,  308 (1st Cir. 1993).  See  also NLRB v. Rutter-
                                                ___  ____ ____    _______
            Rex  Mfg.  Co.,  396 U.S.  258,  260  (1969);  NLRB v.  Deena
            ______________                                 ____     _____
            Artware, 361 U.S. 398, 411 (1960).
            _______

                                         -4-

            notice  of   the  violation  at  its   facilities.    Pegasus
                                                                  _______

            Broadcasting,  317 N.L.R.B.  No. 165,  slip  op. at  *1, 2-3.
            ____________

            This is, presumptively, appropriate.   The Supreme Court "has

            repeatedly interpreted [  160(c)] as vesting in the Board the

            primary   responsibility  and  broad   discretion  to  devise

            remedies  that effectuate  the policies  of the  Act, subject

            only  to limited judicial review,"  in which courts of appeal

            "should not substitute their judgment  for that of the  Board

            in determining how best  to undo the effects of  unfair labor

            practices."  Sure-Tan,  Inc. v.  NLRB, 467  U.S. 883,  898-99
                         _______________     ____

            (1984).  A  Board-ordered remedy "should stand unless  it can

            be shown that [it] is a patent attempt to  achieve ends other

            than  those  which  can  fairly  be  said  to  effectuate the

            policies of the Act."    Virginia Elec. & Power Co.  v. NLRB,
                                     __________________________     ____

            319 U.S. 533, 540 (1943).

                      Put briefly,  it  is  the Board  --  and  union  --

            position that,  the Company having committed  an unfair labor

            practice by unilaterally  cancelling the merit  wage increase

            program in January 1994, it is now for the Board to determine

            the consequences, if any.  The Company objects, first, on the

            ground  that  the  backpay  order  transgressed  the  Board's

            authority, because the raises were always discretionary as to

            amount  and, as  such, not  amenable to  Board determination.

            This thought has been sufficiently answered by the Daily News
                                                               __________

                                         -5-

            court.   73 F.3d at  415.  More interesting  is the Company's

            next suggestion, that the wage question is now moot.

                      The Company and the union completed bargaining  and

            entered into  a CBA, effective September 22,  1995, that sets

            wages retroactive  to January 1,  1994.  The  Company asserts

            that  the CBA  contains a  so-called zipper  clause providing

            that  it   comprises  "the   complete  agreement   among  the

            parties."4   In this  circumstance the Company  would have us

            say that the Board's ordered remedy, insofar as it relates to

            lost wages from  January 1994 plus  interest, has been  taken

            care of  by the CBA, rendering the order moot or, at the very

            least, obviating  the need  for further backpay  proceedings.

            Further proceedings  would necessarily  involve the  Board in

            impermissibly  interfering with  the bargaining  process, and

            altering the terms  of the CBA.   See NLRB  v. American  Ins.
                                              ___ ____     ______________

            Co.,  343 U.S. 395, 404 (1952); NLRB v. Insurance Agents, 361
            ___                             ____    ________________

            U.S. 477, 487 (1960) (section 8(d) "prevent[s] the Board from

            controlling   the  settling   of  the  terms   of  collective

            bargaining agreements").  See  also H.K. Porter Co.  v. NLRB,
                                      ___  ____ _______________     ____

            397 U.S. 99, 103-04 (1970).  The Board's short answer is that

                                
            ____________________

            4.  The clause, submitted after oral argument upon request of
            the panel, reads, in full:

                      A.  This  agreement includes the complete
                      agreement  among  the   parties.     This
                      agreement cannot be modified, expanded or
                      amended except by  a written  stipulation
                      properly   signed   by   the   authorized
                      representative of the parties.

                                         -6-

            the issue of whether or not the CBA moots the order is one of

            fact, concerning events subsequent  to the Board's order, and

            is not presently before us.

                      We  agree with  the Board.   The CBA  succeeded the

            order, and was not, and never has been, presented to it.  The

            terms  are   not  of  record.     Board  counsel's  courteous

            affirmative answer  to our  question about the  zipper clause

            was accompanied by a statement that his answer could not bind

            the Board.  Nor can we take, of our own accord, the Company's

            submission of the CBA.   We, particularly, know that  we lack

            the same broad right or supervisory power over the Board that

            we might have over a district  court on new matter.  Cf. NLRB
                                                                 ___ ____

            v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corp., 368 U.S. 318, 322 (1962).  The Act
               ______________________

            unequivocally requires that new matter go through the Board:

                      If either party shall apply  to the court
                      for leave to  adduce additional  evidence
                      . . . the court may order such additional
                      evidence  to be  taken before  the Board,
                      its member,  agent, or agency,  and to be
                      made a part of the record.  The Board may
                      modify its findings  as to the  facts, or
                      make new findings by reason of additional
                      evidence so taken and filed, and it shall
                      file such modified or new findings, which
                      findings  with  respect  to questions  of
                      fact if supported by substantial evidence
                      on the record considered as a whole shall
                      be   conclusive,   and  shall   file  its
                      recommendations,   if    any,   for   the
                      modification  or  setting  aside  of  its
                      original order.

            29 U.S.C   160(e).  See also Ochoa, 368 U.S. at 322.
                                ___ ____ _____

                                         -7-

                      Amicable  adjustment  by   parties  is  of   course

            permissible, and encouraged.   See 29 C.F.R.     101.9(a) and
                                           ___

            101.16.   However, "parties" include  representatives of  the

            Board, and  formal settlement is contingent  upon the General

            Counsel's approval.  Id.     101.9, 101.13, 101.16, 102.52 et
                                 ___                                   __

            seq.  See NLRB v. Tennessee Packers,  Inc., 390 F.2d 787, 788
            ____  ___ ____    ________________________

            (6th Cir. 1968)  (collecting cases).  Here, neither the union

            nor  the  Board agrees  with the  Company  that the  issue of

            compliance  with the  backpay order  has been settled  by the

            CBA.    This  court  is  without  jurisdiction  to  entertain

            arguments  not previously presented to the Board.  See Woelke
                                                               ___ ______

            & Romero Framing, Inc.  v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645,  665-66 (1982)
            ______________________     ____

            (court of  appeals without jurisdiction to  consider question

            that   could   have   been    presented   in   petition   for

            reconsideration or rehearing before the Board).  If  there is

            any  question the proper course is for the Company to present

            its proofs  regarding amounts in  further proceedings  before

            the  Board.  29 U.S.C.   160(e).  See, e.g., Holyoke Visiting
                                              ___  ____  ________________

            Nurses, 11 F.3d  at 308;  Fox Painting Co.  v. NLRB, 16  F.3d
            ______                    ________________     ____

            115, 116 (6th Cir. 1994).  29 C.F.R.    102.52 et seq.
                                                           _______

                      The Company  nonetheless presses that the  Act bars

            the Board in this  particular case from conducting compliance

            proceedings, or otherwise implementing the order,  because it

            has  now fully bargained to agreement with the union over the

            very amounts the  Board would address.  In other  words, as a

                                         -8-

            matter of law, any compliance order would operate to alter or

            impermissibly supplement  the terms of the  CBA, in violation

            of   8(d) of the Act.  H.K. Porter, 397 U.S. at 103-04.  This
                                   ___________

            is simply not so.  The Board, in effect, found the bargaining

            had not  been on  the now universally-demanded  level playing

            field.   More  exactly, having  unfairly lacked  the expected

            benefits  of  the   unilaterally  cancelled  merit   increase

            program, the union was  required to start behind the  line of

            scrimmage.   As observed in  John Zink Co.,  196 N.L.R.B. 942
                                         _____________

            (1972),  1972 WL 12497 at  *1, the employer  is "enjoying the

            fruits  of  his  unfair  labor practices  and  gaining  undue

            advantage at the bargaining table  when he bargains about the

            benefits which he has already [illegally] discontinued."

                      The Board's order means that the bargaining was not

            free, a  matter of public, as well  as private, concern.  Cf.
                                                                      ___

            Phelps  Dodge Corp.  v. NLRB,  313 U.S.  177,  192-95 (1941).
            ___________________     ____

            What were the  consequences of  the order?   Did the  Company

            change its behavior, admit,  for example, merit increases for

            January  1, 1994?  We, of course,  make no suggestion, but it

            is  for  the  Board, not  the  Company,  to  say whether  the

            ultimate bargaining in fact  accomplished the entirety of the

            Board's purpose.

                      The  Company's petition is  denied, and the Board's
                                                  ______

            application for enforcement is granted.
                                           _______

                                         -9-