Court Opinion

ID: 2964000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:48.679175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:49.536346
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1727

                           NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                             HARDING GLASS COMPANY, INC.,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

                  ON APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE

                            NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________
                      Aldrich and Coffin, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                          _____________________

                                 ____________________

               Charles Donnelly, Supervisory Attorney, Joseph J. Jablonski,
               ________________                        ____________________
          Jr.,  Attorney,  Frederick L.  Feinstein, General  Counsel, Linda
          ___              _______________________                    _____
          Sher,  Associate  General  Counsel, Aileen  A.  Armstrong, Deputy
          ____                                _____________________
          Associate General Counsel, for petitioner.
               Robert Weihrauch for respondent.
               ________________
                                 ____________________

                                    March 27, 1996
                                 ____________________

               COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge.   The National Labor Relations
                       ____________________

          Board seeks enforcement  of its order finding  that Harding Glass

          Company  committed a series of unfair labor practices and that an

          economic strike against  the Company was  converted to an  unfair

          labor    practice    strike   following    Harding's   unilateral

          implementation of its final offer.  We affirm most of the Board's

          order but conclude that the record  lacks substantial evidence to

          support  its finding that the strike was converted.  We therefore

          grant  in part,  and deny  in part,  the Board's  application for

          enforcement.1

                                    I. Background
                                       __________

               Harding  Glass  ("the  Company")  is  a  small  business  in

          Worcester,   Massachusetts   that  specializes   in   auto  glass

          replacement,  small construction and  other similar glass-related

          projects.  In  mid-1993, when  the events relevant  to this  case

          began, the Company employed  three glassworkers and two glaziers.

          The glaziers  were more  highly paid and  performed more  skilled

          work.   The  Company and  the Union  that represented  these five

          workers, Glaziers Local 1044  of the International Brotherhood of

          Painters  and  Allied  Trades,   AFL-CIO  ("the  Union"),  had  a

                              
          ____________________

               1  The Company  does not  challenge several  of the  Board's
          findings  of  violation  of     8(a)(1)  of  the  National  Labor
          Relations  Act,  29 U.S.C.     158(a)(1), including  that  (1) it
          interfered in the Board's  investigation of unfair labor practice
          charges;  (2) that  it  threatened employees  with discharge  and
          promised  them  higher wages  in  order to  discourage  them from
          supporting or remaining  members of  the Union; (3)  and that  it
          encouraged   and  assisted   employees   in  the   filing  of   a
          decertification petition.

                                         -2-

          longstanding collective bargaining  arrangement through a  multi-

          employer association, the GlassEmployers Group of Greater Boston.

               The  most recent  agreement  signed by  the Company  and the

          Union had  an expiration date of  October 16, 1993.   On June 30,

          the Company's president, Mark  Goldstein, notified the Union that

          he  wished to negotiate a separate agreement to replace the group

          contract that was  expiring.   Goldstein was  concerned that  his

          company was not  competitive in the Worcester area  because other

          glass shops there were not paying the much higher Union  wage and

          benefits.

               The   Union  agreed  to   negotiate  separately,  and  three

          meetings, each lasting about one hour, eventually were held.  The

          Company proposed a  one-year agreement that  included substantial

          reductions in wages and benefits for the glaziers and an increase

          in the top rate for glassworkers, but with cuts in their benefits

          as well.   During the discussions,  the Union's business  manager

          suggested techniques  for cutting  the Company's costs,  the most

          significant  of which involved  using the lower-paid glassworkers

          to do  much of  the work  that the  Company currently  was paying

          glaziers to  do.  Goldstein maintained that  he could not rely on

          glassworkers to do the skilled work normally done by glaziers.

               On October 17, the glaziers rejected the Company's offer and

          voted to strike  and establish a picket line,  which they did the

          next  day.   The three  glassworkers did  not attend  the meeting

          scheduled to discuss  the Company's  proposal to  them, but  they

          agreed  not to cross the glaziers' picket line.  The message sent

                                         -3-

          to  the Company  rejecting its  offer stated  that the  Union was

          "ready and willing to continue negotiations."

               On October 22, Goldstein met with the three glassworkers and

          offered them the terms that had been contained in his proposal to

          the  Union.   The same  day, the  third negotiating  session took

          place.    No  new proposals  were  made,  but  the parties  again

          discussed   the   Union's   suggestion  that   the   Company  use

          glassworkers  for  most of  its business  and  rely on  the Union

          hiring hall  to provide  glaziers when  necessary.   The business

          agent testified that the meeting ended with Goldstein saying that

          he would think  about the Union's  proposal and  get back to  him

          about it.

               The  next  day,  however,  Goldstein  rejected  the  Union's

          approach as  "unacceptable," and  announced that the  Company was

          implementing  its final offer --  i.e., its original  offer.  The

          three glassworkers resigned from  the Union and returned  to work

          under the terms the Company had offered the Union: a small hourly

          wage increase,  no pension and annuity  benefits, modified health

          benefits, and fewer holidays. 

               No further negotiating sessions were  held.  The picket line

          remained in effect  through December  and, so far  as the  record

          indicates, the strike  has to this  date not  been settled.   The

          Union filed  unfair labor  practice charges against  the Company,

          and,  following   a  two-day  hearing,  an   ALJ  found  multiple

          violations  of   the  National  Labor  Relations   Act  and  also

          determined  that the strike was converted from an economic strike

                                         -4-

          to  an unfair  labor  practice strike.    The Board,  with  minor

          modifications, affirmed.

               On  appeal, Harding challenges only two  of the unfair labor

          practice findings:  that  Goldstein threatened  employees with  a

          shutdown of the business if they did not get rid of the Union and

          that the Company  unilaterally implemented changes  in employment

          conditions in  the absence of a valid impasse in bargaining.  The

          Company also contends  that the record fails to  demonstrate that

          the strike was prolonged by any of its conduct, and  it therefore

          urges  us to  reject  the finding  of  an unfair  labor  practice

          strike.

               We find  no basis  for disturbing the  Board's determination

          with  respect to either of the unfair labor practice charges, and

          believe  that the ALJ's  discussion, as  modified by  the Board's

          decision  and Order,  adequately  addresses these  issues.2   Our

          review of the record, however, persuades us that the finding of a

                              
          ____________________

               2 We note that, with respect to the alleged threats to close
          down the business,  Dana Whitney, Charles Jones and James Tritone
          testified that  such statements were  made to them.   See  Tr. at
                                                                ___
          127,  205, 220.   The  ALJ evidently  did not  credit Goldstein's
          assertion  that he made only lawful complaints about how the high
          union  wages  made   him  non-competitive.    "Such   credibility
          determinations, of course, are  for the Board rather than  for us
          to  make, and they stand  unless beyond the  `bounds of reason.'"
          NLRB v. Magnesium  Casting Co., 668  F.2d 13, 21 (1st  Cir. 1981)
          ____    ______________________
          (citation omitted).  See also The 3-E Company v. NLRB, 26 F.3d 1,
                               ___ ____ _______________    ____
          3 (1st Cir. 1994).

                                         -5-

          strike conversion cannot  be sustained.3   We discuss this  issue

          in the following section.

                       II. Discussion: Conversion of the Strike
                           ____________________________________

               It is  well-established that "[a] strike begun in support of

          economic objectives becomes an  unfair labor practice strike when

          the employer  commits an intervening unfair  labor practice which

          is found  to make the strike last  longer than it otherwise would

          have," Soule Glass and Glazing Co.  v. NLRB, 652 F.2d 1055,  1079
                 ___________________________     ____

          (1st Cir. 1981).   Causation is  crucial: "It  must be found  not

          only  that the employer committed an  unfair labor practice after

          the  commencement of the strike, but that  as a result the strike

          was  `expanded  to  include  a protest  over  [the]  unfair labor

          practice[],'  and  that  settlement  of the  strike  was  thereby

          delayed and the  strike prolonged."   Id.  at 1079-80  (citations
                                                ___

          omitted).

               The General  Counsel bears the burden  of proving causation,

          and  the Board's  finding  of  conversion  must be  supported  by

          substantial evidence.   Id. at  1080.  Mere  conjecture will  not
                                  ___

                              
          ____________________

               3  The nature  of  the strike  determines the  reinstatement
          rights of striking  employees once  the work stoppage  ends.   An
          employer may refuse to reinstate economic strikers  who have been
          permanently replaced  during the  strike.  Unfair  labor practice
          strikers are entitled  to unconditional  reinstatement, absent  a
          contractual  or  statutory provision  to  the  contrary, and  are
          entitled to back pay even  if they have been replaced during  the
          strike.  See General Indus. Employees Union Local 42 v. NLRB, 951
                   ___ _______________________________________    ____
          F.2d  1308, 1311 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Soule Glass and Glazing Co. v.
                                             ___________________________
          NLRB, 652 F.2d 1055, 1105 (1st Cir. 1981). 
          ____

                                         -6-

          suffice.   Facet  Enterprises, Inc.  v. NLRB,  907 F.2d  963, 977
                     ________________________     ____

          (10th Cir. 1990).   "[T]o sustain a finding of  conversion, there

          must be  some evidence  in the  record that the  . .  . employees

          reacted  to   information   of  [the   unfair   labor   practice]

          substantively  in a  fashion  which aggravated  or prolonged  the

          strike."  Id.  It need not be shown, however, that the employer's
                    ___

          unfair labor  practice was the sole or even the primary factor in

          aggravating  the strike,  but only  that  it was  "a contributing

          factor,"  NLRB v. Moore Business  Forms, Inc., 574  F.2d 835, 840
                    ____    ___________________________

          (5th Cir. 1978).

                    Both  objective  and  subjective  factors  may  be
               probative  of conversion.  Applying objective criteria,
               the Board and reviewing court may properly consider the
               probable impact of the type of unfair labor practice in
               question  on  reasonable   strikers  in  the   relevant
               context.  Applying  subjective criteria, the Board  and
               court may give substantial  weight to the strikers' own
               characterization  of their  motive  for  continuing  to
               strike  after  the unfair  labor  practice.   Did  they
               continue to  view the strike  as economic or  did their
               focus  shift  to  protesting  the  employer's  unlawful
               conduct?

          Soule Glass, 652 F.2d at 1080.
          ___________

               Applying  these principles  to the  present case  renders us

          unable  to   sustain  the  finding  of  conversion.    The  ALJ's

          discussion  of  this issue  comprised  a  single brief  paragraph

          within a  three-page  analysis of  the  Company's conduct.    The

          decision  stated  in  conclusory  language  that  the   Company's

          unilateral implementation  of its final offer,  together with its

          unlawful  threats, promises  and  support  of  a  decertification

          petition,  "must" be  found  to have  prolonged  the strike,  and

                                         -7-

          converted  it  "to  one which  must  be  deemed  an unfair  labor

          practice strike."  ALJ Op. at 9.4

               The Board  affirmed the  finding of conversion,  but limited

          the  basis  for  that  determination to  the  Company's  unlawful

          implementation of its last offer:

               Because  the  Respondent's initial  bargaining proposal
               contained  significant  reductions in  the compensation
               paid glaziers and caused them to  strike on October 18,
               we  conclude that the  unlawful implementation of these
               very changes  had a reasonable tendency  to prolong the
               strike.  Accordingly, we find that the strike converted
               to an unfair  labor practice strike on  October 25 when
               the  striking glaziers became aware of the Respondent's
               unlawful implementation of its offer.

               As  their  language reveals,  both  the  ALJ and  the  Board

          presumed that  the Company's  implementation of the  wage package
          ________

          that  had triggered the strike  aggravated and prolonged the work

          stoppage.  Neither cites to testimony from the striking employees

          or any other evidence  indicating that effectuation of the  terms

          the employees  had rejected strengthened their  resolve to remain

          on strike or  changed their  attitude about the  importance of  a

          work  stoppage in  settling their  differences with  the Company.

                              
          ____________________

               4 We reproduce the ALJ's full discussion of the issue:

                    Respondent's   employees  commenced   an  economic
               strike  on October 18.   On that  same date, Respondent
               commenced upon a course  of unilateral changes, changes
               which  I  have found  occurred  before  any impasse  in
               bargaining.  Within two to three weeks, Respondent also
               began   to  undermine  the  Union's  status  among  its
               employees, with threats,  promises and unlawful support
               and encouragement  of a decertification petition.  Such
               conduct,  I  must  find,  prolonged  the strike,  which
               continues to  this date,  and converted that  strike to
               one  which  must be  deemed  an  unfair labor  practice
               strike.

                                         -8-

          Our own reading of the hearing transcript also reveals nothing of

          that nature.

               We recognize that there are cases holding that some types of

          unfair labor practices  inevitably impact the length of a strike.

          In SKS Die Casting &  Machining, Inc. v. NLRB, 941 F.2d  984, 991
             __________________________________    ____

          (9th  Cir. 1991), the court adopted the Board's conclusion that a

          refusal  to  reinstate strikers  "by  its  nature" prolonged  the

          strike because it blocked the termination of the strike at a time

          when the Union and striking employees had offered unconditionally

          to end it.  The panel observed that "[t]o find conversion on this

          ground,  it is  not necessary  to examine  whether the  Union was

          protesting the  unfair labor practice  at issue," and  noted that

          the  Board repeatedly  had found  that the  refusal  to reinstate

          strikers  converts  an  economic  strike  into  an  unfair  labor

          practices strike.  Id. at 991-92.
                             ___

               The Eighth Circuit has made the same assumption of causation

          with respect to  a withdrawal  of recognition.   See Vulcan  Hart
                                                           ___ ____________

          Corp. (St. Louis Div.) v. NLRB, 718 F.2d 269, 276 (8th Cir. 1983)
          ______________________    ____

          ("Whatever goals the strikers hoped to accomplish by striking, V-

          H's withdrawal  of  recognition  clearly  prolonged  the  strike,

          because it put an end to contract negotiations.").  Accord C-Line
                                                              ______ ______

          Express,  292 N.L.R.B. 638 (1989).   Indeed, as  noted above, we,
          _______

          too,  have stated that the Board and reviewing court properly may

          consider objective criteria and  evaluate "the probable impact of

          the  type  of unfair  labor  practice in  question  on reasonable

                                         -9-

          strikers  in the  relevant context."   Soule  Glass, 652  F.2d at
                                                 ____________

          1080.

               Always,  however, the  principal  focus must  remain on  the

          element  of  causation,  and  specific,  subjective  evidence  of

          changed  motivation may be  foregone only  in those  instances in

          which the objective factors by themselves establish unequivocally

          that a conversion occurred.  We do not believe that  this is such

          a case.

               The  glaziers went  on strike  to protest  the substantially

          reduced  wage  offer made  to them.    The Company's  decision to

          implement that offer  did not directly impact  the strikers; they

          already  were  out of  work and  therefore  were not  being paid.

          Thus,  although we  think it  possible that  the glaziers  took a

          harder line once the Company gave force to  its offer by adopting

          it, and perhaps  increased their  resolve not to  end the  strike

          until they received a  satisfactory offer, such an effect  of the

          Company's action  is not inevitable.   It is just  as likely that

          the Company's continuing adherence to the unacceptable proposal -

          -  the economic  issue  that triggered  the  strike --  was  what

          continued to fuel their protest.

               Indeed,  this  case  poses  a  somewhat  unusual  conversion

          question  because   the  unfair   labor  practice  is   simply  a

          reinforcement of the very  conduct that caused the strike  in the

          first  place, rather than a collateral matter that may have added

          to the employees' dissatisfaction.  The  Board's obligation is to

          provide some basis for an inference that, in the aftermath of the

                                         -10-

          implementation, the  employees were separately motivated  by that

          act.  Were we  to accept as adequate  the Board's assertion  that

          "[t]he probable  impact" of learning  that the proposal  had been

          implemented was "a reasonable tendency to prolong the strike," we

          would seriously diminish the causation requirement.5

               The  cases  noted above  that  have  presumed causation  are

          easily  distinguishable.   See  supra at  8-9.   When  a  company
                                     ___  _____

          refuses  to reinstate employees who have offered to end a strike,

          the cause and effect are obvious.  Had the company not unlawfully

          refused  to take  back  those workers,  the employees  presumably

          would  have followed through on  their intention to  end the work

          stoppage.   Similarly, a withdrawal of  recognition by definition

          means the end  of negotiations, which inevitably causes more than

          just  "a reasonable tendency to prolong the strike" but an actual

          delay  in   its  resolution.     By  contrast,  when   a  company

          unilaterally implements its final  offer prematurely, we think it

          less than  apparent  that the  already  ongoing strike  has  been

          prolonged  by the  company's implementation  of the  offer rather
                                       ______________

                              
          ____________________

               5 The record here is notably different from that in  NLRB v.
                                                                    ____
          Powell Elec. Mfg. Co., 906 F.2d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1990), which
          _____________________
          also  involved the  unilateral implementation  of a  final offer.
          There,  the company  began to  implement  its proposal  after its
          attorney declared at the end of a negotiating meeting that in his
          opinion the parties had reached an impasse.  The  next day, union
          members met with their  attorney, who told them that  he believed
          impasse had not been reached and that the strike consequently had
          been converted to an unfair labor practice strike.  He then asked
          the members  if they wanted to  continue the strike as  an unfair
          labor practice strike, and  the members present voted unanimously
          to do  so.   The  strikers also  modified their  picket signs  to
          reflect  that  the strike  was  directed  against company  unfair
          practices.

                                         -11-

          than by its persistence in offering such poor terms.6  In  short,

          we  are  reluctant  to  extend the  principle  of  conversion-by-

          imputing-impact  beyond those  situations  in which  the link  is

          unmistakable. 

               It  would not have been difficult for the General Counsel to

          produce evidence, if it existed, that the employees were animated

          at least in part by the Company's unfair labor practice.   Two of

          the  striking  glaziers testified  at  the  hearing,  as did  the

          Union's business  manager and business representative.   Although

          counsel  elicited testimony  that the strikers  were told  of the

          Company's action,  no questions were asked  concerning the impact

          of   that  information  on  them.     This  gap  is  particularly

          significant  in the absence of  any manifestation of  a change in

          outlook; the picket signs carried  by the strikers, for  example,

          simply announced the strike  and did not explain its  basis.  Cf.
                                                                        ___

          SKS Die Casting,  941 F.2d at 992 (union changed  picket signs to
          _______________

          reflect  reaction  to  unfair  labor  practices  and  distributed

          handbills to that effect);  NLRB v. Burkart Foam, Inc.,  848 F.2d
                                      ____    __________________

          825,  832 n.6  (7th Cir. 1988)  (same).   See also  NLRB v. Champ
                                                    ___ ____  ____    _____

          Corp., 933 F.2d 688, 694-95 (9th Cir. 1990).7
          _____
                              
          ____________________

               6 If the  Board had made a finding of  bad faith bargaining,
          which it did  not, this would  be a different  case.  See  C-Line
                                                                ___  ______
          Express, 292 N.L.R.B. 638 (1989).
          _______

               7  In  Champ, the  unfair labor  practice  at issue  was the
                      _____
          discharge  of  certain  striking  employees,   which  prompted  a
          unanimous  vote of the union membership to remain on strike until
          all strikers were reinstated.  933 F.2d at 688.  In addition, the
          union's negotiator informed the company's representative that the
          union could not agree  to deny reinstatement to any  person.  The
          company's unlawful  practice thus explicitly was  identified as a

                                         -12-

               Because the  record lacks evidence of "any  concrete acts or

          affirmations"  by  the employees  in  response  to the  Company's

          unfair labor practice, see Facet, 907 F.2d at 977, and because we
                                 ___ _____

          see no basis  for presuming that the unilateral implementation of

          the  terms that  triggered  the strike  necessarily prolonged  or

          intensified the work stoppage, we must reject the Board's finding

          of conversion.8

               Accordingly, the Board's application  for enforcement of its

          order is granted in part and denied in part.

                              
          ____________________

          barrier to settlement of the strike.  

               8 The record is equally barren of evidence that other of the
          Company's unfair labor practices impacted the strike.

                                         -13-