Huntington Ingalls Inc. v. NLRB

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion for enforcement of agency order (FRAP 15) [999452031-2] in 14-2072, granting Motion for enforcement of agency order (FRAP 15) [999462251-2] in 14-2148 Originating case number: 05-CA-081306. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999704570]. Mailed to: Charles Posner & Wayne Gold. [14-2051, 14-2072, 14-2148]

Appeal: 14-2051

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 11

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2051

HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED,
Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Respondent,
INTERNATIONAL
WORKERS,

ASSOCIATION

OF

MACHINISTS

AND

AEROSPACE

Intervenor.
-----------------------------CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Amicus Supporting Petitioner.

No. 14-2148

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Petitioner,
v.
HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED,
Respondent,
INTERNATIONAL
WORKERS,

ASSOCIATION

OF

MACHINISTS

AND

AEROSPACE

Appeal: 14-2051

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 11

Intervenor.
----------------------------CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Amicus Supporting Petitioner.

Petition for Review and Cross Application for Enforcement of an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (05−CA−081306)

No. 14-2072

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Petitioner,
v.
ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY SOUTHEAST, LLC,
Respondent.
_______________
On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board. (11−CA−073779)

Argued:

September 16, 2015

Decided:

November 23, 2015

Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Enforcement granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.

2

Appeal: 14-2051

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 3 of 11

Nos. 14-2051/2148.
ARGUED: Gregory Branch Robertson, HUNTON &
WILLIAMS
LLP,
Richmond,
Virginia,
for
Petitioner/CrossRespondent.
Heather Stacy Beard, Robert James Englehart,
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
BOARD,
Washington,
D.C.,
for
Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. ON BRIEF: Kurt G. Larkin, HUNTON &
WILLIAMS LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Dean C. Berry, Assistant
General Counsel, HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, INC., Newport
News, Virginia, for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent.
Richard F.
Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, Deputy General
Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda
Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, David Seid, NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondent/CrossPetitioner.
William H. Haller, Associate General Counsel,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,
Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Intervenor.
Kate Comerford Todd,
Steven P. Lehotsky, U.S. CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, Washington,
D.C.; Noel J. Francisco, James M. Burnham, Sarah A. Hunger,
JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.
No. 14-2072.
ARGUED: Heather Stacy Beard, David A. Seid,
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
BOARD,
Washington,
D.C.,
for
Petitioner.
Dean John Sauer, JAMES OTIS LAW GROUP, LLC, St.
Louis, Missouri; Daniel R. Begian, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., St. Louis, Missouri, for Respondent. ON
BRIEF: Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, Jennifer
Abruzzo, Deputy General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate
General
Counsel,
Linda
Dreeben,
Deputy
Associate
General
Counsel, Robert J. Englehart, Supervisory Attorney, NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
BOARD,
Washington,
D.C.,
for
Petitioner.
Michael Martinich-Sauter, CLARK & SAUER, LLC, St. Louis,
Missouri, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

Appeal: 14-2051

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 4 of 11

PER CURIAM:
These refusal-to-bargain cases are before us for the second
time on appeal.

In the first appeal, Enterprise Leasing Company

Southeast, LLC (Enterprise) and Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated
(Huntington) challenged orders of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board) requiring each company to bargain with the
union, Local 391 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
in the case of Enterprise and the International Association of
Machinists

and

Aerospace

Workers

in

the

case

following Board-conducted union elections.

of

Huntington,

Because each case

involved the constitutional question of whether the President’s
three January 2012 appointments to the Board ran afoul of the
United

States

Constitution’s

Recess

Appointments

Clause,

U.S.

Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 3, thereby depriving the Board of a
proper quorum, we first addressed whether each company violated
the

NLRA

as

presented.

a

means

of

avoiding

the

constitutional

question

NLRB v. Enterprise Leasing Co. Southeast, LLC, 722

F.3d 609, 613-14 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2902
(2014).
Board

On this nonconstitutional question, we agreed with the

that

both

Enterprise

and

Huntington

violated

Sections

8(a)(1) and (a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA),
29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (5), by refusing to bargain with the
unions,

722

F.3d

at

616-20,

624-31.

Because

the

nonconstitutional question was resolved in favor of the Board,
4

Appeal: 14-2051

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 5 of 11

we addressed the constitutional question presented.
question,

we

appointments

held
to

that

the

the

Board

President’s
violated

three

the

On this

January

Recess

2012

Appointment

Clause, and, therefore, the Board lacked a proper quorum when it
issued its decisions in 2012.

Id. at 631-60.

Because the Board

lacked a proper quorum, we “vacated” the Board’s decisions and
denied enforcement of the Board’s orders.
Following

our

decision,

the

Board

Id. at 660.
filed

a

petition

for

rehearing for the limited purpose of requesting that we modify
our judgment to include language explicitly remanding the cases
to the Board for further proceedings.

In so requesting, the

Board posited that such a request was actually unnecessary given
that our decision “anticipat[es] the possibility of issuance of
new Board orders.”

(Huntington J.A. 640).

Nevertheless, the

Board desired such language in our judgment to avoid “needless
litigation.”
denied

the

(Huntington
petition

for

J.A.

640).

rehearing.

Summarily,
The

Board

this

then

court

filed

a

petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court.
In

NLRB

v.

Noel

Canning,

134

S.

Ct.

2550

(2014),

the

Supreme Court resolved the constitutional question addressed by
this

court

in

its

prior

panel

opinion.

There,

the

Court

affirmed the D.C. Circuit’s determination that the President’s
three January 2012 appointments to the Board were invalid.
5

Id.

Appeal: 14-2051

Doc: 79

at 2578.
the

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 6 of 11

In so affirming, however, the Court took issue with

D.C.

Circuit’s

reasoning,

opining

that

the

Recess

Appointments Clause applies to both inter-session recesses and
“intra-session recess[es] of substantial length,” id. at 2561,
as well as to Board vacancies that occur prior to or during the
recess,

id.

at

President’s

2567.

three

According

January

2012

to

the

Court,

appointments

because

to

the

the

Board

occurred during a three-day recess of the Senate, the recess was
“too short a time to bring [the] recess within the scope of the
Clause,” and, therefore, the recess appointments were invalid.
Id. at 2557.

Following the Court’s decision in Noel Canning,

the Supreme Court denied the Board’s petition for a writ of
certiorari

in

this

case.

NLRB

v.

Enterprise

Leasing

Co.

Southeast, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 2902 (2014).
On

August

14,

2014,

the

Board’s

Executive

Secretary

notified both Enterprise and Huntington that because the “Board
panel

that

previously

decided”

each

case

was

“not

properly

constituted,” the Board was going to consider each case “anew.”
(Enterprise J.A. 467; Huntington J.A. 1808).

Both Enterprise

and Huntington objected to the Board’s consideration of their
respective cases on the basis that, absent a remand from this
court, the Board lacked jurisdiction.
On October 2, 2014, a properly constituted Board issued a
decision in Enterprise’s case, and a similarly constituted Board
6

Appeal: 14-2051

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 7 of 11

issued a decision in Huntington’s case on October 3, 2014.

The

Board rejected Enterprise’s and Huntington’s arguments that the
Board lacked jurisdiction to issue its decisions.

The Board

reasoned that our prior decision clearly contemplated further
Board action and that such further action was consistent with
the Eighth Circuit’s decision in NLRB v. Whitesell Corp., 638
F.3d

883,

889

(8th

Cir.

2011)

(holding

that

the

denial

of

enforcement on the basis that the Board lacked a proper quorum
did not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to consider the case
anew).

On the merits, the Board adopted the reasoning of its

earlier decisions, further observing that neither Enterprise nor
Huntington
unavailable
reexamine”

offered

“any

evidence”
its

and

Huntington

that

earlier

Huntington J.A. 1816).
to

newly

discovered”

would

or

“require

decisions.

the

(Enterprise

“previously
Board
J.A.

to
472;

The Board’s orders require Enterprise

bargain

with

the

unions

upon

request

and

embody any understanding in a signed agreement.
On October 6, 2014, Huntington filed a petition for review
of the Board’s order against it.
filed

an

application

for

On October 8, 2014, the Board

enforcement

of

its

order

against

Enterprise, and, on October 24, 2014, the Board filed a crossapplication for enforcement of its order against Huntington.
Relying on our decision in NLRB v. Lundy Packing Co., 81
F.3d 25 (4th Cir. 1996) (Lundy II), Enterprise and Huntington
7

Appeal: 14-2051

first

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/23/2015

contend

that

the

consider the cases anew.

Pg: 8 of 11

Board

was

without

jurisdiction

to

We reject this argument for the simple

reason that Lundy II is distinguishable from the case at hand.
In NLRB v. Lundy Packing Co., 68 F.3d 1577, 1579 (4th Cir.
1995) (Lundy I), we denied enforcement of the Board’s bargaining
unit

determination

for

a

production

and

maintenance

Lundy Packing’s Clinton, North Carolina facility.
1583.

unit

at

Id. at 1579,

The union election that followed the Board’s bargaining

unit determination resulted in a 318 to 309 win for the union.
Id. at 1579.

In denying enforcement of the Board’s bargaining

unit determination, we held that the Board abused its discretion
when it excluded certain employees from the bargaining unit.
Id. at 1580-83.
to

revisit

the

In response to our decision, the Board sought
union

challenged ballots.”

election

results

by

Lundy II, 81 F.3d at 26.

Lundy Packing sought a stay in our court.

Id.

“counting

the

To prevent this,
We held that the

Board was not at liberty to revisit the union election results,
“[a]bsent a remand” from this court.

Id. (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted).
Enterprise and Huntington argue that per Lundy II the Board
in this case was not at liberty to revisit their challenges to
the union election results absent a remand from this court.

We

reject this argument for the simple reason that the court in
Lundy I disposed of the case on the merits, while this court in
8

Appeal: 14-2051

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 9 of 11

its prior panel opinion did not.
The approach adopted in Lundy II makes perfect sense where
the Board seeks to revisit a merits determination made by this
court.

If the Board is permitted to do so, the products are the

prevention

of

litigation.

review
Id.

by

Indeed,

the

Supreme

to

have

Court

allowed

and
the

endless
Board

to

continuously stab at our merits determination in Lundy I that
the

bargaining

unit

was

underinclusive

would

have

prevented

Supreme Court review of our Lundy I decision and resulted in
endless litigation.

However, where the court denies enforcement

on the basis that the Board lacked a proper quorum, as was the
case

here,

Lundy

II’s

concerns

of

the

prevention

of

Supreme

Court review and endless litigation fall by the way side.

No

action by the Board is preventing Supreme Court review.

In

fact, our prior decision was brought to the Supreme Court for
review, and the parties here are at liberty to seek such review
from the decision we reach today.
endless

litigation

are

not

Likewise, the concerns of

present

where

reconstitutes to obtain a proper quorum.

the

Board

simply

Unlike Lundy II, the

Board here is not looking to find a new factual or legal basis
in

which

to

justify

its

previous

decisions.

Rather,

it

revisited the cases with a proper quorum, and the factual and
legal basis of its decisions have remained the same.
Moreover,

the

interpretation
9

of

Lundy

II

pressed

by

Appeal: 14-2051

Doc: 79

Enterprise

Filed: 11/23/2015

and

Huntington

Pg: 10 of 11

has

its

own

shortcomings.

First,

their interpretation makes little sense because it deprives the
employees of Enterprise and Huntington who have chosen union
representation

through

valid

union

elections

from

having

Enterprise’s and Huntington’s challenges to the union elections
resolved on the merits once and for all by this court.

We see

nothing in the NLRA that intimates the type of deprivation of
review

pressed

by

Enterprise

and

Huntington.

Second,

their

interpretation creates a circuit split and places us at odds
with

the

well-reasoned

Whitesell.

decision

by

the

Eighth

Circuit

in

That court understandably carved out a very narrow

exception to the remand rule where the court disposes of the
case on the basis that the Board issued a quorumless decision.
A

decision

finding

the

lack

of

a

proper

quorum

clearly

contemplates further Board action, and, thus, the Board here did
not

err

when

it

revisited

Enterprise’s

and

Huntington’s

challenges to the union elections.
Next, Enterprise and Huntington contend that the properly
reconstituted

Board

erred

when

it

challenges to the union elections.

rejected

their

respective

These contentions mirror the

challenges previously raised to this court in the prior appeal,
and we reject them for the reasons stated in our prior panel
opinion.

Enterprise

Leasing,

722

F.3d

at

616-20,

624-31.

Huntington also contends that because the bargaining unit has
10

Appeal: 14-2051

Doc: 79

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 11 of 11

grown in size since the union election, we should refuse to
enforce the Board’s order against Huntington.

We have reviewed

this contention and find it to be without merit.
Accordingly,

for

the

reasons

stated

herein,

we

grant

enforcement of the Board’s orders.
ENFORCEMENT GRANTED

11