National Labor Relations Board v. Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A
692 F. App'x 25
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Union (Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A) alleged Xerox breached Article XXII of the CBA by subcontracting property-management work to JLL and sought enforcement of the contract provision.
- Xerox cross‑grieved, arguing the Union’s proposed interpretation of Article XXII would be unlawful under NLRA § 8(e) and that the Union’s efforts to enforce that interpretation violated § 8(b)(4).
- An ALJ found: (1) Article XXII (as the Union read it) violated § 8(e) and was void, and (2) the Union violated § 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) by filing the grievance and suit to block subcontracting.
- The NLRB reversed the ALJ on the meaning and facial validity of Article XXII, concluding the provision was not susceptible to the Union’s anti‑subcontracting interpretation.
- The NLRB declined to review the ALJ’s § 8(b)(4) findings because the Union failed to preserve specific exceptions to those rulings before the Board; the Board therefore did not rule on whether the Union’s conduct violated § 8(b)(4).
- The Second Circuit granted the NLRB’s petition for enforcement and denied the Union’s cross‑petition for review, holding the Union waived review of the § 8(b)(4) rulings and that the ALJ’s § 8(e) and § 8(b)(4) findings were independent issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article XXII is properly read to prohibit subcontracting and thus violates NLRA § 8(e) | Union: Article XXII limits subcontracting and should be enforced | NLRB/Xerox: Article XXII is not susceptible to that reading; such a reading would be void under § 8(e) | Court: NLRB reasonably concluded Article XXII is not susceptible to the Union’s interpretation; enforcement granted to Board |
| Whether the Union’s grievance and lawsuit violated § 8(b)(4)(ii)(A)-(B) by advancing an interpretation that would force Xerox into an unlawful agreement or restrain business relations | Union: Its enforcement efforts were lawful and related to contract interpretation | Xerox/NLRB: Union’s attempts to enforce an unlawful reading constitute coercion/restraint under § 8(b)(4) | Court: ALJ found violations, but NLRB treated those claims as waived by the Union for failure to except; waiver upheld by court |
| Whether the Union preserved its § 8(b)(4) challenge before the NLRB | Union: Exceptions addressing § 8(e) also preserve challenges to § 8(b)(4); reply brief sufficed | NLRB/Xerox: Regulations require specific exceptions; reply brief is insufficient; issues not preserved | Court: Waiver under 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) and 29 C.F.R. § 102.46; Union failed to preserve § 8(b)(4) argument; court lacks jurisdiction to review it |
| Whether reversal of the ALJ on Article XXII’s meaning implicitly vindicates the Union’s conduct and preserves its § 8(b)(4) claim | Union: NLRB’s reversal of § 8(e) finding means the Union acted legally, so § 8(b)(4) issue was necessarily preserved | NLRB/Xerox: Legality of the contract and lawfulness of conduct are distinct; reversal does not preserve an unexcepted challenge | Court: Issues are independent; reversal of contract interpretation does not cure the failure to except to § 8(b)(4) findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Special Touch Home Care Servs., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 708 F.3d 447 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing NLRB legal conclusions and factual findings)
- KBI Sec. Serv., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 91 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 1996) (failure to raise issue before NLRB prevents court review)
- Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 456 U.S. 645 (1982) (courts precluded from considering issues not presented to NLRB)
- N.L.R.B. v. DeBartelo, 241 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2001) (court cannot entertain arguments not excepted below)
- Nat’l Mar. Union of Am., AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., 867 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1989) (issues not excepted to ALJ cannot be raised on appeal)
- N.L.R.B. v. GAIU Local 13-B, Graphic Arts Int’l Union, 682 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1982) (requirements for filing exceptions and preserving issues for NLRB review)
- Am. President Lines, Ltd. v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, 721 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2013) (a union can violate § 8(b)(4) by advancing an improper contract interpretation)