Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board , 209 F. App'x 345 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1171
    LAUREL BAYE HEALTHCARE OF LAKE LANIER, LLC,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
    Respondent,
    UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL No.
    1996,
    Intervenor.
    No. 06-1237
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    LAUREL BAYE HEALTHCARE OF LAKE LANIER, LLC,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review and Cross-application for Enforcement of an
    Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (10-RC-15475; 10-CA-
    35752)
    Argued:   September 19, 2006          Decided:   December 15, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Petition for review denied and cross-application for enforcement
    granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ARGUED: Clifford H. Nelson, Jr., CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH,
    Atlanta, Georgia, for Laurel Baye Healthcare, LLC, of Lake Lanier.
    Jewel Lynn Fox, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Office of the
    General Counsel, Washington, D.C., for the Board. ON BRIEF: Leigh
    E. Tyson, CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, Atlanta, Georgia, for Laurel
    Baye Healthcare, LLC, of Lake Lanier. Ronald Meisburg, General
    Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel, John H.
    Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy
    Associate General Counsel, Meredith Jason, Supervisory Attorney,
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Office of the General Counsel,
    Washington, D.C., for the Board. James D. Fagan, Jr., STANFORD
    FAGAN, L.L.C., Atlanta, Georgia, for Intervenor United Food and
    Commercial Workers Union Local 1996.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Laurel Baye Healthcare (“Laurel Baye”) petitions this court
    for review of the December 28, 2005, Decision and Order of the
    National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”), directing Laurel Baye
    to bargain with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local
    1996 (“Local 1996”) and determining that Laurel Baye violated
    § 8(a)(1) and § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, see 
    29 U.S.C.A. § 158
    (a)(1), (3) (West 1998), by failing to provide
    information and bargain as ordered.           The Board cross petitions for
    enforcement of its Decision and Order.                 We deny Laurel Baye’s
    petition for review and grant the Board’s cross-petition for
    enforcement.
    I.
    Laurel Baye operates a nursing care facility for geriatric and
    disabled residents in Buford, Georgia.            On August 31, 2004, Local
    1996 filed a petition to represent a proposed collective bargaining
    unit, set by the Regional Director as “[a]ll full-time and part-
    time    service   and    maintenance        employees,    [Certified    Nursing
    Assistants    (“CNA’s”)],    restorative       aids,     activity   assistants,
    medical    records      clerks,   central       supply    clerks,    and   unit
    secretaries” at the facility.       J.A. 518.      The election was held on
    November 26, 2004. Fifty employees were eligible to vote. Thirty-
    two votes were cast for and eight votes were cast against Local
    1996.    Ten eligible employees did not vote.
    3
    On December 3, 2004, Laurel Baye filed objections to the
    election with the Board, asserting that the election was invalid
    because agents and other supporters of Local 1996 had engaged in
    pre-election activities that destroyed the laboratory conditions
    necessary for a fair and free election.               Following an evidentiary
    hearing, the ALJ issued a report and recommendation that Laurel
    Baye’s objections be overruled in their entirety.                     Laurel Baye
    filed exceptions to the hearing officer’s decision and, on June 27,
    2005,     the    Board    issued      a    Decision     and   Certification    of
    Representative, adopting the ALJ’s findings and recommendations and
    certifying      Local    1996   as   the   exclusive     collective    bargaining
    representative for the unit.
    In    order   to    obtain      further   review    of   the   certification
    decision, Laurel Baye thereafter refused to recognize and bargain
    with Local 1996, or to furnish information requested by Local 1996
    in its role as bargaining representative, prompting Local 1996 to
    file an unfair labor practice charge with the Board.                  The Board’s
    General Counsel issued a complaint against Laurel Baye, alleging
    violations of § 8(a)(5) and § 8(a)(1) of the Act.1
    1
    Section 8(a)(5) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice
    for an employer “to refuse to bargain collectively with the
    representatives of his employees.”      
    29 U.S.C.A. § 158
    (a)(5).
    Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an
    employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
    exercise of [their protected] rights.” 
    29 U.S.C.A. § 158
    (a)(1).
    Because an employer cannot obtain direct review of a Board’s
    certification, a refusal to bargain is the “proper path to judicial
    review of the Board’s election decision.” Rosslyn Concrete Constr.
    4
    In response, Laurel Baye admitted its refusal to bargain and
    to furnish information, but again contested the validity of Local
    1996’s certification based on its earlier objections.                 In response
    to the General Counsel’s motion for summary judgment, Laurel Baye
    asserted   an   additional   claim     that,      because     Local    1996    had
    disaffiliated   from   the   AFL-CIO       on   July   29,   2005,     after   the
    election, an evidentiary hearing should be held to explore the
    continued validity of Local 1996’s certification as the employees’
    bargaining representative. The Board granted the General Counsel’s
    motion for summary judgment, ordering Laurel Baye to bargain with
    Local 1996 and to furnish the requested information.                 Laurel Baye
    then filed this petition for review, and the Board filed the cross
    petition for enforcement.
    II.
    We begin with Laurel Baye’s challenge to the validity of the
    election   based   upon   the   alleged         destruction    of     laboratory
    conditions by agents and other supporters of Local 1996.                   It is
    well settled that the Board is vested “with a wide degree of
    discretion in establishing the procedure and safeguards necessary
    to insure the fair and free choice of bargaining representatives by
    employees” through an election.        NLRB v. A.J. Tower Co., 
    329 U.S. 324
    , 330 (1946); see NLRB v. Kentucky Tennessee Clay Co., 295 F.3d
    Co. v. NLRB, 
    713 F.2d 61
    , 63 n.1 (4th Cir. 1983).
    5
    436, 441 (4th Cir. 2002).     “The results of an NLRB-supervised
    representative election are presumptively valid, and we must uphold
    findings and conclusions of the Board so long as the decision is
    reasonable and based upon substantial evidence in the record
    considered as a whole.”     Kentucky Tennessee, 295 F.3d at 441
    (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted).
    However, “because the employees’ right to exercise a fair and
    free choice in a representation election is the mandate, elections
    must be conducted in laboratory conditions, free from behavior that
    improperly influences the outcome.”   Id. (internal quotation marks
    and citations omitted); see also NLRB v. Georgetown Dress Corp.,
    
    537 F.2d 1239
    , 1242 (4th Cir. 1976).    The employer may rebut the
    presumption that the election is valid, but only if it presents
    “specific evidence not only that the alleged acts of interference
    occurred but also that such acts sufficiently inhibited the free
    choice of employees as to affect materially the results of the
    election.”   Overnite Transp. Co. v. NLRB, 
    294 F.3d 615
    , 623 (4th
    Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also NLRB v.
    Urban Tel. Corp., 
    499 F.2d 239
    , 242 (7th Cir. 1974) (“For conduct
    to warrant setting aside an election, not only must the conduct be
    coercive, but it must be so related to the election as to have had
    a probable effect upon the employees’ actions at the polls.”).
    In evaluating a challenge to the “laboratory conditions” of an
    election, “the source of the [coercive or threatening] behavior is
    6
    an important consideration.”           Kentucky Tennessee, 295 F.3d at 441.
    “[A]n election will be set aside for improper conduct by a union or
    union agents when threats, acts of coercion, or other improprieties
    occurred and ‘materially affected the election results.’”                 Id. at
    442 (quoting NLRB v. Herbert Halperin Distr. Corp., 
    826 F.2d 287
    ,
    290 (4th Cir. 1987)).     But an election will be set aside for third-
    party   conduct   “only    if    the    election   was   held    in   a   general
    atmosphere of confusion, violence, and threats of violence, such as
    might reasonably be expected to generate anxiety and fear of
    reprisal, to render impossible a rational uncoerced expression of
    choice as to bargaining representation.”            
    Id.
     (internal quotation
    marks omitted).
    A.
    In its challenge to the election conditions, Laurel Baye
    claims that two of its former employees, CNA Patricia Cunningham
    and CNA Melissa Lott, were acting as union agents during the
    critical pre-election time period and, in that capacity, directly
    threatened three management employees and one unit employee and
    generally   engaged   in        threatening    speech    in     the   workplace.
    According to Laurel Baye, the actions of Lott and Cunningham,
    exacerbated by three additional “threatening” incidents on the part
    of other persons, destroyed the laboratory conditions to such a
    degree that it interfered with the unit employees’ ability to make
    a free and reasoned choice in the election.
    7
    We begin with the alleged conduct of Lott and Cunningham.
    Approximately two weeks after Local 1996 filed its petition for
    representation, Cunningham was suspended from employment pending an
    investigation of insubordination, and Lott was terminated from
    employment.      Between ten and thirty minutes after her termination,
    Lott called Kristal Randolph in the Human Resources office and
    requested her final paycheck.2           Randolph could hear Cunningham
    speaking in the background.       At some point during the call, the
    conversation turned to Courtney Bell, Laurel Baye’s Human Resources
    Coordinator.       Randolph testified that Lott and Cunningham “made
    threats to [Bell],” claiming that “they were wrongfully terminated,
    . . . that they knew where [Bell’s] grandmother lived . . . [and]
    mom lived, and that they would come after her,” or send someone
    else “after her, too.”       J.A. 99.    In addition, Cunningham called
    out to Randolph, “this is Patricia, let her know that I’m going to
    get her,” J.A. 99, and “tell that bitch that I’m going to fuck her
    up.”       J.A. 100.    The women also mentioned Charles James, the
    Assistant Director of Nursing, and Nancy Levin, the Director of
    Nursing, telling Randolph “they’re going to get them, too.”        J.A.
    101.       The telephone call lasted approximately five minutes.
    2
    Randolph was a member of management until mid to late
    September, when her position changed to Medical Records Clerk,
    which is a unit position. Although it is unclear whether she was
    a unit employee or management employee on the day of the call, she
    was a unit employee at the time of the election.
    8
    Randolph     immediately     informed    Bell   and    other    members    of
    management about the telephone call and, after an unsuccessful
    attempt to file a report at the police station, Bell called the
    police and her parents from a phone at the nurse’s station and
    reported the threats.          Several unit employees in the area were
    close enough to overhear Bell reporting the substance of the
    telephone calls and were aware that a police officer came to the
    facility to prepare a report of the incident.                    Cunningham was
    terminated the following day. There is no evidence that Local 1996
    or the upcoming election was mentioned in conjunction with this
    incident.     However,    Local     1996     officials     did    point   to    the
    terminations of Lott, Cunningham, and three additional employees as
    examples of employer action necessitating union representation in
    the Laurel Baye workforce.
    Laurel Baye also presented testimony that, prior to their
    terminations,     Lott   and    Cunningham    wore   Union       insignia,     told
    employees that “either you’re with us or you’re against us” when
    walking in the halls, J.A. 144, and were overheard commenting, when
    discussing word of an anonymous call made to a management employee,
    “now things are getting started.” J.A. 229.                      There was also
    testimony that Lott or Cunningham called CNA Alicia Earls, who is
    related to Lott, a “bitch” and “Uncle Tom” upon discovering that
    Earls, in the course of a routine breakfast pick-up, returned with
    breakfast   for   supervisors     as   well   as   unit    employees.        Earls
    9
    testified   at   the   hearing    but     was   not   questioned      about   this
    incident.   Although she testified that she did not vote in the
    election, she also testified that she was not working that day.
    She did not testify that she refrained from voting because of this
    name-calling incident.
    The threatening behavior of Lott and Cunningham, Laurel Baye
    argues,   was    exacerbated     by   three     additional    incidents       which
    occurred during the pre-election time period.              First, in September
    2004, Robert White, an outside contractor who handled housekeeping
    in the Laurel Baye facility, informed management that he received
    a threatening telephone call at his home from an anonymous caller
    claiming to be associated with the union.                 Apparently White had
    posted a sign prohibiting solicitation of housekeeping employees
    during working hours.      White did not testify at the hearing, but
    Bell testified that White mentioned an anonymous caller told him
    “that they didn’t know why he was getting involved, that the
    situation did not involve him, . . . and that he just needed to
    stay out of it.”    J.A. 293.     Alicia Earls also testified that White
    told her he had received a threatening call, but provided no
    details about the call.
    Second,     Brenda   Walker,     a      management    employee    in     staff
    development, testified that, approximately one week before the
    election, she told a group of employees that a union had not
    delivered on its promises to her family members and emphasized to
    10
    the employees the importance of being educated about the union.              A
    few days later, Walker received a telephone call from an anonymous
    caller who asked her, “[W]ho told you to make that speech?”             Walker
    was warned that, “[I]f you know what’s good for you, you’ll mind
    your own business.”        J.A. 139. Walker hung up on the caller and
    reported the threat to the police.
    In the final incident, Activities Director Wendy Schrilla
    testified     that   CNA    Deborah   Cuffy   reported     that     a    union
    representative called her at home and eventually came to her home
    around 9 p.m. on a Sunday night.            Cuffy did not testify, but
    Schrilla     testified     that   Cuffy    said   she    told     the    union
    representative she was not interested, and, when they persisted,
    Cuffy’s husband informed Cuffy “that was enough of this.”                J.A.
    243.      Cuffy resigned her employment after this incident, but
    Schrilla testified that Cuffy did not provide a reason to her.
    Union organizer Taylor admitted that he visited Cuffy at her home,
    but there was no evidence that Taylor or anyone else engaged in
    threatening or coercive behavior towards Cuffy or that Cuffy quit
    her job because of union harassment.
    B.
    To evaluate whether an agency relationship exists between a
    company employee and a union, we apply the general common law of
    agency as developed by the Act.        See Kentucky Tennessee, 295 F.3d
    at 442.     “‘[T]he question of whether the specific acts performed
    11
    were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be
    controlling.’”       Id. (quoting Georgetown Dress, 
    537 F.2d at 1244
    ).
    “Rather, ‘[t]he final inquiry is always whether the amount of
    association between the [u]nion and the [employee organizers] is
    significant       enough    to   justify    charging    the    [u]nion     with   the
    conduct.’”      
    Id.
     (quoting PPG Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 
    671 F.2d 817
    ,
    822 n.8 (4th Cir. 1982)).
    In an affidavit signed October 7, 2004, Eric Taylor, Local
    1996’s Organizing Director, stated that “Cunningham, Lott, and [one
    additional person] were our ‘Committee’ and attended every meeting”
    and that “[o]ther employees clearly saw these employees as leaders
    of the [u]nion campaign.”             J.A. 375.    At the hearing, however,
    Taylor recanted, denying that Lott and Cunningham were agents of
    Local 1996 or leaders of the campaign, and referring to them as
    simply   “key      employees     that   attended       some    meetings”    in    the
    organizing effort.         J.A. 93.
    The ALJ recognized that “Taylor had previously described Lott
    and Cunningham as leaders of the organizing campaign and on the
    [Local 1996’s] Committee,” but found “no evidence that other
    employees regarded Lott and Cunningham as the leaders of the
    organizing campaign or that [Local 1996] ever held them out to
    employees    as    its     agents.”     J.A.    469.     The    ALJ   additionally
    concluded that the alleged threats did not justify setting aside
    the election.
    12
    On   review,   the    Board   affirmed    the    ALJ’s    findings   and
    conclusions.    With regard to the agency question, the Board also
    concluded that Laurel Baye had failed to establish that Lott and
    Cunningham were actual or apparent agents of Local 1996. The Board
    found that neither the threats by Lott and Cunningham, nor the
    anonymous threats to Brenda Walker and Robert White, rose “to the
    level of objectionable conduct because the Employer failed to show
    that the threats individually or cumulatively created a general
    atmosphere of fear and coercion.”         J.A. 518.
    Having reviewed the record and the findings of the Board, we
    find it unnecessary to consider the import of Taylor’s troublesome
    and at least facially contradictory assertions regarding the status
    of Lott and Cunningham, or the question of whether and under what
    circumstances   Lott      and   Cunningham    crossed   over    from   being
    disgruntled former employees to union agents.             Rather, we must
    uphold the Board’s findings and conclusions because, even if Lott
    and Cunningham could be considered agents of Local 1996 based upon
    their pre-termination activities or the union’s later ratification
    of their actions, the alleged coercive and threatening conduct
    relied upon by Laurel Baye is woefully insufficient to prove that
    “the free exchange of ideas on unionization among the employees”
    was stifled “so as to materially affect the election results.”
    13
    Kentucky Tennessee, 295 F.3d at 445 (internal quotation marks and
    alteration omitted).3
    As an initial premise, we note that the vast majority of the
    challenged conduct on the part of Lott and Cunningham consisted of
    relatively vague threats made against management officials in a
    single, five-minute telephone call placed within thirty minutes of
    disciplinary action being taken against them.            No mention was made
    of the union or the upcoming election at the time, and the
    telephone call preceded the election by more than two months.
    Although there is evidence that Bell repeated the threat in an area
    where unit employees may have overheard it, there is no evidence
    that Lott or Cunningham repeated the threat against management to
    any unit employee or that they directed any threat to a unit
    employee.     In short, the evidence reveals that the telephone call
    and the threats against management officials arose out of an
    entirely personal dispute between Lott and Cunningham, on the one
    hand, and management officials, on the other, resulting from
    adverse employment actions taken against Lott and Cunningham. And,
    there    is   no   evidence   that   the    threats   impacted   the   election
    results, which the union won by a four-to-one margin.
    3
    Although Laurel Baye relies upon all incidents in support of
    its invalidation claim, counsel for Laurel Baye agreed at oral
    argument that they cannot prevail under the third-party standard
    and, therefore, must establish that Cunningham and Lott were agents
    to set aside the election results.
    14
    The incident between Lott, Cunningham, and Earls was likewise
    isolated in nature and, given Earls’ familial relationship to Lott,
    could easily be viewed as more personal in nature than related to
    the union.    Indeed, there is no evidence as to whether Earls
    actually supported or opposed the union; rather, Cunningham           and
    Lott were simply angry because Earls had brought breakfast to
    unnamed supervisors.    We frankly do not construe the “with us or
    without us” comments as threatening either, but even viewed in
    their most damaging light, the sole evidence of comments directed
    at unit employees collectively amounts to little more than name-
    calling and innocuous posturing.        More importantly, there is no
    evidence that Earls or any other unit employee abstained from
    voting or voted differently because of these incidents.
    The additional incidents pointed to by Laurel Baye, even
    considered cumulatively with the telephone call, likewise fail to
    render invalidation of the election appropriate, as none rise to
    the level of threatening or coercive behavior sufficient to inhibit
    the electorate’s fair and free choice at the election.                The
    telephone calls to Walker and White, a management employee and
    outside   contractor,   respectively,   were   isolated   incidents   and
    anonymously made.   There is no evidence that they were placed by
    Lott or Cunningham, or any other union official.            Evidence of
    dissemination of these alleged “threats” was limited, and there is
    no evidence that any unit employee abstained from voting or voted
    15
    against unionization as a result.           Similarly, although there is
    evidence that Cuffy quit her job after a union official visited her
    home, there is no evidence that her decision to quit was motivated
    by behavior that she viewed to be threatening.
    For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Laurel Baye failed
    to rebut the presumption that the election was valid and uphold the
    Board’s rejection of Laurel Baye’s challenge to the election in
    this proceeding.
    III.
    We turn briefly to consider Laurel Baye’s claim that it may be
    justified in refusing to bargain with Local 1996 because, on
    August 1, 2005, after the Board certified Local 1996 as the
    exclusive bargaining representative for the unit, it disaffiliated
    from the AFL-CIO and joined with other local unions to form the
    organization “Change to Win.” Laurel Baye contends that the Change
    to Win union is a materially different labor organization from the
    AFL-CIO and the Board erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary
    hearing   to   explore   the   issue   of    whether   the   current   labor
    organization is the same organization approved by the electorate
    and certified by the Board in the underlying representation case.
    The Board ruled that a hearing was unnecessary because Local
    1996's    disaffiliation   from    the      AFL-CIO,   without   more,    is
    insufficient to raise a genuine issue as to the continuity of the
    identity of the certified bargaining representative, see NLRB v.
    16
    Harris-Woodson Co., 
    179 F.2d 720
    , 722-23 (4th Cir. 1950) (noting
    that the employees’ choice of a local union as their bargaining
    representative “was not affected by its change either of name or
    affiliation”); see also NLRB v. Wayerhaeuser Co., 
    276 F.2d 865
    , 873
    (7th   Cir.   1960)   (holding   that    “[a]   mere   change   of   name   or
    disaffiliation with the AFL-CIO is not sufficient” to raise doubts
    about the identity of a certified bargaining representative), and
    because, in any event, the disaffiliation came after Laurel Baye
    refused to bargain as ordered.
    On appeal, Laurel Baye has pointed to no authority in support
    of its position, nor any argument beyond mere disaffiliation as the
    basis for its request.       Accordingly, we find no error in the
    Board’s rejection of Laurel Baye’s request.
    IV.
    For the foregoing reasons, we deny Laurel Baye’s petition for
    review and grant the Board’s cross-application for enforcement.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED AND
    CROSS-APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT
    GRANTED
    17