NLRB v. Midwestern Personnel ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    ____________
    No. 06-2836
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    MIDWESTERN PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC.,
    Respondent.
    ____________
    On Petition for Enforcement of an Order
    of the National Labor Relations Board.
    Nos. 25-CA-25503-2, 25-CA-25823-3 &
    25-CA-25978-5
    ____________
    ARGUED JANUARY 11, 2007—DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 2007
    ____________
    Before BAUER, FLAUM and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
    ROVNER, Circuit Judge. After finding that Midwest-
    ern Personnel Services, Inc. (“Midwestern”) violated the
    National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the National
    Labor Relations Board (“Board”) ordered Midwestern to
    reinstate striking employees and to make each of them
    whole. The Board calculated the amount of back-pay
    Midwestern owed to each employee, and Midwestern
    disputed some of the findings. Midwestern also con-
    tended that it was denied due process during the compli-
    ance hearing. For the reasons stated below, we affirm
    the Board’s findings in all respects and grant the Board’s
    petition for enforcement of its order.
    2                                               No. 06-2836
    The facts of this case are set out in detail in our opinion
    enforcing the Board’s original order regarding reinstate-
    ment and back-pay. NLRB v. Midwestern Pers. Servs., Inc.,
    
    322 F.3d 969
    , 971-76 (7th Cir. 2003). Midwestern leased
    cement and transport truck drivers to various businesses
    from its locations in Indiana and Kentucky. The Board
    found that Midwestern violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
    NLRA, see 
    29 U.S.C. § 158
    (a)(1), by instructing employees
    to designate Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local
    Union No. 836 (“Local 836”) as their collective-bargaining
    representative and threatening them with discharge if
    they did not. See Midwestern Pers. Servs., Inc., 
    331 N.L.R.B. 348
     (2000). In addition, the Board found that
    Midwestern violated Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA, see
    
    29 U.S.C. § 158
    (a)(2), by assisting and supporting
    Local 836 and by recognizing it in the absence of the
    uncoerced support of a majority of employees. Thereafter,
    a majority of Midwestern’s employees expressed support
    for Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local Union
    No. 215 (“the Union”) as their collective-bargaining
    representative. After Midwestern refused to recognize and
    bargain with the Union, the employees engaged in a strike.
    The Board subsequently found that Midwestern vio-
    lated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA again by threatening
    employees with discipline, loss of employment, and legal
    action if they engaged in a strike. It also found that
    Midwestern violated Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the NLRA
    by failing and refusing to reinstate the strikers immedi-
    ately upon their unconditional offer to return to work. The
    Board directed Midwestern to offer reinstatement to all of
    the striking employees and to make each whole for any
    loss of earnings suffered as a result of Midwestern’s
    unlawful conduct. We entered judgment enforcing the
    Board’s order in full. Midwestern, 
    322 F.3d at 972
    .
    The Board then instituted compliance proceedings to
    determine the amount of back-pay due and to consider
    No. 06-2836                                              3
    Midwestern’s other contentions regarding compliance
    with the enforced order. See 
    29 C.F.R. §§ 102.52-102.59
    .
    The Board issued a compliance specification alleging the
    amount of back-pay due to twenty-six discriminatees.
    The Board held a three-day hearing before an adminis-
    trative law judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ determined the
    specific amount of back-pay due each of the strikers,
    considering the nature of any interim employment secured
    and whether the employee had engaged in a reasonably
    diligent job search during periods of unemployment. The
    ALJ found that all affected discriminatees had met this
    standard for the back-pay periods. The ALJ tolled back-
    pay for periods in which particular discriminatees were
    unavailable for work or employed. Midwestern filed
    exceptions to the ALJ’s findings and conclusions. After
    considering Midwestern’s exceptions, the Board issued
    its Supplemental Decision and Order affirming the ALJ’s
    supplemental decision and adopting the ALJ’s order
    regarding the amount of back-pay due to the twenty-six
    discriminatees.
    Midwestern now contends that the Board’s Supple-
    mental Decision and Order should not be enforced as to
    eleven particular discriminatees. According to Midwest-
    ern, those eleven strikers did not satisfy their duty to
    mitigate their wage losses by making a reasonably dili-
    gent effort to secure interim employment, and the ALJ’s
    findings are not supported by substantial evidence.
    Midwestern also argues that it was denied due process
    during the administrative hearing. In the administrative
    proceedings, Midwestern did not challenge the ALJ’s
    findings with respect to fourteen of the twenty-six employ-
    ees, and it has since conceded that one other employee,
    Wade Carter, made a good faith effort to secure other
    employment. Therefore, we summarily affirm the Board’s
    order with respect to the fifteen employees whose back-
    pay awards are unchallenged, see 
    29 U.S.C. § 160
    (e);
    4                                             No. 06-2836
    Masiongale Elec.-Mech., Inc. v. NLRB, 
    323 F.3d 546
    , 557
    (7th Cir. 2003), and address the other eleven employees
    in turn. For the reasons given below, we find that the
    factual findings made by the ALJ and the Board are
    supported by substantial evidence and that the order
    for back-pay should be enforced.
    A.
    Midwestern first argues that the Board misapplied the
    law when it rejected Midwestern’s mitigation defense. The
    Board’s findings on this defense, Midwestern asserts, are
    not supported by substantial evidence. The NLRA autho-
    rizes the Board to fashion appropriate remedial orders
    to correct the effects of unfair labor practices. 
    29 U.S.C. § 160
    (c). The Board may order affirmative action includ-
    ing reinstatement, with or without back-pay, to effectuate
    the NLRA’s policies. See Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 
    467 U.S. 883
    , 898-99 (1984); NLRB v. United Contractors, Inc., 
    614 F.2d 134
    , 136 (7th Cir. 1980). The Board’s exercise of its
    discretion in formulating such remedies is subject to
    only limited judicial review. See Fibreboard Corp. v.
    NLRB, 
    379 U.S. 203
    , 216 (1964); J. Huizinga Cartage Co.
    v. NLRB, 
    941 F.2d 616
    , 622 (7th Cir. 1991). We will
    affirm and enforce the Board’s findings if they are sup-
    ported by substantial evidence and if the Board’s con-
    clusions have a reasonable basis in law. FedEx Freight E.,
    Inc. v. NLRB, 
    431 F.3d 1019
    , 1025 (7th Cir. 2005); Del Rey
    Tortilleria, Inc. v. NLRB, 
    976 F.2d 1115
    , 1118 (7th Cir.
    1992). The substantial evidence test “requires not the
    degree of evidence which satisfies the court that the
    requisite fact exists, but merely the degree that could
    satisfy the reasonable fact finder.” FedEx, 431 F.3d at
    1025-26 (quoting ATC Vancom of Cal. v. NLRB, 
    370 F.3d 692
    , 695 (7th Cir. 2004)) (emphasis in original).
    No. 06-2836                                               5
    Discriminatees are required to mitigate their damages
    by seeking interim employment after an unlawful dis-
    charge. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 
    313 U.S. 177
    , 198-
    200 (1941). However, discriminatees are only required
    to make an “honest good faith effort” to seek other em-
    ployment. Golay & Co. v. NLRB, 
    447 F.2d 290
    , 295 (7th
    Cir. 1971); NLRB v. Int’l. Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 
    992 F.2d 990
    , 993 (9th Cir. 1993). And discriminatees need only
    follow their customary method for obtaining work, and
    need only seek interim employment that is “substantially
    equivalent” to their previous positions. Ferguson Elec. Co.,
    
    330 N.L.R.B. 514
    , 518 (2000), overruled in irrelevant part
    by Oil Capitol Sheet Metal, Inc., No. 17-CA-19714, 2007
    N.L.R.B. LEXIS 203 (May 31, 2007). Midwestern has
    the burden of demonstrating that the challenged employ-
    ees were not making adequate efforts to mitigate their
    damages by securing other employment. See Graefenhain
    v. Pabst Brewing Co., 
    870 F.2d 1198
    , 1203 n.3 (7th Cir.
    1989); Sprogis v. United Airlines, Inc., 
    517 F.2d 387
    , 392
    (7th Cir. 1975). Moreover, the finding of an unfair labor
    practice is presumptive proof that some back-pay is owed.
    NLRB v. NHE/Freeway, Inc., 
    545 F.2d 592
    , 593 (7th Cir.
    1976).
    The discriminatees commenced an unfair labor prac-
    tices strike on January 17, 1998. The back-pay period
    began on March 27, 1998, when the Union made an
    unconditional offer to return to work on behalf of the
    strikers, and Midwestern refused to reinstate them. The
    back-pay period ended on December 31, 1999, when
    Midwestern ceased doing business in the area.
    1. Henry Langdon
    Midwestern contends that Langdon failed to mitigate his
    damages throughout the entire back-pay period and
    therefore is not entitled to any back-pay. Midwestern
    6                                            No. 06-2836
    asserts that Langdon relied solely on the Union’s looking-
    for-work list, which provided him with only brief and
    sporadic employment opportunities.
    Most of the discriminatees used the Union’s looking-for-
    work list as a way of finding other employment during
    the back-pay period. The Union provided listings of
    available opportunities to work as truck drivers in the
    construction industry. In order to use the list, the
    discriminatees were required to sign the list at least
    every 30 days.
    Immediately after Midwestern refused to reinstate
    Langdon, he signed onto the list. He secured six jobs
    in 1998 through the list, one of which lasted six months.
    The record also shows that Langdon did not rely solely on
    the Union’s list. Langdon did seek and obtained other
    work on his own, including one job that was more diffi-
    cult than the one he held while employed by Midwestern
    because it required prolonged periods away from home.
    See Kawasaki Motors Mfg. Corp. v. NLRB, 
    850 F.2d 524
    ,
    528 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that discriminatee need
    only seek employment “substantially equivalent to”
    former job and is not required to “seek or retain a job
    more onerous than the job from which he or she was
    discharged”). Langdon also registered with the Indiana
    unemployment agency, and registering with a state
    unemployment agency is prima facie evidence of a rea-
    sonable job search. See Golay, 
    447 F.2d at 295
    ; Allegheny
    Graphics, 
    320 N.L.R.B. 1141
    , 1145 (1996). Ultimately,
    however, work obtained through the Union’s list provided
    sufficient employment for Langdon and several other
    discriminatees throughout the back-pay period. The Board
    has held that seeking employment through a union’s
    referral system may constitute a reasonably diligent
    search. See Big Three Indus. Gas & Equip. Co., 
    263 N.L.R.B. 1189
    , 1198 (1982). Therefore, substantial evi-
    dence supports the Board’s finding that Langdon was
    No. 06-2836                                             7
    reasonably diligent in his efforts to mitigate his wage
    losses.
    2. Gregory Harris
    Midwestern claims that Harris also did not attempt to
    seek employment except through the Union list during
    the fourth quarter of 1998 and the first quarter of 1999
    and is thus not entitled to any back-pay during this time.
    Midwestern also asserts that Harris is not entitled to
    back-pay following his employment at DMI Furniture,
    which he voluntarily quit during the second quarter of
    1999.
    Harris, like Langdon, sought and obtained work from
    the Union’s list, as well as other sources, throughout
    the back-pay period. Harris applied for jobs he found
    on his own, through friends, and with the help of the
    Indiana unemployment agency’s veteran’s assistance
    program. The job he left required him to cut timber,
    which was more dangerous than the position he held at
    Midwestern. See Kawasaki, 
    850 F.2d at 529
    . Substantial
    evidence therefore supports the finding that Harris
    fulfilled his duty to mitigate damages.
    3. Randy Leinenbach
    Midwestern asserts that Leinenback failed to mitigate
    his damages throughout the back-pay period and is
    therefore entitled to no back-pay. Midwestern also chal-
    lenges Leinenbach’s lack of response to its recall offer.
    Leinenbach applied for work through the state unem-
    ployment office and independently made other applica-
    tions throughout the back-pay period. Leinenbach person-
    ally asked the owners of several small trucking companies
    on numerous occasions for a job as a driver. He also was
    8                                              No. 06-2836
    self-employed, detailing trucks, and in 1999, working
    for his parents’ company in the same capacity. The fact
    that Leinenbach initially was unsuccessful at obtaining
    work does not establish that he failed to conduct a search
    with reasonable diligence, see Chem Fab Corp, 
    275 N.L.R.B. 21
    , 21 (1985), and Midwestern has submitted no
    evidence to show that Leinenbach failed to seek employ-
    ment adequately. See NLRB v. Mastro Plastics Corp., 
    354 F.2d 170
    , 179 (2d Cir. 1965) (“Unless in taking substan-
    tially equivalent or self-employment the discriminatee
    willfully forewent greater earnings, his back pay should
    not be reduced beyond the interim earnings he in fact
    received.”). Finally, Leinenbach was not obliged to re-
    spond to Midwestern’s recall offer because the undis-
    puted finding of the Board was that the position offered
    was not equivalent to his previous one. See Clean Soils,
    Inc., 
    317 N.L.R.B. 99
    , 110 (1995). Thus, substantial
    evidence supports the Board’s findings as to Leinenbach.
    4. Scott Taylor
    Midwestern asserts that Taylor did not mitigate his
    damages during a six-month period during the fall quarter
    of 1998 and the first quarter of 1999, and that he was
    unable to identify any job search he made during this
    time. The record does not bear Midwestern out. Taylor
    recalled eight specific employers to whom he applied,
    either on his own or through the Indiana unemployment
    agency, during the relevant six-month period—a difficult
    season for construction work. See Local 3, IBEW, 
    315 N.L.R.B. 1266
    , 1266 (1995) (“The sufficiency of a discrim-
    inatee’s efforts to mitigate back-pay are determined with
    respect to the back-pay period as a whole and not based on
    isolated portions of the back-pay period.”). In addition, he
    obtained a position with Sterling Boilers during this
    time. In the second quarter of 1999, Taylor secured
    No. 06-2836                                             9
    employment with Concrete Supply and continued to work
    there throughout the remainder of the back-pay period.
    Substantial evidence therefore supports the finding that
    Taylor made a reasonably diligent search for employment.
    5. Randall Underhill
    Midwestern contends that Underhill is not entitled to
    any back-pay for the second, third, and fourth quarters of
    1999 after he turned down its offer to work at the
    Owensboro plant. Underhill explained that he declined
    the position because he lacked access to transportation.
    Midwestern asserts that this explanation establishes
    that Underhill had removed himself from the job market
    at that time.
    As the Board found, Midwestern’s offer was not a valid
    offer of reinstatement. Midwestern’s letter offered em-
    ployment only at the Owensboro plant, but Underhill had
    previously worked at the Boonville plant, which was
    within walking distance of his home. The offer also
    would require that Underhill work at a lower rate of pay
    with no seniority and no insurance. Therefore, the posi-
    tion was not substantially equivalent to the one Underhill
    held before the strike, and Underhill was under no obliga-
    tion to accept it. See Clean Soils, 317 N.L.R.B. at 110.
    Moreover, Underhill did continue to seek other employ-
    ment throughout the challenged period, and successfully
    found work with one employer at that time. Substantial
    evidence supports the Board’s award to Underhill.
    6. David Wyatt
    Midwestern contends that Wyatt failed to mitigate his
    damages throughout all four quarters of 1999. Midwestern
    asserts that Wyatt relied only on the Union list for that
    10                                           No. 06-2836
    period and in addition failed to accept its offer of rein-
    statement in the second quarter of 1999. The record
    demonstrates, however, that Wyatt sought work through
    the Union list, the Indiana unemployment agency, and
    his own job applications. Wyatt specifically recalled the
    names of ten employers where he sought work. Finally,
    Midwestern’s offer of reinstatement did not offer Wyatt
    substantially equivalent employment; therefore Wyatt
    was not obliged to accept it, and substantial evidence
    supports the Board’s findings.
    7. Gerald Fickas
    Midwestern claims that Fickas failed to mitigate his
    damages during the second, third, and fourth quarters of
    1998 and the first quarter of 1999. Again, the record does
    not support Midwestern’s claim. Fickas searched for
    work through the Union’s list, friends, and want ads in
    the local newspaper. He submitted at least one applica-
    tion on his own before the Union referred him to a job
    that he accepted with D. J. Transportation. When work
    dried up there, Fickas went to work for J. H. Rudolph.
    Fickas was subsequently laid off during the rainy season;
    he returned to D. J. Transportation and worked for that
    company until he was recalled by J. H. Rudolph. These
    efforts demonstrate reasonable diligence and support
    the Board’s ruling.
    8. Robert Linendoll
    Midwestern contends that Linendoll removed himself
    from the job market in the fourth quarter of 1998 because
    he did not remain on the Union list, and as a result is
    not entitled to back-pay for that quarter. However, the
    record shows that Linendoll did continue to seek employ-
    ment through the Union’s list and on his own, and in
    No. 06-2836                                            11
    fact worked two different jobs during this time. Contrary
    to Midwestern’s claim, Linendoll did remain in contact
    with the Union during the period he was seeking em-
    ployment. The one exception is for a three-week vacation
    which Linendoll took, and the Board subtracted from his
    back-pay award to account for this. Thus, substantial
    evidence supports the Board’s findings.
    9. Christopher Pentecost
    Midwestern claims that Pentecost failed to mitigate his
    damages during the entire back-pay period. The record
    does not support Midwestern’s assertion and instead
    reveals that Pentecost successfully obtained jobs through
    the Union’s list, as well as on his own and with the help
    of relatives, all while working other menial jobs, includ-
    ing trash collecting at farms. He also registered with the
    state unemployment agency and looked for work from
    other union halls. See Amshu Assocs., Inc., 
    234 N.L.R.B. 791
    , 794 (1978) (discriminatee made reasonably diligent
    search for work where he consulted friends, relatives,
    associates; contacted local union; registered with state
    unemployment agency; responded to help wanted ads).
    This evidence supports the Board’s finding that Pentecost
    exercised reasonable diligence.
    10. Gary Williams
    Midwestern claims that Williams failed to mitigate his
    damages during the entire back-pay period. Midwestern
    argues that because Williams only sought work outside
    the trucking industry, earning less than what he made
    working for Midwestern, it should not be required to make
    up the difference. The record shows that Williams con-
    tinued to work as a truck driver during the back-pay
    period and took lower-paying positions only when he failed
    12                                              No. 06-2836
    to find better work. Moreover, he never stopped looking
    for higher-paying positions and switched jobs to obtain
    higher wages. In any event, the Board has established that
    an employee “who accepts appropriate employment at
    lower pay is not required to search for a better job.” Tilden
    Arms Mgmt. Co., 
    307 N.L.R.B. 13
    , 15 (1992); see also
    Sioux Falls Stock Yards, 
    236 N.L.R.B. 543
    , 570 (1978).
    The evidence supports the Board’s decision regarding
    Williams.
    11. Timothy Cronin
    Midwestern argues that Cronin voluntarily quit his
    employment at J. H. Rudolph in the third quarter of 1998
    and is not entitled to any back-pay for the period thereaf-
    ter. However, the record shows that Cronin was frustrated
    working for J. H. Rudolph because changes in weather
    meant that the quantity of work he was able to obtain
    fluctuated drastically. Cronin quit his job to pursue
    steadier work closer to home, where he was guaranteed
    a forty-hour work week. He continued to seek other
    work while employed, and eventually found a job that
    paid him a higher wage. This evidence provided adequate
    support for the Board’s award to Cronin.
    B.
    Midwestern next contends that the ALJ and the Board
    deprived it of administrative due process by refusing to
    allow it to present evidence relevant to the mitigation
    issue. Midwestern complains that the ALJ unreasonably
    restricted testimony by its expert witness, Dr. Malcolm
    Cohen, not allowing it to expand upon his written report.
    Midwestern introduced evidence by its expert to
    show that work was plentiful in Indiana and Kentucky,
    No. 06-2836                                              13
    and therefore the challenged discriminatees failed to
    exercise reasonable diligence in seeking work. The ALJ cut
    short Cohen’s testimony at the compliance hearing
    when it appeared that he would offer no testimony that
    did not simply echo the findings in his report. The
    Board found that Midwestern failed to show that Cohen
    could have provided probative testimony beyond the
    contents of his report.
    Our review of the record convinces us that the ALJ was
    well within his discretion to limit the testimony as cumula-
    tive. See Tuf-Flex Glass v. NLRB, 
    715 F.2d 291
    , 298 (7th
    Cir. 1983). The transcript of the compliance hearing
    demonstrates that Midwestern had ample opportunity
    to question Cohen concerning any probative evidence not
    contained in his report. It is unclear even from Midwest-
    ern’s proffer of further testimony what Cohen could have
    said that would be relevant to the issues at hand. For
    example, the data collected was statewide, and thus the
    report did not provide specific data for the relevant
    geographical areas. In addition, Cohen’s analysis did not
    include any data regarding the pool of applicants, any
    insight into whether the discriminatees would have been
    able to secure positions had they applied, or any informa-
    tion regarding the hours, wages, and locations of the
    supposedly available positions. In general, it is reason-
    able for the Board to reject expert testimony regarding
    generalized labor market analysis as evidence that particu-
    lar discriminatees failed to perform a reasonably dili-
    gent search. See UFCW, Local 1357, 
    301 N.L.R.B. 617
    ,
    621 (1991); Delta Data Sys. Corp., 
    293 N.L.R.B. 736
    , 737
    (1989). Finally, Midwestern has not shown that it was
    prejudiced by the exclusion of the expert’s testimony. See
    Fisher v. Bowen, 
    869 F.2d 1055
    , 1057 (7th Cir. 1989)
    (remand not necessary “unless there is reason to believe
    that the remand might lead to a different result”).
    14                                           No. 06-2836
    For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the ALJ’s
    findings and decision, as adopted and modified by the
    Board, are supported by substantial evidence. The Board’s
    petition for enforcement of its order is GRANTED.
    A true Copy:
    Teste:
    ________________________________
    Clerk of the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    USCA-02-C-0072—11-8-07