NLRB v. Bluefield Hospital Co., LLC
Filing
PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion: granting Motion for enforcement of agency order (FRAP 15) [999536325-2. Originating case number: 10-CA-093042. [999814649]. [15-1203]
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 1 of 27
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1203
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Petitioner,
NATIONAL NURSES ORGANIZING COMMITTEE,
Intervenor,
v.
BLUEFIELD HOSPITAL CO., LLC, d/b/a Bluefield Regional
Medical Center; GREENBRIER VMC, d/b/a Greenbrier Valley
Medical Center,
Respondents.
On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board. (10-CA-093042)
Argued:
January 26, 2016
Decided:
May 6, 2016
Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and Henry E. HUDSON,
United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Virginia, sitting by designation.
Application for enforcement granted by published opinion. Judge
Agee wrote the opinion, in which Judge Thacker and Judge Hudson
joined.
ARGUED: Micah Prieb Stoltzfus Jost, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Kaitlin Ann Kaseta,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Respondents.
ON BRIEF:
Jill
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 2 of 27
Ann Griffin, Supervisory Attorney, Richard F. Griffin, Jr.,
General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, Deputy General Counsel, John
H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy
Associate General Counsel, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Bryan T. Carmody, CARMODY &
CARMODY LLP, Glastonbury, Connecticut, for Respondents.
2
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 3 of 27
AGEE, Circuit Judge:
This
Virginia
case
involves
hospitals,
Greenbrier
a
labor
Bluefield
Valley
dispute
between
two
Regional
Center
Medical
Medical
(collectively,
“Hospitals”), and a group of their employees.
Center
West
and
the
After registered
nurses employed at the Hospitals elected the National Nurses
Organizing
Committee
representative,
the
(the
“Union”)
Hospitals
as
challenged
their
the
and refused the Union’s requests to bargain.
bargaining
election
results
The National Labor
Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a final decision concluding
the Hospitals violated the National Labor Relations Act (the
“Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., by refusing to bargain with the
Union.
The Board then brought an application for enforcement
before this Court, which the Hospitals oppose.
set
forth
below,
we
grant
the
Board’s
For the reasons
application
for
enforcement.
I.
A.
To place the issues in context, we briefly explain some of
the
Board’s
Board.
functions
and
the
authority
the
Act
grants
the
As a quasi-judicial body, the Board is responsible for
determining whether certain conduct constitutes an unfair labor
practice in violation of the Act.
3
29 U.S.C. §§ 158, 160.
In
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
addition,
Filed: 05/06/2016
the
Board
representation
has
Pg: 4 of 27
principal
proceedings,
in
which
employees
collective bargaining representative.
Act
expressly
permits
the
Board
to
authority
to
may
conduct
select
Id. § 159(b), (c).
delegate
to
its
a
The
Regional
Directors authority to oversee representation elections and to
certify election results.
Id. § 153(b).
The Board delegated
that general authority to its Regional Directors in 1961, and
they
have
been
administering
and
certifying
representation elections since that time.
results
of
26 Fed. Reg. 3911
(May 4, 1961).
Although the Regional Directors have delegated authority to
oversee
representation
elections,
the
Board
retains
plenary
authority to “review any action of a regional director” at the
objection
of
an
interested
person.
29
U.S.C.
§
153(b).
However, the parties may waive that right and agree to give the
Regional Director’s decision finality.
In
the
absence
of
such
an
See 29 C.F.R. § 102.62. 1
agreement,
a
Regional
Director’s
actions only become final if the parties decline to seek Board
review or if the Board, upon review, does not alter the Regional
Director’s decision.
29 U.S.C. § 153(b). 2
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Code of
Federal Regulations are to the version in effect at the time the
described events took place.
2 Parties, upon mutual consent, may give up their right to
plenary Board review by entering into one of several standard
(Continued)
4
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 5 of 27
Section 3(a) of the Act requires that the Board be composed
of
five
members
appointed
consent of the Senate.
by
the
President
Id. § 153(a).
upon
advice
and
“[T]hree members of the
Board shall, at all times, constitute a quorum of the Board[.]”
Id. § 153(b).
The Act permits the Board to delegate “any or all of the
powers which it may itself exercise” to panels made up of three
or more of its members, with two panel members constituting a
panel quorum.
Id. § 153(b).
This delegation of cases across
various panels is intended to allow the Board to process labor
disputes more efficiently.
The panel delegation survives the
expiration of up to two of the five Board members’ terms, such
that the Board may continue to adjudicate unfair labor practice
disputes
pending
appointment
of
new
members
three-member Board quorum requirement is met.
so
long
as
the
Id. § 153(b).
election agreements.
See 29 C.F.R. § 102.62.
The parties in
this case chose to enter into a “[c]onsent election agreement
with final regional director determinations of post-election
disputes,” meaning that the rulings and determinations of the
Regional Director with respect to a union election “shall be
final . . . with the same force and effect, in that case, as if
issued by the Board.”
Id. § 102.62(a); see also J.A. 15-20.
Distinct from a consent election agreement is a stipulated
election agreement, which provides that the representation
“election shall be conducted under the direction and supervision
of the regional director,” but retains “Board review of the
regional director’s resolution of post-election disputes.”
29
C.F.R. § 102.62(b).
5
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 6 of 27
As of January 3, 2012, the terms of three of the Board’s
five members had expired.
Asserting authority under the Recess
Appointments
Const.
Clause,
U.S.
art.
II,
§
2,
cl.
3,
the
President appointed three persons to the Board to fill these
vacancies on January 4, 2012, during a brief recess between the
Senate’s
twice-weekly
pro
forma
sessions.
In
NLRB
v.
Noel
Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014), the Supreme Court held those
appointments
powers.
unconstitutional
Id. at 2578.
as
not
within
the
President’s
These Board seats remained vacant until
August 5, 2013 when the Senate confirmed new Board members for
the seats.
By reason of the three vacancies, the Board was
composed of only two members from January 3, 2012 through August
5, 2013 and thus lacked a quorum as required by the Act.
this
period,
Regional
Directors
continued
to
During
oversee
representation elections and certify election results pursuant
to the 1961 delegation of authority from the Board.
B.
The
Hospitals
provide
inpatient
and
Bluefield and Ronceverte, West Virginia.
outpatient
care
in
In August 2012, while
the Board lacked a quorum, the Union filed two petitions with
the Board seeking to become the bargaining entity for registered
6
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
nurses at the Hospitals. 3
Pg: 7 of 27
The Hospitals and the Union entered
into Consent Election Agreements (the “Agreements”) that, among
other
things,
provided
that
identified
the
the
Regional
proposed
Director,
bargaining
Claude
unit
Harrell,
and
would
oversee secret-ballot elections in accordance with the Board’s
regulations. 4
Under
the
Agreements
and
corresponding
regulations, the parties were required to file objections to the
results of the elections with the Regional Director no later
than seven days after the ballots were tallied.
The Agreements
specified that “[t]he method of investigation of objections and
challenge[s],
including
whether
to
hold
a
hearing,
shall
be
determined by the Regional Director, whose decision shall be
final.”
J.A. 314.
The Regional Director also retained the
authority
to
the
Hospitals’
certify
registered
Union
nurses,
as
the
pending
representative
the
outcome
of
of
the
the
elections.
The Regional Director held a representation election at
each hospital on August 29 and 30, 2012, and the Union prevailed
in both elections.
In response, the Hospitals filed several
3
It is undisputed that the Hospitals are “employer[s]”
engaged in “commerce,” and the Union qualifies as a “labor
organization,” under the definitional provisions of the Act. 29
U.S.C. § 152(2), (5), (6), (7).
4 The Agreements waived the Hospitals’ right to pre-election
hearings, which are otherwise mandatory.
See 29 U.S.C.
§ 159(c)(1).
7
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
objections
Filed: 05/06/2016
to
the
election
Pg: 8 of 27
results.
The
Regional
Director
issued notices of hearings for the objections and gave written
notification
to
the
Hospitals
that
the
Board’s
rules
and
regulations required the Hospitals to submit evidence in support
of their objections within specific time limits.
§ 102.69.
See 29 C.F.R.
The Hospitals did not produce any evidence in support
of their objections, nor did they seek an extension of time to
do so.
the
On September 24, 2012, the Regional Director overruled
Hospitals’
objections
and
withdrew
the
hearing
notices,
actions that amounted to final rulings on the objections under
the Agreements.
The Regional Director certified the Union as
the registered nurses’ collective bargaining representative the
next day.
See J.A. 38-41.
The Union then made several requests to bargain with the
Hospitals on behalf of the registered nurses.
The Hospitals
refused to bargain, and the Union filed unfair labor practice
charges with the Board.
On November 29, 2012, the Regional
Director issued a consolidated complaint on behalf of the Acting
General Counsel of the Board, Lafe Solomon, which alleged that
the
Hospitals’
refusal
to
bargain
Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
(a)(5).
with
the
Union
violated
See 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1),
The Hospitals answered by admitting their refusal to
bargain, but claiming an oral agreement between the Union and
the
Hospitals
required
arbitration
8
of
election
disputes
and
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 9 of 27
precluded the Regional Director from overruling their election
objections. 5
While the unfair labor practice proceedings were ongoing,
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued its decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 705 F.3d
490 (D.C. Cir. 2013), aff’d on other grounds, 134 S. Ct. 2550
(2014), holding that the President’s recess appointment of the
three Board members on January 4, 2012 was unlawful and that the
Board as then constituted lacked a quorum.
On February 8, 2013,
the Hospitals filed an amended answer citing the Noel Canning
decision and arguing under that case the actions of the Regional
Director
in
certifying
the
Union
were
invalid
because
the
certifications issued during the time in which the Board lacked
a quorum.
The Board’s acting general counsel moved for summary
judgment.
Upon confirmation of new members by the U.S. Senate, the
Board regained a quorum on August 5, 2013.
Almost a year later,
the Supreme Court issued its decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning,
134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014), affirming, albeit on different grounds,
5
During the unfair labor practice proceedings, the
Hospitals submitted a sworn statement, stating the Hospitals and
the Union agreed orally that the parties would submit election
objections to the Board and an arbitrator concurrently, and that
the agreement was reduced to writing in a document entitled
“Election Procedure Agreement.”
However, no written agreement
was offered to the Board or otherwise made a part of the record.
9
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 10 of 27
the District of Columbia Circuit’s holding that the President’s
recess appointments were unconstitutional.
The Hospitals then
raised the Supreme Court’s Noel Canning decision, along with
various other affirmative defenses, in a third amended answer to
the
consolidated
complaint,
arguing
specifically
that
the
Regional Director lacked authority to approve the Agreements or
issue
the
quorum.
election
certifications
when
the
Board
lacked
a
Tangentially, the Hospitals contended that the Regional
Director’s appointment was invalid because the Board’s Acting
General Counsel was not validly holding his position at the time
he appointed the Regional Director.
On December 16, 2014, the Board granted summary judgment to
the Acting General Counsel, finding that the Hospitals’ refusal
to bargain with the Union violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act.
The Board found that the Hospitals waived Board review
of the Regional Director’s actions with respect to the election
objections because the defense could have been raised during the
representation phase and the Agreements stated that the Regional
Director’s actions would be final.
Alternatively, the Board
concluded the Regional Director had validly exercised authority
over
the
delegation
Directors
representation
of
in
such
1961.
proceedings
authority
The
by
Board
the
also
under
Board
the
longstanding
to
its
Regional
concluded
the
Regional
Director’s appointment by the Acting General Counsel was valid.
10
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 11 of 27
Accordingly, the Board ordered the Hospitals to bargain with the
Union,
to
implement
any
resulting
understanding
in
a
signed
agreement, and to post a remedial notice.
The
Board
now
brings
an
application
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 160(e).
for
enforcement
We have jurisdiction in this
appeal under that statute.
II.
The Hospitals raise several arguments in opposition to the
application for enforcement, which they contend require vacating
the certificates of elections and remanding for new elections.
Primarily,
the
Hospitals
argue
the
Regional
Director
lacked
authority to act during the period when the Board did not have a
quorum thereby rendering his decisions on the elections invalid.
The Hospitals also contend the Regional Director’s appointment
to that position occurred after the Board lost a quorum and is
void,
thus
conducting
rendering
and
invalid
certifying
any
the
actions
elections.
he
took
including
Relatedly,
the
Hospitals argue the Regional Director’s appointment was invalid
because the Acting General Counsel had also lost authority to
act at the time of his appointment.
The Hospitals lastly posit
that the Regional Director erred in requiring them to present
evidence
in
support
of
their
election
objections
because
a
separate contract with the Union precluded such a requirement.
11
Appeal: 15-1203
For
Doc: 90
the
reasons
Filed: 05/06/2016
discussed
Pg: 12 of 27
below,
we
resolve
each
of
these
arguments in favor of the Board.
A.
As an initial matter, the Board contends that we need not
reach any issue regarding the Board’s lack of a quorum because
the Hospitals waived that argument by failing to raise it during
the
representation
Agreements.
proceedings
and
by
entering
into
the
The District of Columbia Circuit recently rejected
nearly identical waiver arguments from the Board in UC Health v.
NLRB, 803 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
It held that UC Health had
not
premised
waived
because
its
no-quorum
“challenges
to
challenge
the
composition
of
on
an
Noel
agency
Canning
can
be
raised on review [by a Circuit Court] even when they are not
raised before the agency.”
Id. at 672-73.
In addition, it
observed that holding that an election agreement foreclosed the
no-quorum challenge would present a fairness problem:
UC Health did not expressly give up the challenge it
brings now when it executed the Agreement; it merely
signed a form agreement providing that the Board's
regulations would govern the election.
Indeed, when
UC Health entered the Stipulated Election Agreement,
no one knew whether Congress might confirm the
President's appointments and obviate the quorum issue
by the time the representation election in this case
took place. And for that matter, UC Health could not
have known with any certainty that the Board had no
quorum
even
without
Senate
approval
for
the
President's appointments until the Supreme Court
handed down its decision in Noel Canning fourteen
12
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 13 of 27
months after the election. We will not hold UC Health
responsible for failing to see the future.
Id. at 673.
The reasoning in UC Health applies with equal force here,
as the Hospitals raised a no-quorum argument before the Board
and long before the enforcement application in this Court.
is
not
the
diligently
circumstance
a
before
the
handed
down
viable
Board
where
defense.
the
The
Supreme
approximately
a
party
Hospitals
Court’s
22
months
failed
Noel
after
This
to
pursue
promptly
raised
Canning
the
decision,
representation
elections took place, and we thus find no waiver.
B.
The Hospitals’ main argument is that the authority of the
Regional Director lapsed during any period in which the Board
lacked a quorum.
Citing to the Restatement (Third) of Agency, §
3.07(4) (Am. Law Inst. 2006), the Hospitals contend that once
the principal (the Board) lost its authority, then its agent
(the
Regional
Director)
lost
all
delegated
authority
that
derived from the principal: “an agent may carry out a delegated
authority
only
so
long
as
the
entity
that
delegated
the
authority continues to hold the necessary authority of its own.”
Opening Br. 17.
Agreements
and
As a consequence, the Hospitals conclude the
certifications
13
of
elections
issued
by
the
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 14 of 27
Regional Director “were void ab initio” because they occurred
when the Board lacked a quorum.
Opening Br. 16.
The Board responds that the Supreme Court has implicitly
rejected
the
Hospitals’
underlying
argument
Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010).
contends
even
if
New
Board’s
interpretation
Process
of
Steel
the
is
Act
in
New
Process
Further, the Board
not
controlling,
verifying
the
the
ongoing
authority of Regional Directors is entitled to deference under
Chevron,
U.S.A.,
Inc.,
v.
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council,
Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
We
find
the
Hospitals’
argument
wanting
in
view
of
the
Chevron deference owed the Board’s interpretation of the Act
regarding the authority of Regional Directors during the absence
of
a
Board
quorum. 6
The
Board
6
has
construed
the
Act
as
The Board correctly points out that the Supreme Court has,
in dictum, implicitly acknowledged that delegation to Regional
Directors survives the loss of a Board quorum in New Process
Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010).
The issue in that
case was whether two Board members could continue to act on
behalf of the Board after the Board itself lost a quorum.
Id.
at 682-83.
While the Supreme Court made clear that the Board
lost the authority to act, the Court also observed that its
“conclusion that the delegee group ceases to exist once there
are no longer three Board members to constitute the group does
not cast doubt on the prior delegations of authority to nongroup
members, such as, the regional directors or the general
counsel.”
Id. at 684 n.4.
We give great weight to Supreme
Court dicta. See McCravy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 690 F.3d 176,
182 n.2 (4th Cir. 2012) (assuming that the pertinent language is
dictum, “we cannot simply override a legal pronouncement
endorsed . . . by a majority of the Supreme Court.”); United
(Continued)
14
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 15 of 27
authorizing Regional Directors to exercise delegated authority
during a period in which the Board lacks a quorum.
Bluefield
Hosp. Co., 361 N.L.R.B. No. 154 (2014).
The
validity
congressional
act
of
an
the
agency’s
agency
is
interpretation
charged
to
of
a
administer
is
reviewed by a Court under the familiar two-step test set out in
Chevron.
See Montgomery Cty., Md. v. F.C.C., 811 F.3d 121, 2015
WL 9261375, at *6 (4th Cir. Dec. 18, 2015) (“Here, a Chevron
analysis is appropriate because the issue before us involves the
FCC’s
interpretation
administering.”).
of
a
statute
it
is
charged
with
At step one, the Court determines “whether
Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.”
Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842.
Here, that would mean if Congress has
plainly addressed whether Regional Directors may continue to act
in
the
absence
of
a
Board
quorum,
“that
is
the
end
of
the
matter[,] for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect
to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”
43.
Id. at 842-
However, if the statute is silent or ambiguous, the Court
will proceed to Chevron’s second step, which asks whether the
Board’s
interpretation
is
“a
permissible
construction
of
the
States v. Fareed, 296 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2002) (following
“dictum endorsed by six justices” of the Supreme Court).
Because the Chevron deference argument resolves this issue, we
do not specifically address the effect of New Process Steel.
15
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
statute.”
Filed: 05/06/2016
Id. at 843.
Pg: 16 of 27
If it is, then we must defer.
Id. at
844; see also City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1870-71
(2013).
Beginning
with
the
first
step
of
the
Chevron
analysis,
whether the statute speaks directly and unambiguously to the
Regional
Director’s
authority
during
the
absence
of
a
Board
quorum, we examine the relevant statutory text:
The Board is authorized to delegate to any group of
three or more members any or all of the powers which
it may itself exercise. The Board is also authorized
to delegate to its regional directors its powers under
section 159 of this title to determine the unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining,
to investigate and provide for hearings, and determine
whether a question of representation exists, and to
direct an election or take a secret ballot under
subsection (c) or (e) of section 159 of this title and
certify the results thereof, except that upon the
filing of a request therefor with the Board by any
interested person, the Board may review any action of
a regional director delegated to him under this
paragraph, but such a review shall not, unless
specifically ordered by the Board, operate as a stay
of any action taken by the regional director.
A
vacancy in the Board shall not impair the right of the
remaining members to exercise all of the powers of the
Board, and three members of the Board shall, at all
times, constitute a quorum of the Board, except that
two members shall constitute a quorum of any group
designated
pursuant
to
the
first
sentence
hereof. . . .
29 U.S.C. § 153(b).
Nothing in the statute addresses the effect
of the Board’s loss of quorum on a prior delegation of authority
to Regional Directors.
See Id.
As Congress has not plainly
addressed the issue, we must engage in the second part of the
16
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 17 of 27
Chevron analysis: whether the Board’s interpretation that the
delegation of authority to Regional Directors survives despite
the absence of a Board quorum is a reasonable one to which we
owe deference.
Relying on the express statutory authorization in Section
3(b) of the Act, the Board delegated decisional authority in
representation proceedings to Regional Directors in 1961.
Fed. Reg. 3911 (May 4, 1961).
26
At the time of this delegation to
the Regional Directors, the Board had sufficient members to meet
the Board quorum requirement.
26 NLRB Ann. Rep. 1 (1962).
The
Board has never rescinded that delegation.
Although the Board lacked a quorum at the time the Regional
Director conducted the elections at issue here, “[t]he policy of
the National Labor Relations Board is that during any period
when the Board lacks a quorum normal Agency operations should
continue to the greatest extent permitted by law.”
29 C.F.R.
§ 102.178; see also id. § 102.182 (“During any period when the
Board lacks a quorum, . . . [t]o the extent practicable, all
representation cases should continue to be processed and the
appropriate
certification
should
be
issued
by
the
Regional
Director[.]”).
Only one other Circuit Court of Appeals, the District of
Columbia Circuit, has addressed this precise issue of whether
the Board’s interpretation of the Act, which delegated authority
17
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 18 of 27
to Regional Directors remains intact during the absence of a
Board quorum, is reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference.
UC Health, 803 F.3d 669; SSC Mystic Operating Co. v. NLRB, 801
F.3d 302 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
The D.C. Circuit has now twice held
that the Board’s interpretation “easily” satisfies the standard
of being “reasonable and consistent with the statute’s purpose.”
UC Health, 803 F.3d at 675; SSC Mystic Operating Co., 801 F.3d
at 309 (concluding the Regional Director’s authority to conduct
the
representation
election
was
“beyond
dispute”).
In
Health, the court explained its conclusion as follows:
This is a sensible interpretation that is in no way
contrary to the text, structure, or purpose of the
statute. . . . Moreover, allowing the Regional
Director to continue to operate regardless of the
Board’s quorum is fully in line with the policy behind
Congress’s decision to allow for the delegation in the
first place. Congress explained that the amendment to
the [Act] that permitted the Board to delegate
authority to the Regional Directors was “designed to
expedite final disposition of cases by the Board.”
See 105 Cong. Rec. 19,770 (1959) (statement of Sen.
Barry Goldwater).
Permitting Regional Directors to
continue overseeing elections and certifying the
results while waiting for new Board members to be
confirmed allows representation elections to proceed
and tees up potential objections for the Board, which
can then exercise the power the [Act] preserves for it
to review the Regional Director's decisions once a
quorum is restored.
And at least those unions and
companies that have no objections to the conduct or
result of an election can agree to accept its outcome
without any Board intervention at all.
The Board’s
interpretation
thus
avoids
unnecessarily
halting
representation elections any time a quorum lapses due
to gridlock elsewhere.
18
UC
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Id. at 675-76.
and
agree
The
facts,
We find the reasoning in UC Health persuasive
that
reasonable.”
the
Board’s
interpretation
is
“imminently
Id. at 676.
Hospitals
as
Pg: 19 of 27
those
attempt
parties
to
distinguish
entered
into
a
UC
Health
on
Stipulated
its
Election
Agreement whereby the Board retained plenary power to review the
outcome
of
the
representation
proceedings.
See
29
C.F.R.
§ 102.62(b) (describing “stipulated election agreements”).
The
parties in this case signed Consent Election Agreements, which
vested in the Regional Director final authority to oversee the
representation
elections
and
certify
their
results,
and
it
foreclosed Board review over representation proceedings.
See
Id. § 102.62(a) (describing “Consent Election Agreement”).
This
distinction makes no difference, as we simply apply the contract
terms of the Agreements.
Agreement by contract is among the ways to relinquish the
right
to
plenary
Board
review
and
confer
on
the
Regional
Director final authority over representation proceedings.
UC
Health, 803 F.3d at 680 (“Only the acquiescence of the parties
or the Board’s ratification can give binding force to a Regional
Director’s determination.”).
not administrative law.
This is a matter of contract law,
NLRB v. MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc., 363
F.3d 705, 709 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating the Board was “on sound
ground in
emphasizing
that
parties
19
are
bound
by
an
approved
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 20 of 27
election agreement, just as they are bound by other contracts”).
“When asked to approve election agreements, the Board's longstanding
approach
has
been
to
honor
the
parties'
freedom
of
contract, unless their contract is contrary to the statute or
Board policy.”
Id.
By signing the Agreements, the Hospitals
signed a contract in which they agreed to give up Board review
and to vest the Regional Director with authority to issue final
decisions at the representation phase.
The Hospitals are bound
by that contract just as they are bound by other contracts.
Accordingly,
interpretation
and
we
give
conclude
deference
that
the
to
the
Regional
Board’s
Director’s
authority to act was not abrogated during the period when the
Board lacked a quorum. 7
7
Although we acknowledge the recent decision of the D.C.
Circuit in Hosp. of Barstow, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., No. 14-1167, 2016
WL 1720366 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 29, 2016), we find it inapposite here
for two distinct reasons.
First, no petition for review was
filed in this case.
See 29 U.S.C. § 160(f) (requiring a
petition for review to be in writing and filed with the Court).
Second, in Hospital of Barstow, the Board did not offer an
interpretation of the statutory quorum provision that would
raise Chevron deference on appeal, concluding only “that the
challenge to the Regional Director’s authority had been waived.”
Id. at *3.
In this case, however, the Board argued waiver and
provided an interpretation of the statute whereby the Regional
Director could act in the absence of a Board quorum.
For the
reasons discussed, we owe that interpretation Chevron deference.
20
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 21 of 27
C.
The Hospitals also urge the Court to hold that the Regional
Director was not validly appointed because the Acting General
Counsel, Lafe Solomon, was without authority to act at the time
of Regional Director Harrell’s appointment.
of
the
Act,
appointee
under
the
to
the
his
See
appointment
a
submitted
position
statute
appointed.
unless
Hospitals
to
at
29
to
the
and
the
days
to
§
when
fill
Senate”).
Solomon
that
time
U.S.C.
“forty
nomination
contend
We
his
the
the
do
was
temporary
had
vacancy
is
was
temporary
in
shall
find
lapsed
Director
(limiting
Congress
not
a
authority
Regional
153(d)
such
Citing Section 3(d)
session
have
this
been
argument
persuasive because it is the Board, not the General Counsel,
which has final authority to appoint a Regional Director.
the
Board
did,
in
fact,
approve
Harrell
as
the
And
Regional
Director.
The Act provides that “[t]he Board shall appoint . . .
regional directors.”
29 U.S.C. § 154(a); see also 29 C.F.R.
§ 102.5 (“The term regional director as used herein shall mean
the agent designated by the Board as the regional director for a
particular region[.]”).
The General Counsel is vested by the
Act with “general supervision” over employees in the regional
offices.
29 U.S.C. § 153(d).
The Board has implemented rules
and regulations delegating certain appointive responsibilities
21
Appeal: 15-1203
to
Doc: 90
the
Filed: 05/06/2016
General
Counsel,
but
Pg: 22 of 27
as
to
Regional
Directors
a
designation by the General Counsel is valid “only upon approval
of the Board.”
67 Fed. Reg. 62992-93 (Oct. 1, 2002); see also
24 Fed. Reg. 6666-67 (Aug. 15, 1959).
must
ratify
the
Regional
In other words, the Board
Director’s
appointment
and
any
“appointment” by the General Counsel is of no effect until the
Board
acts.
For
that
reason,
even
if
we
assume
Solomon’s
appointment as Acting General Counsel had lapsed at the time of
the Regional Director’s appointment, it makes no difference.
It
is the Board -– not the General Counsel -- that retains final
authority over the appointment of a Regional Director, and the
Board approved the appointment of the Regional Director in this
case.
Accordingly, the Hospitals’ argument fails. 8
8
Before the Board, the Hospitals also argued the Acting
General
Counsel
“lacked
the
authority
to
prosecute
the
consolidated complaint.” Bluefield Hosp., 361 N.L.R.B. No. at 2
n.5. The Board rejected this argument, and the Hospitals do not
raise this issue on appeal, a point they confirmed at oral
argument. Oral Argument at 18:05-18:15. Although we are fully
cognizant of the decisions in SW General, Inc. v. NLRB, 796 F.3d
67, 83 (D.C. Cir. 2015), and Hooks v. Kitsap Tenant Support
Services, Inc., No. 13-35912, 2016 WL 860335 (9th Cir. Mar. 7,
2016), the Hospitals have waived any argument in that regard.
Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 604 n.4
(4th Cir. 2010) (concluding that an argument not raised in the
opening brief is waived); see also SW General, 796 F.3d at 83
(“We address the [Federal Vacancies Reform Act (“FVRA”)]
objection in this case because the petitioner raised the issue.
. . . We doubt that an employer that failed to timely raise an
FVRA objection -- regardless of whether enforcement proceedings
are ongoing or concluded -- will enjoy the same success.”).
22
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 23 of 27
D.
The Hospitals also contend that the Board appointed the
Regional
Director
after
the
Board
lost
consequently, the appointment was invalid.
a
quorum
and
This is a factual
dispute; either the Board acted to appoint the Regional Director
before it lost a quorum or it didn’t.
In resolving such a
factual dispute, “[t]he findings of the Board with respect to
questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the
record considered as a whole shall be conclusive.”
29 U.S.C.
§ 160(e).
The
Board
determined
that
the
Regional
Director’s
appointment became final on December 22, 2011, approximately one
week before the Board lost its quorum.
Bluefield Hosp., 361
N.L.R.B. No. at 2 n.5.
That factual finding is supported in the
record
entitled
by
December
a
22,
document
2011,
which
states
“Minute
that
of
the
Board
Board
Action”
of
“unanimously
approved” the selection of Claude Harrell as Regional Director
for Region 10 by votes taken December 21 and 22, 2011.
Response Br., Attach. A.
Board’s
The “Minute of Board Action” settles
the issue, as it is substantial evidence.
We are bound on
appeal by that finding and thus find no merit in the Hospitals’
argument.
23
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 24 of 27
E.
Having resolved the issues related to the authority of the
Board or the Regional Director to act, we turn to the merits.
Section
8(a)(1)
of
the
Act
makes
it
an
unfair
labor
practice “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of [their rights under the Act],” while Section
8(a)(5) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to
refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his
employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (5).
The Hospitals admit
they refused to bargain with the Union, but contend that the
Board
erred
in
representation
its
decision
elections
to
uphold
because
the
the
Regional
results
Director
of
the
should
not have overruled their objections to the election results on
procedural grounds.
“‘Congress has entrusted the Board with a wide degree of
discretion
necessary
in
to
establishing
insure
the
the
fair
and
representatives by employees.’”
procedure
free
and
choice
of
safeguards
bargaining
NLRB v. Md. Ambulance Servs.,
Inc., 192 F.3d 430, 433 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting NLRB v. A.J.
Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 330 (1946)); see also NLRB v. Waterman
Steamship Corp., 309 U.S. 206, 226 (1940) (“The control of the
election
proceeding,
and
the
determination
of
the
steps
necessary to conduct [an] election fairly were matters which
Congress entrusted to the Board alone.”).
24
“The results of a
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Board-supervised
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 25 of 27
representation
election
are
presumptively
valid,” NLRB v. Flambeau Airmold Corp., 178 F.3d 705, 707 (4th
Cir. 1999), and we will overturn a representation election only
where the Board has clearly abused its discretion, Elizabethtown
Gas Co. v. NLRB, 212 F.3d 257, 262 (4th Cir. 2000).
The
applicable
objections
instruct
regulations
parties
to
governing
file
post-election
election
objections
“[w]ithin 7 days after the tally of ballots has been prepared”
and “[w]ithin 7 days after the filing of objections, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow, the party
filing objections shall furnish to the Regional Director the
evidence available to it to support the objections.”
§ 102.69(a)(emphasis added).
29 C.F.R.
The NLRB’s “casehandling manual”
provides: “Absent the timely receipt of sufficient evidence, the
Regional
Director
should
further processing.”
overrule
the
objections
without
any
Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., Casehandling
Manual (Part 2, Representation Proceedings) § 11392.6 (2014).
The Hospitals admit they were aware that their supporting
evidence for the filed objections was to be submitted in the
respective cases no later than September 12 and 13, 2012.
They
further admit that they declined to submit any evidence and made
no request for an extension of time to submit evidence.
The
regional director overruled their objections on September 24,
well
after
the
7-day
deadline
25
had
passed.
“[I]t
is
not
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 26 of 27
sufficient for an employer merely to question the interpretation
of or legal conclusions drawn from the facts by the Regional
Director.”
Nat’l Posters, Inc. v. NLRB, 720 F.2d 1358, 1362
(4th Cir. 1983).
“To be entitled to a hearing, the objecting
party must make a proffer of evidence which prima facie would
warrant setting aside the election.”
824
F.2d
332,
omitted).
335
(4th
Cir.
NLRB v. Hydrotherm, Inc.,
1987)
(internal
quotation
marks
The Regional Director was well within his authority
to overrule the objections and rescind the hearings notices, and
indeed
the
Board’s
rules
directed
him
to
do
so
in
this
circumstance.
The
Hospitals
counter
that
they
were
not
obligated
to
submit evidence in support of their objections because they had
an oral agreement with the Union to submit the matter to an
arbitrator.
However,
consistently
rejects
the
Board
employers’
has
since
claims
of
explained
“an
oral
that
ad
it
hoc
agreement between the parties g[iving] exclusive jurisdiction to
an arbitrator.”
D.H.S.C., LLC, 362 N.L.R.B. No. 78, at *1 n.3
(Apr.
(noting
30,
2015)
the
Board
had
rejected
an
identical
argument several times before and warning that continuing to
press the “nonmeritorious” argument could result in disciplinary
proceedings).
To the extent the Hospitals now claim this oral
agreement was reduced to writing at some point, it is not in the
26
Appeal: 15-1203
Doc: 90
record.
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 27 of 27
See 9 U.S.C. § 2 (requiring agreements to arbitrate to
be in writing under the Federal Arbitration Act).
We therefore conclude the Hospitals’ sole challenge to the
merits of the Board’s final decision to be baseless.
III.
For
the
reasons
set
out
above,
we
grant
the
Board’s
application for enforcement of its order.
APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT GRANTED
27
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?