Court Opinion

ID: 9554457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 00:00:37.377121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:58.803071
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60887         Document: 00516850641             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/08/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                      August 8, 2023
                                        No. 21-60887                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                         Clerk

   National Labor Relations Board,

                                                            Petitioner/Cross-Respondent,

                                             versus

   Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Incorporated,

                                            Respondent/Cross-Petitioner.
                      ______________________________

               Application for Summary Entry of a Judgment Enforcing
                  and Cross-Petition for Review of an Order of the
                           National Labor Relations Board
                              NLRB No. 16-CA-260485
                    ______________________________

   Before Duncan and Wilson, Circuit Judges, and Schroeder, District
   Judge. *
   Per Curiam: †
          The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) seeks
   summary entry of a judgment enforcing its order determining that Tri-
   County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (“Tri-County”) unlawfully discharged an

          _____________________
          *
             United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by
   designation.
          †
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60887     Document: 00516850641           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                    No. 21-60887

   employee. Tri-County cross-petitions for review of that order, arguing that
   its exceptions, filed thirty minutes late, should have been considered by the
   NLRB. We conclude that the NLRB did not abuse its discretion in rejecting
   Tri-County’s untimely exceptions. We therefore affirm the NLRB’s order,
   grant summary entry of a judgment enforcing the order, and deny Tri-
   County’s cross-petition for review.
                                         I.
          An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) determined that Tri-County
   unlawfully discharged an employee. The day before the deadline to file
   exceptions to the decision, Tri-County requested an extension due to other
   work obligations. The NLRB denied this request because counsel had known
   about these work obligations for almost two weeks, and NLRB regulations
   required that extension requests filed within three days of a due date “be
   grounded upon circumstances not reasonably foreseeable in advance.” 29
   C.F.R. § 102.2(c).
          Following the denial of the request, Tri-County submitted its
   exceptions and brief thirty minutes late. The NLRB rejected the filing as
   untimely. Tri-County responded by moving for a one-day extension to
   accommodate the late filing. The motion was unopposed, and all parties
   agreed that no undue prejudice would result from the extension. Tri-County
   explained that the filing was late because counsel had not accounted for the
   difference between Central and Eastern time zones. Under NLRB
   regulations, filings are due based on “the time zone of the receiving office.”
   29 C.F.R. § 102.2(b). Tri-County said it “completely missed” that
   requirement.
          The NLRB denied the motion for an extension. Its regulations state
   that documents may be filed late “only upon good cause shown based on
   excusable neglect and when no undue prejudice would result.” 29 C.F.R.

                                         2
Case: 21-60887      Document: 00516850641          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                    No. 21-60887

   § 102.2(d)(1). And the NLRB explained that “[t]he reasons for the late filing
   do not rise to the level of excusable neglect.” Accordingly, without any
   exceptions to consider, the NLRB adopted the ALJ’s decision. Tri-County
   moved for reconsideration, which the NLRB denied because Tri-County had
   “not identified any material error or demonstrated extraordinary
   circumstances warranting reconsideration under Section 102.48(c)(1) of the
   Board’s Rules and Regulations.” The NLRB filed an application in this court
   for summary entry of a judgment enforcing its order adopting the ALJ’s
   decision, and Tri-County filed a cross-petition for review of that order.
                                        II.
          The NLRB argues that Tri-County’s excusable neglect arguments are
   jurisdictionally barred by § 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act. We
   disagree.
          Section 10(e) explains that, absent “extraordinary circumstances,”
   “[n]o objection that has not been urged before the Board . . . shall be
   considered by the court.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(e); see also IBEW Loc. Unions 605
   & 985 v. NLRB, 973 F.3d 451, 461 (5th Cir. 2020) (“We have relied on
   Section 10(e) to bar appellate review of an issue not briefed to the Board,
   holding that the party’s failure to adequately present its theory relieves the
   Board of an obligation to provide analysis on the issue.”). Tri-County argues
   that it did present all these arguments to the NLRB at the agency level.
   Below, the NLRB pointed Tri-County to the excusable neglect standard, but
   Tri-County did not use the phrase “excusable neglect” in its filings. It did,
   however, lay out all of the facts and reasons behind the delay, explain that no
   undue prejudice would result (which is part of the standard), and explain that

                                          3
Case: 21-60887      Document: 00516850641           Page: 4     Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                     No. 21-60887

   the motion was “not sought for the purposes of delay only, but so justice may
   be done.”
          Although parties must generally raise any issues to the NLRB before
   appealing them, “this requirement can be measured in context. The purpose
   of § 10(e) is to give the Board notice and an opportunity to confront
   objections to its rulings before it defends them in court.” Indep. Elec.
   Contractors of Houston, Inc. v. NLRB, 720 F.3d 543, 551 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing
   Marshall Field & Co. v. NLRB, 318 U.S. 253, 256 (1943)). This means that
   any objections “must be specific enough to place the agency on notice of the
   party’s objections.” IBEW, 973 F.3d at 460. If the NLRB has “fully
   considered the issue in dispute, . . . ‘the policies underlying the [§ 10(e)] rule
   are not implicated.’” Id. at 461 (quoting Indep. Elec. Contractors, 720 F.3d at
   551). We have also explained that “it would be difficult to hold [the § 10(e)]
   requirement as ‘jurisdictional’ in this court because the statute itself creates
   an exception.” Indep. Elec. Contractors, 720 F.3d at 550.
          There is no doubt the NLRB was on notice that Tri-County was
   making an excusable neglect argument. After all, when rejecting Tri-
   County’s exceptions, the NLRB explicitly pointed Tri-County to the
   excusable neglect standard for untimely filings. Further, in Supreme Court
   cases where new arguments were considered forfeited, including one case the
   NLRB relies on here, there was no motion for reconsideration filed. See id. at
   551 (distinguishing two cases on that basis: Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v.
   NLRB, 456 U.S. 645 (1982), and International Ladies’ Garment Workers’
   Union v. Quality Manufacturing Co., 420 U.S. 276 (1975)). Here, a motion for
   reconsideration was filed and included the grounds for the excusable neglect
   challenge and at least part of the standard itself. This unquestionably put the

                                           4
Case: 21-60887      Document: 00516850641              Page: 5    Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                    No. 21-60887

   NLRB on notice of the excusable neglect challenge, and so review of that
   challenge is not barred by § 10(e).
                                         III.
          Accordingly, we consider the merits of the challenge. The NLRB’s
   “action in finding lack of good cause based on excusable neglect is reviewed
   for abuse of discretion.” NLRB v. U.S.A. Polymer Corp., 272 F.3d 289, 296
   (5th Cir. 2001). We conclude that the NLRB did not abuse its discretion in
   finding that a mistake about time-zone requirements and other work
   obligations did not constitute good cause.
          In making its determination that the time-zone confusion did not rise
   to excusable neglect, the NLRB cited Unitec Elevator Services Co., 337 NLRB
   426 (2002). There, following the Supreme Court’s then-recent guidance in
   Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507
   U.S. 380 (1993), the NLRB overruled one of its earlier decisions that a one-
   day delay due to an arithmetic error would constitute excusable neglect.
   Unitec, 337 NLRB at 427–28 (“expressly overruling” Postal Serv., 309 NLRB
   305 (1992)). In Pioneer, the Supreme Court explained that “[i]nadvertence,
   ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually
   constitute ‘excusable’ neglect,” although the concept is “elastic.” 507 U.S.
   at 392 (quotation omitted). The NLRB explained that, following Pioneer,
   “[h]enceforth, a late document will not be excused when the reason for the
   tardiness is solely a miscalculation of the filing date.” Unitec, 337 NLRB at
   428.
          Analogous precedent from this court regarding the Federal Rules
   concludes     that     “in     most        cases,     an      attorney’s   simple
   misunderstanding . . . ‘weighs heavily against a finding of excusable
   neglect.’” L.A. Pub. Ins. Adjusters, Inc. v. Nelson, 17 F.4th 521, 525 (5th Cir.
   2021) (quoting Midwest Emps. Cas. Co. v. Williams, 161 F.3d 877, 880 (5th

                                          5
Case: 21-60887      Document: 00516850641          Page: 6    Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                    No. 21-60887

   Cir. 1998)). “Our court has ‘left open the possibility that some
   misinterpretations of the federal rules may qualify as excusable neglect,’ but
   we have emphasized that ‘such is the rare case indeed.’” Ibid. (quoting
   Halicki v. La. Casino Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir. 1998)). We have
   also explained that when the rule is unambiguous, a district court’s decision
   that the neglect was inexcusable “is virtually unassailable,” because, “[w]ere
   it otherwise, ‘almost every appellant’s lawyer would plead his own inability
   to understand the law when he fails to comply with a deadline.’” Halicki, 151
   F.3d at 470 (quoting Advanced Estimating Sys., Inc. v. Riney, 130 F.3d 996, 998
   (11th Cir. 1997)). The same logic applies to the NLRB’s determination here.
          Nor did the NLRB abuse its discretion in rejecting the significance of
   counsel’s other work obligations. As the NLRB explained, counsel was aware
   of these obligations for almost two weeks before the filing deadline. We have
   previously held that the NLRB did not abuse its discretion in rejecting a late
   filing when the party “was in the process of hiring a new lawyer[.]” See
   U.S.A. Polymer, 272 F.3d at 297. Given that Tri-County’s counsel was well
   acquainted with the case, we decline to grant more leeway here.
          To summarize: Tri-County’s excusable neglect argument was
   substantively raised in filings before the NLRB and the NLRB was
   unquestionably on notice of it; so, we have considered it. The NLRB,
   however, did not abuse its discretion when it (1) determined that Tri-
   Country failed to show excusable neglect and (2) subsequently refused to
   consider the untimely filed exceptions. As a result, Tri-Party did not properly
   raise any exceptions to the NLRB’s order. Summary entry of a judgment
   enforcing the NLRB’s order is therefore appropriate. See NLRB v. Sw.
   Displays & Events, No. 22-60032, 2022 WL 636687, at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 4,
   2022) (unpublished) (per curiam) (“[W]e have emphasized that ‘fail[ing] to
   comply with the [Board’s] regulations requiring the filing of written
   exceptions’ entitles the Board to summary entry of judgment.” (quoting

                                          6
Case: 21-60887      Document: 00516850641             Page: 7   Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                   No. 21-60887

   NLRB v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc., 310 F.2d 565, 566 (5th Cir. 1962) (per
   curiam))).
                               *        *         *
          Accordingly, we AFFIRM the NLRB’s order, GRANT summary
   entry of a judgment enforcing the order, and DENY Tri-County’s cross-
   petition for review.

                                        7