According to news reports, the Trump administration has submitted Marvin Kaplan and William Emanuel for FBI background checks, and it plans to nominate them by June to fill a pair of vacancies at the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”).

The administration hopes to have the new members confirmed by the Senate before the August recess.

Kaplan is currently counsel to the commissioner of the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. He previously served as the Republican workforce policy counsel for the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

Emanuel is a shareholder at the management firm Littler Mendelson PC in Los Angeles. He has represented business groups seeking to invalidate state laws that his clients say allow unions to trespass on their property.

The five-seat board currently only has three members: Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra (R) and Members Mark Gaston Pearce (D) and Lauren McFerran (D). The vacant seats are reserved for Republicans. The Board is generally composed of three Members of the President’s party and two from the other party.

If President Trump’s nominees are confirmed by the Senate, the NLRB will have its first Republican majority in nine years.

As discussed in our earlier advisory, the board is likely to consider a number of significant legal issues once the vacancies are filled, including the NLRB’s test for determining whether joint employer relationships exist, the standards for evaluating whether handbooks and work rules interfere with employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act “(NLRA”), appropriate units for collective bargaining, the question of whether graduate students and research assistants are employees under the NLRA with the right to collective bargaining and a host of other decisions from the past eight years that more expansively interpreted the NLRA.

While this will ultimately be a welcome change to employers, for those with cases pending the current union leaning majority may still have several months to issue Obama-era type decisions.

As we recently reported, Dish Network, LLC unwittingly fell into the trap of a stipulated record, which proved fatal to its defense of a confidentiality admonishment issued to a suspended employee. The stipulated record in Dish Network, LLC did not set forth any business justifications for the confidentiality admonishment – an indispensable element in proving the lawfulness of such orders. Dish Network endeavored to cure this deficiency in its post-hearing brief, but the Board rejected its belated effort, in part, because the stipulated record was silent on this issue. This case served as a reminder that employers should exercise extreme caution before submitting to a stipulated record and voluntarily curbing their ability to proffer contextual evidence at a hearing to justify its workplace rules.

The Majority in Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. Holds That an Employer Has the Right to Present Contextual Evidence at a Hearing Which Might Justify a Facially Overbroad Rule

In Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., the Board recently reaffirmed employers’ rights to present contextual evidence at a hearing when defending workplace policies and rules. In this case, the General Counsel challenged Mercedes-Benz’s rule banning cameras and video recording devices in its vehicle manufacturing plant without prior authorization. The General Counsel argued this rule was facially unlawful because it banned all recordings – with no exception for protected concerted activity – and filed a motion for summary judgment.

Mercedes-Benz defended the motion by arguing that it must be permitted to present contextual evidence at a hearing. Mercedes-Benz asserted that the rule not only furthers its legitimate business interests – including the protection of proprietary and confidential information, the maintenance of safety and production protocols and open communication – but, through “candid communication between employees and managers at daily meetings,” employees also understood that the rule was not intended to curtail protected concerted activity. Without a hearing, Mercedes-Benz would be deprived of the opportunity to establish these crucial contextual details.

The majority, comprised of Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra and Member Lauren McFerran, agreed. In a rather terse footnote, the majority explained its reasoning:

In previous decisions implicating similar rules, the Board has permitted employers to adduce evidence regarding asserted business justifications and about whether the rules were communicated or applied in a manner that clearly conveyed an intent to permit protected activity. [Citations] Because the Respondent has raised similar arguments here, we give the Respondent the same opportunity to adduce evidence at a hearing.

The Dissent Argues That a Facially Overbroad Rule Obviates the Need for a Hearing

Member Mark Gaston Pearce dissented. Pearce argued that Mercedes-Benz’s “weak” contextual argument did not warrant a hearing because “[t]he Board has consistently held that the mere maintenance of an overbroad rule such as the rule here tends to impermissibly chill employee expression.” Pearce also dismissed Mercedes-Benz’s purported justifications. First, Pearce explained that Mercedes-Benz’s “asserted business interests are inadequate because the rule…is not tailored to address only those concerns and to exclude Section 7 activity.” Second, Pearce attacked Mercedes-Benz’s proffering of its “open communications” to employees which purportedly conveyed that the rule did not preclude protected activity.

[Mercedes-Benz] argues only that it discussed unspecific business management issues with employees at the daily meetings. It does not assert that it instructed any – let alone all – employees that they could engage in protected recording in spite of the rule, as would be required to effective clarify the rule’s scope.

Help to Employers Asserting Their Rights to Defend Their Workplace Rules

The General Counsel often leverages the threat of a summary judgment motion to pressure employers into stipulating to the facts of a case challenging its workplace rules. Employers should avoid submitting to this pressure and voluntarily relinquishing their right to present an evidence-based, full defense. This decision gives employers a useful tool when asserting its right to present a full and comprehensive defense in the face of such pressure from the General Counsel.

Philip Miscimarra. Credit: NLRB.gov.

On April 24, 2017 President Trump designated Philip Miscimarra as Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board). The move follows the President’s late January designation of Board Member Miscimarra as Acting Chairman.

A Republican Chair

Miscimarra, a management-side labor lawyer and a Republican, was nominated to serve on the Board by then President Obama in 2013 and was confirmed by the Senate for a four year term that continues through December 16, 2017.  President Trump can nominate Chairman Miscimarra for another term if he should wish to do so. While Board Members are subject to Senate confirmation, the President may, in his discretion, designate a Member of the NLRB to serve as Chair at his pleasure.

Two Vacancies Remain On the NLRB

The Board is composed of five Members and at this time two of the seats on the Board are vacant. The vacant seats are reserved for Republicans.  The Board is generally composed of three Members of the President’s party and two from the other party.  Board Members Mark Pearce and Lauren McFerran are both Democrats.

What Is Likely To Change With a New Majority

Notably, Chairman Miscimarra, through a series of dissenting opinions taking issue with decisions of the Obama Board’s Democratic majority has offered a significant overview of issues as to which, once there is a new Republican majority on the NLRB, employers, unions and other advocates can expect the Board to likely move, as cases presenting the issues come before it for decision. These include such issues as the NLRB’s test for determining whether joint employer relationships exist, the standards for evaluating whether handbooks and work rules interfere with employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), appropriate units for collective bargaining, the question of whether graduate students and research assistants are employees under the NLRA with the right to collective bargaining and a host of other decisions from the past eight years that more expansively interpreted the NLRA.

Election Rules and Procedures

Also notable is the fact that Chairman Miscimarra was a dissenter when the Board adopted its Amended Representation Election Rules that took effect in May 2015. Those rules, often referred to as the “ambush” or ”quickie” election rules that have not only cut the time between the filing of a representation petition and a vote from an average of 40-45 days to approximately 25 days. Since the Amended Rules took effect, Mr. Miscimarra has pointed out that they have placed an undue priority on speed, compromising the rights of employees to make informed decisions when they vote and the right of employers to meaningfully communicate with employees before an election.

Because the Amended Rules were adopted under the Board’s rulemaking authority, any further revisions in the election rules must also be made either through the same lengthy process or by Congress through legislation. For the Board to do so will require a new majority that agrees that change is needed. While various sources have suggested that the new administration is considering who it will nominate for the vacant seats on the Board, only time will tell when the President will submit his nominations and the Senate will consider them.

On March 21, 2017, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) found that a Teamsters local violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) by failing to provide sufficient information about the financial expenditures of the local and its affiliates to two workers employed in a bargaining unit who exercised their rights to object to paying union dues and fees pursuant to Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988).

Teamsters Local 75 – Schreiber Foods

In Teamsters Local 75, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO (Schreiber Foods) the NLRB issued its Second Supplemental Decision and Order following up on prior Board decisions in the case’s long history and unanimously held that Teamsters Local 75 unlawfully sought to collect union dues and fees from two employees who invoked their Beck objector rights.  Specifically, the Board ruled that the Union failed to provide adequate and detailed financial disclosures because, in addition to the providing the details about the local’s own expenditures of employees’ dues, the Board ruled the local must also provide details about its affiliates’ financials resulting from the local’s “per capita tax” expenditure—that is the portion of dues money that the local shares with its affiliates.  With respect to the Teamsters, the “per capita tax” is the amount that a local of the Teamsters union pays, using a portion of each employee members’ dues money, to three affiliated entities—the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (International), the relevant Conference of Teamsters (Conference), and the relevant Teamsters Joint Council (Jt. Council).

The Board’s Reasoning

The Board relied in part on its rationale and holding in Teamsters Local 579 (Chambers & Owen), 350 NLRB 1166, 1170-1171 (2007), wherein the Board overturned its prior holding that a union that pays per capita taxes to its affiliates is not required to provide Beck objectors with information regarding “how its affiliates determined the chargeability to the objectors of the per capita taxes that the affiliates received and spent.” Id. at 1168.  Rather, in Chambers & Owen, the Board not only held that “this affiliate information must be furnished to a Beck objector so that he or she can determine whether to file a challenge” id. (emphasis in original), but it also found that the union’s failure to provide such information violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and its duty of fair representation. Id. at 1169, 1171.

What the Board Will Now Require

Here, the Board reached the same conclusion—and went a step further—noting that Teamster Local 75 must provide the Becks objecting employees with the following detailed expenditure information:

[T]he major categories of its expenditures, the percentage of each category that it considers chargeable and nonchargeable, and a detailed explanation of how it calculates its allocation of expenditures; the names of its affiliates and other entities with which it shares income from dues and fees, the amounts of income shared, the major categories of expenditures of each affiliate or other entity and the percentages of each category those affiliates and other entities consider chargeable and nonchargeable, and a detailed explanation of how the affiliates and other entities calculated their expenditure allocation.

 What This Means Going Forward

This holding essentially means that unions will have to disclose much more detailed financial information when employees exercise their Beck rights—information that unions will likely be far more resistant and hesitant to provide.  With affiliates’ expenditures coming under greater scrutiny, it also makes it more likely that Beck dues objectors will seek to have less of their money going to the unions (and their affiliates) activities.  With more Americans than ever choosing to be union-free and/or choosing not to be union members, this decision places much more power with individual employees, and emboldens their protected right to refrain from union activity, a right already afforded under the Act but often glossed over by unions.

Steven M. SwirskyOver the past week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit weighed in on two separate related efforts by the Obama-Board to expand the protections of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) to workers who are not in traditional employer-employee relationships.

One Court – Two Cases

In a March 3, 2017 decision, the Court rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) finding that FedEx Home Delivery drivers were employees and agreed with the company that the drivers were independent contractors and therefore did not have the right to union representation under the Act.   On March 9th, the Court heard the much anticipated argument on the challenge by Browning –Ferris Industries of California Inc., to the Board’s 2015 decision adopting a new and much looser standard for determining joint employer status. While it is not certain when the Court’s decision will be released, the questions asked by the judges who heard the appeal suggested that they are by no means convinced that the new test articulated in Browning-Ferris is the correct one and consistent with what Congress intended when it passed the Act.

The Court Found FedEx Ground Drivers Are Independent Contractors, Not Employees

A key question in the gig economy is the relationship between a worker and the company for whom they provide services. Those workers who are employees under the Act have the right to join and be represented by unions; independent contractors do not.  The NLRB has gone so far in its efforts as to hold that misclassification of a worker the Board considers to be an independent contractor commits an unfair labor practice when it does so.  The Board has also argued before the Courts that its views on whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor should be afforded deference by the Courts.

The D.C. Circuit’s decision in the FedEx case is of particular interest with regard to each of these propositions. First, the Court noted that under the Supreme Court’s 1968 decision in NLRB v. United Insurance Company of America, the “determination of whether a worker is a statutorily protected ‘employee’ or a statutorily exempt ‘independent contractor’ is governed by common law” and “there is no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the answer.” Thus, while the Board argued that the Court should afford great weight to its application and analysis of the common law test for determining whether the drivers were employees or independent contractors, because the question is “a question of pure common law agency principles ‘involv[ing] no special administrative expertise that a court does not possess,” the Court found that deference to the Board’s views was neither appropriate nor required.

The Court in its analysis and application of the common law test found that the NLRB was wrong to place greater weight on certain factors than others. Because the facts in the FedEx case were virtually identical to an earlier case the Court had considered with the same parties in 2009, the Court held the Board was not entitled to the deference that would be due “between two fairly conflicting view,” because the Court had previously considered and decided the issue.

The Board’s Browning-Ferris Joint Employer Test

The Board’s 2015 Browning-Ferris decision held that an employer could be deemed a joint-employer of another employer’s employees if it was found to exercise or even just has the right to exercise “indirect control” over the other employer’s employees. The D.C. Circuit heard argument on March 9th on the company’s challenge to this standard.  While it is too early to say whether the Court will defer to the Board in this case, the Court’s questions suggested that it at least has doubt as to the Board’s new standard.  For example, Judge Patricia Millet questioned the practicality and future application of the indirect control standard, asking the Board’s attorney “What assurance do we have that this test and particularly indirect control is going to continue to police the line properly between genuine joint employers and [contractors]?

As in the FedEx decision, the application of the common law standards was before the Court, this time in connection with the common law test for determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, which is one of the requirements of the Browning-Ferris standard. Counsel for Browning-Ferris argued that “the notion of exertion control dovetails with Congress’ understanding of the essence of a common-law employment relationship as direct supervision.” If the Court agrees with this proposition, then it would seem questionable that the Court will accept the Board’s view that possession, without exercise, of indirect control is sufficient to find a joint-employment relationship.

What Do These Cases Tell Us?

Since last November’s election, there has been a great deal written and said about what a Trump Labor Board will likely mean for the legacy of the Obama Board. However, in examining that legacy it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the Board’s decisions are not self-enforcing and are subject to review and enforcement by the Courts of Appeal.  While the Board continues to follow its Doctrine of Non-Acquiescence, meaning it will not accept the holdings of any court other than the United States Supreme Court as binding upon it if it disagrees with the Court’s interpretation of or views concerning the application of the Act, the D.C. Circuit and other Courts have continued to take serious issue with the Board’s position.

It will be interesting to see, once a new Board with a majority of members is appointed by the new President, not only how it addresses the myriad of representation and unfair labor practice precedents that are the product of the Obama Board, but also whether it continues to stand by the Doctrine of Non-Acquiescence and how this shapes its relationship with the judiciary.

Featured on Employment Law This Week – Philip Miscimarra, Acting Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), has given a strong indication of the changes likely to come once President Trump fills vacant seats on the NLRB.

In a sharply worded dissent, Miscimarra doubled down on his disagreement with the NLRB’s controversial 2014 rule on union representation elections. Miscimarra argues that the rule’s heavy emphasis on election speed interferes with an employee’s right to make informed decisions on union representation and is inconsistent with the requirements of the statute. In another dissent, he argues that the NLRB’s current standard for reviewing employee handbook provisions “defies common sense” and should be replaced with a test balancing competing interests.

Watch the segment below and see our recent post.

On February 16, 2017, tens of thousands of individuals across the country stayed home from work as part of the “Day Without Immigrants,” a social activism campaign organized in response to President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders concerning immigration and increased enforcement, deportation actions, and raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The “Day Without Immigrants” action was apparently not coordinated by any centralized organization, but was promoted on social media and by word-of-mouth just days before.

Now, the same groups that organized the January 21, 2017 Women’s March on Washington – an action participated in by millions of individuals across the county – has called for a “Day Without Women” to be held on Wednesday, March 8, 2017. Organizers are encouraging women to participate by taking the day off from paid and unpaid labor, and by wearing red – which the organizers note “may be a great act of defiance for some uniformed workers.”

Employers should be prepared to address any difficult questions that might arise in connection with the upcoming “Day Without Women” strike: Do I have to give my employees time off to participate in Day Without events? Can I still enforce the company dress code – or do I need to permit employees to wear red? Can I discipline an employee who is “no call, no show” to work that day? Am I required to approve requests for the day off by employees who want to participate? As we explained in our prior blog post, guidance from the National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel suggests that an employer can rely on its “lawful and neutrally-applied work rules” to make decisions about granting requests for time off, enforcing its dress code, and disciplining employees for attendance rule violations. An employer’s response, however, to a given employee’s request for time off or for an exception to the dress code, may vary widely based upon the individual facts and circumstances of each case.

As we previously noted, participation in events such as these may be protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”). When employees take action to “improve their lot as employees through channels outside the immediate employee-employer relationship,” that activity is protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the Act so long as it has a direct connection to the employees’ working conditions. GC Memorandum 08-10 (2008), pgs. 1, 10 (citing Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 565 (1978)). There are, of course, some limitations on employees’ right to engage in concerted political activity. In GC Memo 08-10, issued in 2008, the Board’s General Counsel concluded that under existing Supreme Court and Board precedent, when employees exert economic pressure on their employer by leaving work to support a political cause, that activity may not be protected if the employer has “no control over the outcome of that dispute.” GC Memo 08-10, pg. 10.

However, even if employees’ participation in these mass demonstrations and strikes is considered protected concerted activity (as it concerns a specific issue directly connected to their work conditions and terms), an employer may still regulate that activity through its “lawful and neutrally-applied work rules.” GC Memo 08-10, pg. 13.

Similarly, an employer can rely on its lawful, uniformly-applied policies to evaluate whether to grant a request for time off to participate in Day Without Women activities – by asking, for example, whether the employee has sufficient accrued time, or has given enough advance notice, or has found someone to cover his work shift if that is ordinarily required. An employer may also apply its neutral attendance policy (which complies with all applicable leave laws, including local paid sick leave laws) to discipline an employee who simply fails to report to work without calling out.

What Employers Should Do Now

All employers should be prepared to address these issues as they arise – if not this week, then in the coming weeks and months if these types of mass protests continue. As described above, an employer’s reaction to its employees’ expressed desire to participate in these events will vary widely based on the individual circumstances at issue.

NLRB Acting Chair Philip Miscimarra has given the clearest indication to date of what steps a new Republican majority is likely to take to reverse key elements of the Labor Board’s hallmark actions of the Obama administration once President Trump nominates candidates for the Board’s two open seats and the Senate confirms. In each of these cases, Miscimarra highlighted his earlier opposition to the majority’s changes in long standing precedents and practices.

The Acting Chair’s Position On the Board’s 2014 Amended Election Rules – The Emphasis On “Speed Above All Else” is Inconsistent With the Law

In a strongly worded dissent in European Imports, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 41 (February 23, 2017), the Acting Chair took issue the majority’s decision to deny an Employer’s Emergency Request for Review, that sought to postpone and reschedule a representation election scheduled to take place only three days after a significant number of the employees who would be eligible to vote approximately 25%, learned that they were included in the bargaining unit, and would be affected by the outcome of the vote.

In its Emergency Request, the employer urged the Board to postpone the election by a week, to endure that the employees would know whether they would be eligible to vote and if they were, to allow them to get the facts and make an informed decision when they voted. It also argued that holding the election so soon after the issuance of the Direction of Election “would deprive many employees of sufficient notice that they would be voting in election that would dictate whether they would have union representation.”

Disagreeing with the decision of Members Mark Pearce and Lauren McFerran to deny the employer’s Emergency Request without comment, Miscimarra took issue not only with the denial of this Request, but more broadly, with the Board’s 2014 Amended Election Rule (the “Rule”) and its “preoccupation with speed between petition-filing and the election,” the Rule’s “single-minded standard” calling for “every election (to be) scheduled for ‘the earliest date practicable . . .”

Miscimarra reiterated his position, as expressed in his dissent to the Board’s adoption of the amended Election Rule in 2014, that such an emphasis on speed above all else is inconsistent with the Board’s duty under the National Labor Relations Act “to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed” by the Act.

The Acting Chair again called for the Board to establish “concrete parameters” for the scheduling of elections that would ensure “reasonable minimum and maximum times between the filing of a representation petition and the holding of an election.”

In addition to addressing issues of timing, Miscimarra also took issue with the fact that during the representation hearing preceding the Direction of Election. The Board’s Regional Director had refused to permit the employer to present evidence and develop a record as to why it was being prejudiced in this case by the 2014 Amended Election Rule. The Regional Director ruled that because earlier judicial challenges to the facial validity of the Election Rule had been dismissed, the employer could not litigate the actual prejudice the Rule caused in this case.

Miscimarra made clear that in his view, the fact that earlier facial challenges to the Amended Election Rule had been dismissed, questions as to the validity of the Rule, when applied to specific facts remains open and that it is a “clear error and an abuse of discretion” to deny an employer the opportunity to litigate such issues when they arise.

The Acting Chair’s Position On the Obama Board’s Handbook and E-Mail Decisions

In another dissent in Verizon Wireless Inc., 365 NLRB No. 38 (February 24, 2017)  Miscimarra reiterated his strong dispute with the way in which the Obama Board has analyzed and decided cases challenging employee handbooks and policies, writing that Board’s current standard for deciding such cases “defies common sense.”

Under the Board’s 2004 Lutheran Heritage standard, the Board will find a handbook provision or policy to violate the Act and unlawfully interfere with employees’ rights to engage in concerted, protected activity if which in part rendered work rules and handbook provisions unlawful if employees “would reasonably construe” them to prohibit protected activities under Section 7 of the Act.

The Acting Chair reiterated his view, as explained in his lengthy 2016, dissent in William Beaumont Hospital, 363 NLRB No. 162, that the Board’s current test is unworkable, and fails to adequately recognize employer’s legitimate needs of employers. Calling on the Board and the Courts to overturn and reject the Lutheran Heritage standard, Miscimarra urged the adoption in its place of a new balancing test that would not only focus on employees’ rights under the Act, but that would also take into account employers’ legitimate justifications for a particular policy or rule, such as attempting to avoid potentially fatal accidents, reduce the risk of workplace violence or prevent unlawful harassment.

Miscimarra also took direct aim in his dissent at the He also wrote that he believes the Board should overturn its Purple Communication decision allowing employee virtually unfettered use of employer email systems and return to the former standard in Register Guard, which recognized that such systems are employer property and should be recognized as such. The dissent described the standard under Purple Communications as “incorrect and unworkable,” and called for a standard that would once again recognize “the right of employers to control the uses of their own property, including their email systems, provided they do not discriminate against NLRA-protected communications by distinguishing between permitted and prohibited uses along Section 7 lines.”

What This Means for Employers

As we noted when the President appointed then Member Miscimarra to serve as Acting Chair of the Board, meaningful change in how the Board interprets and applies the Act will not come until the two vacant seats are filled and a new majority is able to act. Additionally, current General Counsel Richard F. Griffin, Jr.’s term runs through August 4, 2017.

We expect change to come as ULP issues get before the Board. It is to be expected that any new Members appointed by the President will almost certainly share Acting Chair Miscimarra’s views on such issues as use of employer email systems and the review and enforcement of workplace rules, handbooks and the like.  A new balancing test such as that proposed in the Beaumont Hospital dissent is quite foreseeable.

Concerning the Amended Election Rule, things are a bit trickier. The Rule itself was the result of formal rule making, with public comment and input after the Board published its proposed Rule in the Federal Register.  Major changes in the Rule itself would require a new Board to follow the same processes, which are quite lengthy. However, there is certainly room, as Miscimarra’s dissent in European Imports demonstrates, for the Board to make changes in how it administers and processes cases even under this Rule, before any change to the Rule itself becomes effective.  The Acting Chair’s comments concerning the right of employers and other parties to due process, including the right to develop a complete factual record on disputed, material issues is something that can be changed through the administration and application of the Rule even without formal change.  So to, it would not be surprising for a new General Counsel to give guidance to the Board’s Regional Offices calling for them to apply their discretion to avoid circumstances like those that triggered the Emergency Request in European Imports to make sure that there are no more “three day elections.”

Periods such as this, where there is transition in interpretation and enforcement, are challenging but in reality they have been a part of the history of the enforcement and application of the Act for more than 80 years.  Students of the Board often speak of a pendulum and the need for those with business before the Board to try to anticipate its swings.  Careful consideration of not just what the “law” is now, but also what it is likely to be going forward will now once again be the watchword.

 

A recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in connection with an employer’s challenge to a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” of “Board”) representation election in which the Board certified a “wall to wall” bargaining unit provided clear evidence of just how critical it is for employers to make detailed “offers of proof” concerning issues the Board will not allow them to litigate under the amended election rules which took effect in April 2015.

While this case involved a representation petition filed before the new election rules took effect, its lessons concerning the importance of offers of proof concerning issues that the Board will not permit a party to litigate in a representation case under the amended rules are even more important now.

Judicial Review of the Board’s Representation Case Findings

After the union won the election and the employer challenged the Board’s unit determination by refusing to bargain, the Court recently held that the Board erred in finding that a “wall to wall” bargaining was appropriate because it ignored the facts the employer presented, without challenge, in an “offer of proof” offered at a Board conducted representation hearing.  The Court held that the offer of proof contained facts that supported the employer’s contention that the employees in the unit  the union sought to represent did not share a community of interest, which under the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) is necessary. See, NLRB v. Tito Contractors, Inc. (No. 15-1217, D.C. Circuit, February 3, 2017).

The Union Sought a Wall To Wall Unit

The union in this case petitioned for an election in in a single “wall to wall” unit, including workers in diverse job classifications at multiple facilities..  The employer argued that the proposed unit was not an appropriate unit under the Board’s unit determination standards and asked for a hearing on the issue.  The employer argued that a hearing was necessary because the  petitioned for unit was inappropriate because the employees performed different jobs at different locations and under different terms and conditions of employment and sought a hearing on that issue. While the Regional Director scheduled a hearing, the Hearing Officer refused to permit the employer to call witnesses and present its evidence on the issue. The Region instead directed the employer to make an offer of proof, describing what its witnesses and evidence would show, if it were permitted to present its evidence, to rebut the presumption under Board law that an employer wide unit was an appropriate unit.

The Hearing Officer’s Refual to Accept the Employer’s Offer of Proof Into Evidence

The employer made a detailed offer of proof showing that it operates a diverse contracting business comprising “two discrete halves”- one side that involves labor, and a second side that involves recycling. It explained that (1) the labor side employed painters, tile installers, masons and carpenters who performed work for customers, (2) the recycling business involved three separate recycling contracts with a different customer and (3) the recycling work is performed at multiple sites, located many miles from each other and under differing working conditions.

Upon the employer made its offer of proof, the Hearing Officer went off the record and consulted with the Acting Regional Director, and then summarily rejected the employer’s offer of proof and denied any hearing on the issue. An election was then directed in the wall to wall unit the union requested.

While the employer requested review of the Decision and Direction of Election (“D&DE”) and the Hearing Officer’s ruling on the offer of proof, the Board affirmed the Hearing Officer’s rulings including the refusal to accept the offer of proof into evidence and denied the employer’s request for review of the Acting Regional Director’s decision directing an election in the unit the union had requested in a perfunctory two line denial.

The Court’s Decision

After the election, the employer sought review by the Court of Appeals and the Board sought to have its findings affirmed and the order directing the employer to bargain with the union enforced.

The Court rejected the Board’s decision. The Court held that the requirement that the Board’s decision be supported by substantial evidence included a requirement that the Board consider and analyze contrary evidence as well.  The Court concluded that the offer of proof plainly showed evidence that countered the conclusion of a community of interest for three reasons.  First, neither the union nor the Board challenged the employer’s assertion that its business was comprised of two separate and discrete operations—labor and recycling – performing different types of work at different facilities.  Second, the Court concluded the Board erred when it ignored the facts contained in the employer’s offer of proof, which evidenced a lack of interchange among the employees in the two operations, a fact the Acting Regional Director acknowledged and cited as a justification for a mail ballot election.  Third, the Board ignored the significant differences among the employees’ wages, hours and working conditions.  Based on the Board’s failure to address the contrary evidence, the Court granted the employer’s Request for Review and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings.

Judge Karen L. Croft Henderson, who authored the decision, added a separate concurrence in which she admonished the Board for issuing a two sentence order which, like the Region, failed to adequately consider the evidence outlined in the Offer of Proof.

What This Case Means For Employers

Although this case was decided under the Board’s pre-2015 expedited election rules, it offers a number of important lessons for cases under the new expedited rules which include increased reliance on offers of proof to avoid lengthy hearings.

First, the Court of Appeals held that the Board’s responsibility to base findings on substantial evidence included the responsibility to review and analyze contrary evidence, even if that evidence is only in an offer of proof that is rejected.

Second, employers, faced with the requirement of presenting an offer of proof, should include in such offer as much specific factual detail as necessary to support its arguments. By so doing, the employer may be able to establish a sufficient record for an appellate court to determine whether the Region and the Board gave the offer adequate consideration.

Finally, under the new election rules, the Board takes the position that an employer waives any issues that it does not raise in the Statement of Position that must be filed with the Regional Director and served on all other parties by noon on the business day prior to the eighth day after the petition is filed.  For that reason it is critical that an employer identify with as much particularity as possible all issues that it intends to raise at the hearing including all issues as to which it may seek to make offers of proof.

By appointing Philip Miscimarra, who has served as a Member of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) since August 2013, to serve as Acting Chair of the agency, President Donald Trump has taken the first step in what will undoubtedly be an ongoing process to change the National Labor Relations Board. Chairman Miscimarra is the only Republican currently serving on the Board. Mark Gaston Pearce, who has served as chairman, a Democrat who has served as chairman since 2011 and as a Board Member since 2010, will continue to serve under his appointment which expires in August 2018.

Significantly, there are two vacancies on the five member Board at this time. This means that President Trump will now be able to fill the two vacant seats with Republicans, giving the Board a Republican majority.  By tradition, Presidents have filled three of the five seats on the Board with members of their own political party and two seats with members of the other party.  Thus, once the President nominates and the Senate confirms two new Board members, the Board will likely revisit many of the decisions of the past eight years, in which the Obama Board took an expansive view of the National Labor Relations Act’s (“NLRA” or the “Act”) meaning and its application to a wide range of representation and unfair labor practice law, including the Board’s expansion of its definition of joint employer status, and the Board’s recent holding that graduate students and teaching assistants are employees with the right to join and form unions, to cite but two examples.

Notably, since joining the Board in 2013, Mr. Miscimarra has frequently been in the minority, dissenting from many of the changes in the interpretation and application of the Act that came to be a hallmark of the Obama Board. Many of his dissents were from what were seen by many observers as an attempt to expand the Act’s definitions of protected activity, in the realm of employee handbooks and workplace rules, in a manner that did not reflect the real world challenges that employers face. Particularly noteworthy have been his dissents in a group of Board decisions that addressed the challenges that employers face in conducting workplace investigations and the conflicting obligations under the NLRA and other statutes.

An even more seismic change will come to the NLRB in November 2017, when the term of the Board’s General Counsel, Richard F. Griffin, Jr. expires and the new President gets to nominate his successor.