[00:00:02] Speaker 04:
Case number 16-1265 at L, Urethor Technologies of America Corporation Petitioner versus National Labor Relations Board.

[00:00:11] Speaker 04:
Mr. McCormick for the petitioner, Mr. Hickson for the respondent.

[00:00:19] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
I'm Kevin McCormick.

[00:00:21] Speaker 01:
I represent the petitioner in this case, Oversight Technologies.

[00:00:25] Speaker 01:
We're here today for a couple of different issues because the petitioner is trying to set aside the unit determination and the certification that the NLRB made, and the NLRB is here cross-petitioning to enforce the untra-labor practices that have been found.

[00:00:38] Speaker 01:
I'd like to first argue, address the first issue, which is the unit determination.

[00:00:44] Speaker 01:
We believe that the NLRB and the ALJ got it wrong.

[00:00:48] Speaker 01:
They didn't follow their correct procedures in this case.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
As you know, it was a closely contested case.

[00:00:54] Speaker 01:
It was 108 votes for the union, 106 for the company, and there were three challenged ballots.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
One turned out not to be, it didn't have any merit, but the two that are at issue in this case

[00:01:05] Speaker 01:
were two employees, Dittori and Sajwani, who were engineers and they were in the quality control department of Oberthorpe Technology.

[00:01:16] Speaker 01:
Now the question, and this is where I think the NLRB went off the rails on this, is the

[00:01:24] Speaker 01:
The Desert Palace standard, which is based on this court's pronouncement of associated milk producers, says that when you have a situation where you have a unit determination issue, you look at the clear language of the unit that's described in stipulation to determine whether or not it's confusing or it's ambiguous.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
And if it's not, then you accept the STIP that's been agreed to by the parties and approved by the regional director, and you proceed.

[00:01:52] Speaker 01:
In this particular case, we submit that the STIP was very clear that it included everyone in the quality control department, which included a number of different employees.

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
And it had two individuals.

[00:02:04] Speaker 01:
It actually had three.

[00:02:05] Speaker 01:
There were three engineers who were in that quality control department.

[00:02:10] Speaker 01:
Two of them were challenged, one wasn't.

[00:02:12] Speaker 01:
So the unit as we have right now has an engineer in the unit which we believe would be improper under any circumstance.

[00:02:21] Speaker 01:
But anyway, the three-prong test wasn't followed by the NLRB in this case.

[00:02:25] Speaker 01:
They ignored Desert Palace and they decided instead to simply carve out the two individuals who they determined to be professional engineers.

[00:02:37] Speaker 01:
We believe that's improper because under board precedent, particularly... Did you object to this at the time of the certification?

[00:02:47] Speaker 01:
We objected after the decision came down, but we didn't file objections to the election at the time because we weren't sure... Is that a fatal...

[00:02:57] Speaker 01:
I don't think so.

[00:02:58] Speaker 01:
I don't think so.

[00:02:58] Speaker 01:
I think in the dissent, Judge Miskimara indicated that the Techwell case doesn't really control on this one.

[00:03:06] Speaker 02:
He was in dissent in Techwell, though.

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
He was in dissent.

[00:03:10] Speaker 01:
He was, but he still has good argument, I believe.

[00:03:13] Speaker 02:
Yeah, but he noted even in his dissent that that might still be the rule, even though

[00:03:17] Speaker 01:
Well, sir, but the issue we had here on the – on the waiver point, if I just might say – I mean, it's easy to say in hindsight, well, we should have done this and that.

[00:03:25] Speaker 01:
I mean, we believe that these two individuals should have been included in the unit.

[00:03:28] Speaker 01:
Nobody raised the issue of professional status at all until the election.

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
And even at the election, when they challenged him on that, they allowed another one, Khalid Hassane, to continue.

[00:03:38] Speaker 01:
And he voted without objection.

[00:03:40] Speaker 01:
So at that juncture, it's kind of hard to say that we should have immediately invoked the sonotone procedures, and that's what we should have done in this case.

[00:03:48] Speaker 01:
We believe that if the board were to conclude that they were professional engineers and they shouldn't be in the unit, that under sonotone, what they would have done was rerun the election and give the two individuals who were deprived their right to vote in this election the opportunity to participate in that.

[00:04:05] Speaker 01:
So I don't believe it's a fatal... In any case, the Sunrise case, which we cite in our papers, is one where this precise issue was litigated and handled, and there's no evidence in that decision that anybody made any objections within seven days of the election.

[00:04:22] Speaker 01:
So I think that it's not a fatal defect in this particular case.

[00:04:27] Speaker 01:
The facts in this case are very unusual.

[00:04:30] Speaker 01:
In any event,

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
You know, we believe that the board should have followed the sonotone procedure if they determined that these individuals were engineers and they shouldn't be in the unit to give them an opportunity to vote.

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
There was also the other issue that the board didn't address was they're by all accounts, and there's no challenge to this,

[00:04:51] Speaker 01:
Khalid Hussein, who was another engineer in the QC department, voted.

[00:04:56] Speaker 01:
And no one challenged that.

[00:04:58] Speaker 01:
So at a very minimum, if the court, if the board is concerned about the propriety of the unit and having professionals and non-professionals in the unit, on that basis alone, we believe that the case should be remanded back so that these three individuals could be given the sonatone rights to decide if they want to be included in the unit or not.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
And that wasn't done in this case.

[00:05:19] Speaker 01:
Now, with regard to the other part, the petition to enforce, we believe that the board's test is substantial evidence and whether or not it's a substantial evidence to support their findings.

[00:05:31] Speaker 01:
And there's two basic issues in the case.

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
One had to do with comments by one supervisor about, I want you to work, and you shouldn't talk about union issues in work areas during work time.

[00:05:43] Speaker 01:
And the board from that decided that that was enough

[00:05:48] Speaker 01:
the environment for the election so that it was an unfair labor practice and that it would be a basis to set aside the election.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
We believe that it's taken way out of context.

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
There was one supervisor who made that comment.

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
The language, there are cases the board has filed in the past

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
Uarco and Wal-Mart, both of them, or actually, I'm sorry, it's Davison and Ourway, Seahourway, are cases where the board has said, and the courts have approved it, companies do have the right to remind people that they should be working during work time.

[00:06:21] Speaker 01:
And that we, in any event, we don't believe that those violations were sufficient enough to set aside an election.

[00:06:26] Speaker 03:
The other issue we had... Well, reminding somebody that they should be working during work time is a little bit different than what was alleged here and the board found here, right?

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
Well, I think what he said was... They singled out a type of speech.

[00:06:40] Speaker 03:
and it was forbidden, and that was the only type of non-work-related speech that was forbidden.

[00:06:45] Speaker 03:
That's the gravamen of the concern here.

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
He did tell not to talk about union issues in the workplace.

[00:06:53] Speaker 03:
And that was the only thing they couldn't talk about in the workplace.

[00:06:56] Speaker 01:
Well, I understand that.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
The second part of this has to do with the ULPs that were charged against Oberthorpe for

[00:07:05] Speaker 01:
delaying two types of discretionary pay increases.

[00:07:10] Speaker 01:
One was a spot bonus that the company had a policy of going around, there was no formula or set procedure.

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
If somebody did something that was extraordinary or something nice, they would give them a spot bonus of $50 or $100, whatever.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
purely discretionary.

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
The second were step increases that were available to certain employees as they worked up through their progression in the company.

[00:07:36] Speaker 01:
And those were discretionary as well, because there were some timelines on it, but it wasn't fixed like an annual increase that takes place on May 1st.

[00:07:44] Speaker 02:
Can we pause over this for a minute?

[00:07:45] Speaker 02:
The NLRB says that the spot growth bonuses had already been approved from Rural Coral and other employees.

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
and that the wage increase for Marrero had been approved, and that the wage increase for Dololowski, Jimenez-Perez, and Garcia

[00:08:08] Speaker 02:
had been previously scheduled.

[00:08:10] Speaker 02:
So even if any of these are discretionary, in this case, they had already been approved and or scheduled.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
Is that right?

[00:08:17] Speaker 01:
I believe it's correct, Your Honor.

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
But the problem we have still is the concern that the company had, which is to give any type of, whether it's scheduled or not, increase during the critical period of time before an election.

[00:08:27] Speaker 02:
That's a different matter.

[00:08:28] Speaker 02:
You were saying these are really discretionary.

[00:08:30] Speaker 02:
Maybe they given.

[00:08:31] Speaker 02:
Maybe they weren't.

[00:08:32] Speaker 02:
In this case,

[00:08:34] Speaker 02:
It had already been approved.

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
It was no longer as if you were making a decision during the period.

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
Well, it's true.

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
But there are cases, Your Honor, which found that even when you have announced an annual increase that comes in and the company comes back and says, no, we're not going to do that, that that can be a problem.

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
The concern that we had wasn't that we weren't going to pay it.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
And it's true that the language that was used to describe to the employees that these increases, the various increases were going to be put on hold, didn't have the magic words that the court looks at.

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
But if you look at the sum and substance of what was

[00:09:06] Speaker 01:
What was done, I would think that it isn't as fatal as the board would have.

[00:09:13] Speaker 02:
What sum and substance are you referring to?

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
The language that we, I mean I believe it was

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
Diane Ware, who had a memo out that was explaining that we couldn't make the payments because it would look as if we were buying votes at this time so they were going to be delayed.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
And that's exactly what happened.

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
This was the email that didn't get distributed to the employees at all.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
No, but it was distributed to the supervisors who in turn mentioned it to the employees that these were on hold.

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
It came up in two, at least one way, I know, because one of the employees... Let me just hold for one second.

[00:09:52] Speaker 02:
So the requirement, which doesn't require magic words, is at least to indicate that they're going to get the bonuses regardless of whether a union wins or the union loses, right?

[00:10:04] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[00:10:06] Speaker 02:
So I'm looking at the where email.

[00:10:08] Speaker 02:
And it says, and this is an email to, I guess, supervisors.

[00:10:14] Speaker 02:
It says in capitalized, please note, we cannot say things like it's because of the union.

[00:10:20] Speaker 02:
Hopefully, with the phrase during this period, employees will realize that it may be linked to unions.

[00:10:28] Speaker 02:
But we cannot draw that conclusion for them.

[00:10:30] Speaker 02:
So if this actually did go to the employees,

[00:10:34] Speaker 02:
wouldn't it look to an employee like you were saying that you vote for the union you don't get the wage increase.

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, you're correct.

[00:10:42] Speaker 01:
It was an email that went to supervisors, and the supervisors were supposed to relay that information.

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
But you're saying that this particular email is something we can rely on as satisfying the requirements for the exception.

[00:10:57] Speaker 02:
And if we relied on it, it would be against you, because it was focused very much on it's all because of the union.

[00:11:07] Speaker 01:
Well, it also had language in there explaining what they couldn't say, too, to make sure that the supervisors wouldn't say the incorrect item.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
It wasn't artfully phrased.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
It's true.

[00:11:18] Speaker 01:
So Your Honor, I think the relief we're looking for in this case is to have the case remanded back to the board.

[00:11:30] Speaker 01:
to reconsider this whole issue with the Sonetone election and the Desert Palace standard because we believe that the unit that's presently constituted, that the board is certified, is imperfect.

[00:11:43] Speaker 01:
Without any question, it has a quality control engineer in that group.

[00:11:48] Speaker 01:
Now, the board has said that quality control engineers are professional, and they shouldn't be in that group.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
So we believe that the case should be remanded so that that issue could be resolved at the STIP level, or a hearing could be held as to what would happen, and then have another election so that everyone could be done.

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
What the board did in this case was took a shortcut, which I think that, in sunrise, the board said you shouldn't do.

[00:12:14] Speaker 02:
OK, thank you.

[00:12:15] Speaker 02:
We'll hear from Melody.

[00:12:15] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:12:25] Speaker 05:
May it please the court, Michael Hickson for the NLRB.

[00:12:29] Speaker 05:
For the board, the company made two basic arguments about the election in this case.

[00:12:34] Speaker 05:
One of them was timely, and one of them was untimely.

[00:12:38] Speaker 05:
The timely argument, which dealt with the merits of the ballot challenges, was that the two challenge engineers, Mr. Torey and Mr. Sahajewani, were not professional employees.

[00:12:49] Speaker 05:
And on that argument, the company cannot prevail because substantial evidence supports the board's finding that they were, in fact, statutory professionals.

[00:12:57] Speaker 05:
And I'd like to talk a bit about that finding, if I could, before turning to the company's second and untimely alternative argument that if the board was right, that the two engineers were professionals, that the board should throw out the entire election and order a rerun.

[00:13:14] Speaker 05:
What the board did here in finding Mr. Tory and Mr. Sahajwani to be statutory professionals is precisely what it was supposed to do.

[00:13:23] Speaker 05:
It focused on the specific work duties of those two individuals and applied the factors identified in Section 212 of the Act, finding that each of those factors was satisfied.

[00:13:38] Speaker 05:
Substantial evidence supports the board's finding that their work requires knowledge of an advanced type.

[00:13:44] Speaker 05:
These two engineers do very specialized work.

[00:13:48] Speaker 05:
There's no one else in the plant that does what they do.

[00:13:52] Speaker 05:
Their supervisor, Mr. Blossack, testified, in fact, that he's only able to understand what they do and to evaluate their work because he himself has an engineering education and background.

[00:14:05] Speaker 05:
Each of these individuals holds three degrees from institutions of higher learning.

[00:14:10] Speaker 05:
Each of them, for each of them that would include a bachelor's in engineering as well as an engineering related master's degree.

[00:14:18] Speaker 05:
And it's totally uncontroverted based on the testimony from Mr. Tori, Mr. Sahajwani, as well as Mr. Blossack that without their very extensive education they could not do their jobs.

[00:14:31] Speaker 05:
The board also found, rightly, that their work is predominantly intellectual and varied and not routine or standardized.

[00:14:38] Speaker 05:
Their work consists primarily of the mental effort of applying their advanced knowledge, their advanced engineering knowledge, to concrete problems, opportunities in the workplace.

[00:14:50] Speaker 05:
And it's highly varied because they work across all departments.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
Mr. Hickson, because your opponent didn't really address this question and put most of his emphasis on the sonotone issue, maybe it would be better use of your time if you'd answer his question.

[00:15:06] Speaker 05:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:15:07] Speaker 05:
Certainly.

[00:15:09] Speaker 05:
Well, the board acted within its broad discretion in rejecting the company's alternative argument that if the two challenged engineers are professionals, the board should nullify the election, forcing all 229 employees to vote again so that Mr. Dottori and Mr. Sahajwani could vote using sonotone ballots.

[00:15:27] Speaker 05:
It's really important, I think, to appreciate the sequence of events here and how they unfolded with respect to the board's established principles and procedures in its representation in case law.

[00:15:39] Speaker 05:
The parties voluntarily entered into a stipulated election agreement and the regional director approved that stipulation.

[00:15:47] Speaker 05:
The regional director acted properly and the company does not contest this point.

[00:15:51] Speaker 05:
It's a very critical point.

[00:15:52] Speaker 05:
The regional director acted properly in approving the stipulation because under the board's settled principles, the regional director's role when the parties choose to enter into a

[00:16:02] Speaker 05:
pre-election stipulation is merely to review the document on its face and to approve it as long as it's facially valid, to disapprove it if it's facially invalid.

[00:16:14] Speaker 05:
The regional director then proceeded to conduct the conventional election that the parties asked for.

[00:16:21] Speaker 05:
And again, the regional director acted properly here because there was nothing to put the regional director on notice that there might have been professional employees in this unit.

[00:16:34] Speaker 05:
I should have mentioned this before.

[00:16:35] Speaker 05:
The stipulation, it defines, well first of all, it asks in identifying the ballot language.

[00:16:41] Speaker 05:
It clearly calls on the regional director to run a conventional election, a non-sonetone election, with the regular ballot questions that appear in a standard election.

[00:16:53] Speaker 05:
The unit is defined in terms of all full-time employees in, essentially, and it lists a number of departments.

[00:17:01] Speaker 05:
As the board found, rightly, there is nothing on the face of those stipulated terms to indicate that that unit might have included professional employees, along with the non-professionals.

[00:17:12] Speaker 05:
And as I noted, no one brought any other information, anything outside of the stipulation, to the regional director's attention prior to the election to put her on notice that there may have been professionals in this unit along with non-professionals.

[00:17:29] Speaker 05:
So there was no reason for the regional director to believe that there may have been any Section 9B1 problem here.

[00:17:37] Speaker 05:
During the election, the union challenged Mr. Torres and Mr. Sahajwani's ballots.

[00:17:42] Speaker 05:
The company did not challenge anyone's ballots, and critically, the company did not file any election objections within the deadline established by the board's rules, which is seven days from the tally of ballots.

[00:17:56] Speaker 05:
The tally of ballots was issued on the same day that the election was conducted, September 7th.

[00:18:03] Speaker 05:
And so the company had until September 14th to file

[00:18:06] Speaker 05:
objections either to conduct affecting the results of the election or objections to the conduct of the election itself.

[00:18:14] Speaker 05:
For example, asserting that the election was improperly conducted, in that Saniton ballots should have been provided to Mr. DeTore and Mr. Sahajewani.

[00:18:23] Speaker 05:
It didn't do that, and it didn't do that even though it knew that a conventional election was conducted.

[00:18:29] Speaker 05:
It knew at the moment that the polls closed on September 7th that the union had challenged the ballots of Mr. Torey and Mr. Sahajwani.

[00:18:40] Speaker 05:
And remember, the company, it's their employer.

[00:18:43] Speaker 05:
It knows what they do.

[00:18:44] Speaker 05:
It knows their work responsibilities.

[00:18:47] Speaker 05:
It knows their work duties.

[00:18:48] Speaker 05:
It always had the knowledge that it needed

[00:18:51] Speaker 05:
to assess their status as professionals under Section 212 of the Act.

[00:18:57] Speaker 05:
And in fact, it admits in its opening brief that it was made aware of the alleged professional status of these two individuals at the time of the election.

[00:19:07] Speaker 05:
That's on September 7th.

[00:19:09] Speaker 05:
So then it had seven more days until September 14th to file objections.

[00:19:13] Speaker 05:
It didn't do that, and it continued to raise no objection.

[00:19:17] Speaker 05:
It continued to fail to assert in any other manner to bring to the board's attention the charge that the election had somehow been improperly conducted until more than six months later after the objection's deadline has passed.

[00:19:33] Speaker 05:
That's simply not permissible under the board's rules and regulations, as this court recognized, for example, in the Sundor Brands case, cited in our case, where this court held that the board properly declined to consider a company's objection that had been raised after the seven-day deadline.

[00:19:51] Speaker 05:
The board then, in agreement with the judge, sustained the challenges to Mr. Torre's and Mr. Sahajwani's ballots.

[00:19:58] Speaker 05:
And again, the board acted properly because the evidence supports the board's finding that these two individuals are, in fact, professionals under Section 212 of the Act, and they were not afforded the special self-determination vote that Section 9B1 mandates before they could be combined with non-professionals.

[00:20:18] Speaker 05:
The company, indeed it seems to me, the company does not contest that if Mr. Titori and Mr. Sahajwani are professionals, the board could not overrule the challenges to their ballots because of section 9B1 clearly prohibits that.

[00:20:32] Speaker 05:
The board then was required to sustain the challenges and it's well settled under board law and court law, which we've cited in our brief, that when the board resolves challenged ballots in a stipulated unit case,

[00:20:44] Speaker 05:
It's not going to enforce the stipulation or the intent of the stipulating parties.

[00:20:49] Speaker 05:
If doing so, it would contravene the statute.

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
Which case is that?

[00:20:53] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, it would be NLRBV Speedway Petroleum, Seventh Circuit.

[00:20:58] Speaker 05:
Halstead Communications is a board case from 2006.

[00:21:03] Speaker 05:
Jacqueline Manufacturing, Second Circuit.

[00:21:05] Speaker 05:
Brown Machine and Foundry, Eighth Circuit.

[00:21:07] Speaker 05:
I don't have the page in our brief, but it's in our brief, Your Honor.

[00:21:11] Speaker 05:
There's a couple other in there as well.

[00:21:14] Speaker 00:
Any merit to their claim that there is one person who is similarly professional and not excluded?

[00:21:19] Speaker 05:
No, Your Honor.

[00:21:20] Speaker 05:
No merit.

[00:21:21] Speaker 05:
And for a couple of reasons.

[00:21:22] Speaker 05:
The first is, as the board noted, it's well established from back in the Supreme Court's case in AJ Tower to the present that a party cannot contest a board certification of election results by challenging the eligibility of a voter after that individual's ballot has been cast and commingled with the other votes.

[00:21:39] Speaker 05:
It's lost its identity.

[00:21:41] Speaker 05:
And that's what their argument boils down to about Mr. Hussein.

[00:21:45] Speaker 05:
Furthermore, the board's finding of professional status was not, contrary to the company's claim, based on these other employees' mere job title as engineers.

[00:21:56] Speaker 05:
So there's no merit to its assertion that because they all had engineer job titles, they must all be professionals.

[00:22:03] Speaker 05:
In fact, there's no evidence in the record

[00:22:07] Speaker 05:
to establish the nature of the work that this other fellow, who actually doesn't work in the quality control department, I think he works in the graphics department.

[00:22:15] Speaker 05:
But there's no evidence of what it is that he does.

[00:22:17] Speaker 05:
And in fact, the evidence is that whatever he does, Mr. Hussein, it's different work than what Mr. Sahajwani and Mr. Vittori do.

[00:22:26] Speaker 05:
So there's no merit to that claim at all.

[00:22:28] Speaker 05:
The board then, you know, properly rejected the company's belated request to set aside the election because it failed to file objections, it failed to otherwise timely raise the issue, it didn't raise the issue at all for more than six months after the deadline had passed, and the only matter properly before the board with respect to Mr. Dottori and Mr. Sahajewani was the union's challenges to their individual ballots.

[00:22:54] Speaker 05:
When the board resolves ballot challenges,

[00:22:56] Speaker 05:
It simply decides whether that individual ballot should be opened and counted, or whether it should not be opened and excluded.

[00:23:03] Speaker 05:
And the board rightly resolved that issue.

[00:23:05] Speaker 05:
The board does not set aside elections based merely on challenge ballots.

[00:23:10] Speaker 05:
I see I'm over my time, so I don't know.

[00:23:13] Speaker 02:
Okay, if anybody have any questions.

[00:23:16] Speaker 02:
Okay, thank you.

[00:23:17] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:23:19] Speaker 02:
Does the petitioner have any time?

[00:23:21] Speaker 02:
All right, we'll give you one minute.

[00:23:23] Speaker 02:
If you want it, you don't have to take it.

[00:23:25] Speaker 02:
Okay, great.

[00:23:26] Speaker 02:
We'll take the matter under submission.

[00:23:27] Speaker 02:
Thank you both very much.