[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Case number 24-1003 et al.

[00:00:03] Speaker 01:
Alphabet Workers Union Communication Workers of America Local 9009 Petitioner versus National Labor Relations Board.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
Campbell for Petitioner Alphabet Workers Union Communication Workers of America Local 9009.

[00:00:18] Speaker 01:
Mr. Silver for Petitioners Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S.

[00:00:21] Speaker 01:
Corporation and Google LLC.

[00:00:23] Speaker 01:
Mr. Heller for the respondent.

[00:00:27] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:00:28] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:00:33] Speaker 02:
And please the court.

[00:00:34] Speaker 02:
My name is Carla Campbell.

[00:00:36] Speaker 02:
I'm here on behalf of the Alphabet Workers Union petitioner and intervener in this case.

[00:00:43] Speaker 02:
The National Labor Relations Act makes the board responsible for remedying unfair labor practices.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
The board failed to do that in this case.

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
Here, the employers failed to bargain with their employees chosen representative, my client, which is a clear violation of the act.

[00:01:02] Speaker 02:
The union does not challenge the board's choice of remedy, but rather that the board failed to engage in reasoned decision-making when choosing the appropriate remedy.

[00:01:11] Speaker 02:
The board denied the non-monetary remedies the union requested without explanation.

[00:01:18] Speaker 02:
The board severed the question of monetary remedies for resolution at some later unspecified time.

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
Of course, the board has broad discretion to craft remedies.

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
But it is an abuse of that discretion to simply refuse to award remedies without analysis or explanation.

[00:01:40] Speaker 02:
The award of what the board calls a traditional remedy, a bargaining order, does not excuse reasoned decision-making.

[00:01:49] Speaker 02:
Here, the board's rubber stamp award of a traditional remedy is an abdication of its duty to consider the requested remedies in light of the circumstances of this particular case

[00:02:02] Speaker 03:
What circumstances in this case make the traditional remedy inappropriate?

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
Your honor, the complexity of this case with the joint employer question in particular makes some additional remedies appropriate.

[00:02:18] Speaker 02:
For example, what do you mean the complexity?

[00:02:21] Speaker 03:
This is a joint employer case.

[00:02:24] Speaker 02:
Sure, I can use the example of a bargaining schedule, which was one of the non-monetary remedies that the union requested in its own motion for summary judgment.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
The question will inevitably come up in bargaining sessions when we get to that point, whether both employers have to attend every session depending on what topic is discussed, whether it be wages or benefits or some

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
term or condition that the employer might or might not have control over.

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
And so a bargaining schedule would have aided the parties in setting bargaining by eliminating some of those issues.

[00:03:01] Speaker 03:
And that's, that's going to all depend on certification challenge as it would with any employer challenging certification.

[00:03:13] Speaker 02:
It sure any any bargaining order will itself will apply to any challenge of the certification and this is a test of certification.

[00:03:21] Speaker 02:
But the additional remedies for example, the schedule would not necessarily come into play in a single employer that doesn't have the complexity of.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
which employers have to be present for which bargaining session.

[00:03:33] Speaker 02:
That's an example.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
Do you have a view on whether the employer's petition here, employer's petition here is moot, given that the contract has ended?

[00:03:45] Speaker 02:
Thank you for that question.

[00:03:48] Speaker 02:
The court asked in its motion about mootness in two particular instances.

[00:03:53] Speaker 02:
The contract is one, the union does not, because the employers have

[00:04:00] Speaker 02:
not responded to the union's information requests in addition to the go hand in hand with the bargaining.

[00:04:06] Speaker 02:
We don't have direct knowledge of the status of the contract.

[00:04:11] Speaker 02:
However, the statement of work that's in the record was extended over a number of years.

[00:04:18] Speaker 02:
The original term was 2019 to 2020.

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
It was extended through 2022.

[00:04:23] Speaker 02:
And my client's belief, although again not based on direct evidence, is that

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
there is still a relationship between these two entities.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
But I will say, importantly, even if there was not, even if the contract had expired completely and Google is now contracting with some other labor supplier to perform this work on the YouTube music platform, that would still not make this case moot.

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
Um, one of the reasons is that there are a number of pending ULP charges and for labor practice charges currently before the board.

[00:04:58] Speaker 03:
And contract ended at least putting the information we have so far, maybe we'll be corrected.

[00:05:05] Speaker 03:
The certification order was January, 2024 beginning of January, the contract ended.

[00:05:11] Speaker 03:
end of February.

[00:05:12] Speaker 03:
So it's only a two-month period, probably a little less, probably like seven or eight weeks, when the order was in effect to bargain and there still was a contractual relationship on which the certification order as to the joint employer issue was premised would have still been in effect.

[00:05:36] Speaker 03:
Because even if there was some other relationship, we don't have any idea what that relationship was or how it would back onto joint employer analysis.

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:05:46] Speaker 03:
So I assume any of the claims for which you are seeking further remedies from the board would have to pertain.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
Let's assume, just for purposes of this question to you, that the relationship did end and their petitions moot.

[00:06:06] Speaker 03:
any of the extraordinary remedies you want would have to have been justified within that two month period.

[00:06:13] Speaker 03:
Is that correct?

[00:06:14] Speaker 02:
They would have to have been, they would have to have accrued between the certification period.

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
January 3rd and February 29th.

[00:06:22] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:06:23] Speaker 02:
2024.

[00:06:24] Speaker 02:
But again, I'm happy to take that assumption and play it out.

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
There's still a dispute that presently affects the rights of the parties.

[00:06:32] Speaker 02:
Because again, the board will inevitably face the joint employer question again if this court passes on it for the pending ULPs that happened during that period between certification and assuming the contract ended.

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
The damages question.

[00:06:53] Speaker 03:
Do you have unfair labor practices in that two-month period?

[00:06:57] Speaker 02:
We have unfair labor practices that are pending after certification.

[00:07:03] Speaker 02:
after certification.

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
Are the unfair labor practices targeted Cognizant or Google?

[00:07:10] Speaker 03:
Both.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
They rely on the same joint employer question in which the board is going to look to this court's decision on that.

[00:07:20] Speaker 02:
Even if the contract ended as we're making this hypothetical

[00:07:26] Speaker 02:
If the court were to uphold the joint employer finding of the board, then both Cognizant and Google would have to engage in effects bargaining for the effects of the end of the contract and how that would impact the bargaining unit.

[00:07:43] Speaker 02:
just the end of the contract doesn't absolve either party of its bargaining obligation.

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
The board obviously had no ability to consider what remedies might be appropriate in the context of the contract ending at the time it made its decision awarding traditional remedies here.

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
The remedies we've requested, some of them are retrospective and some of them are perspective.

[00:08:08] Speaker 02:
And so, for example, the cost of bargaining going prospectively, obviously that particular remedy would not apply if there was no longer a contract.

[00:08:20] Speaker 02:
But the retrospective remedies we've requested.

[00:08:23] Speaker 03:
Would an appeal still apply cognizant?

[00:08:26] Speaker 03:
Or does it just not apply to either one of them?

[00:08:30] Speaker 02:
I guess it would depend on the YouTube music platform still exists.

[00:08:34] Speaker 02:
I think we can analogize this to the public citizen case that the court mentioned in its order, a FERC case, where FERC decided not to build this particular power plan.

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
So there was no live controversy between the parties anymore.

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
the product, if you will, in this case, the YouTube music platform still exists.

[00:09:00] Speaker 02:
And so it's not moot in the sense that that product has gone away.

[00:09:07] Speaker 02:
There's some group of workers that are still doing the work to keep that site up and going and largely error-free.

[00:09:18] Speaker 02:
Again, I apologize to the court that I don't have the contract.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
But again, even if the contract ended and Google hired some other labor supplier, that work is still ongoing.

[00:09:31] Speaker 02:
And the charges that are before the board would still be a live controversy.

[00:09:46] Speaker 04:
I think I caught the answer to this early on in response to one of Judge Mollett's questions, but there are something like 60 cognizant employees at issue in this case, is that right?

[00:10:03] Speaker 02:
There were 41 that voted.

[00:10:04] Speaker 02:
I think there were closer to 50 in the actual bargaining unit.

[00:10:08] Speaker 04:
Let's take those 50.

[00:10:10] Speaker 04:
You don't know if those 50 cognizant employees are doing any work for Google.

[00:10:17] Speaker 04:
today?

[00:10:18] Speaker 02:
I do not.

[00:10:23] Speaker 02:
The other issue that the court raised, the rescission of the 2020 rule, I'll just mention that as my time expires, that my understanding is that the 2020 rule is actually still in effect.

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
The 2020, the subsequent rule, it's called the 2023 rule, has been vacated by a federal court in any event

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
course, the board engages in rulemaking to guide its own decision making.

[00:10:51] Speaker 02:
But ultimately, this court applies a common law standard.

[00:10:54] Speaker 02:
And so regardless of the rule that applies, then even if it had been rescinded, which I don't believe it has, it would not make the controversy moot.

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
We'll give you a little time for rebuttal.

[00:11:10] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:11:22] Speaker 06:
Morning, Your Honor.

[00:11:22] Speaker 06:
May it please the court, Matt Silvera for Google, and I also am presenting argument on behalf of Cognizant today.

[00:11:29] Speaker 06:
We're here today because the board misapplied a joint employer rule that they were actively seeking to replace.

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
Let's start with Mootness to see if we're going to talk about joint employers.

[00:11:37] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:11:38] Speaker 06:
We thought about mootness when we filed our opening brief because the contract did expire in February.

[00:11:45] Speaker 03:
Why didn't you raise the issue and brief it other than just dropping a little tiny footnote?

[00:11:48] Speaker 06:
Because we don't think that the case is moot.

[00:11:50] Speaker 03:
You still have an obligation to help us understand the basis for our jurisdiction.

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
I think just dropping a footnote saying the contract that is the basis for the entire ruling here.

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
ended and not elaborating more.

[00:12:00] Speaker 06:
Sure.

[00:12:00] Speaker 06:
I'm happy to expand on now.

[00:12:01] Speaker 06:
I apologize for that.

[00:12:03] Speaker 06:
It's not moot because one, the board retained jurisdiction.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
Nobody gets to brief the other side of mootness.

[00:12:08] Speaker 03:
You're just developing it here now.

[00:12:10] Speaker 06:
Sure.

[00:12:11] Speaker 06:
So the board retained jurisdiction to issue a retrospective remedy.

[00:12:17] Speaker 06:
That's it severing the excello issue.

[00:12:19] Speaker 06:
And so there's still a live dispute because there's a joint employer ruling.

[00:12:23] Speaker 06:
that would be the premise for being able to issue that retrospective award if the court affirms the joint employer ruling.

[00:12:30] Speaker 03:
That issue is not before us.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
The separate issue is not part of the order on review.

[00:12:36] Speaker 06:
Sure, but this is still a live issue because, again, if the court were to affirm the joint employer ruling, then that exposes us to that retrospective remedy.

[00:12:44] Speaker 06:
So there still is that live dispute there.

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
A little bit of rightness problem there.

[00:12:48] Speaker 06:
I don't think it's- Eminence problem.

[00:12:51] Speaker 06:
Well, no.

[00:12:52] Speaker 03:
And the other aspect of this, though- You can challenge that if and ever they rule on that.

[00:12:56] Speaker 06:
Well, but we wouldn't be able to challenge the joint employer ruling, because you would have ruled them the joint employer rule.

[00:13:00] Speaker 04:
And so if it's moving- What if they decide that there's no retrospective compensation due?

[00:13:07] Speaker 04:
You wouldn't challenge that decision, right?

[00:13:09] Speaker 06:
We wouldn't challenge that decision, but we would have lost the ability to challenge the joint employer ruling at that point.

[00:13:14] Speaker 06:
This is our only shot to challenge the joint employer ruling.

[00:13:16] Speaker 06:
We wouldn't be doing no work.

[00:13:17] Speaker 06:
What's that?

[00:13:18] Speaker 06:
The joint employer ruling will be doing no work.

[00:13:21] Speaker 06:
Well, the joint employer ruling has collateral consequences.

[00:13:24] Speaker 06:
As my opposing counsel noted, there are other ULPs that have been filed that are seeking to essentially leverage the joint employer finding here based, for instance, on the conclusion of the contract.

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
So if it's all going to have to be redone, if it's all going to have to be

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
redone to figure out, one, we don't know which unfair labor practices are targeted at which you or both of you at the same time, and whether they would still count as unfair labor practices if, in fact, certainly they pertain to a time period after the contract expired.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
So put aside these remedial questions.

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
Put that aside.

[00:14:04] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
The contract has a contract expired.

[00:14:08] Speaker 03:
Yes, the contract expired in February twenty eight twenty twenty contractual relationship between the two of you.

[00:14:14] Speaker 06:
No, not whatsoever.

[00:14:16] Speaker 06:
Not as to the YouTube music platform.

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
Google, I still believe any cognizant employees working in the YouTube music platform or have been any since February twenty ninth to twenty twenty.

[00:14:26] Speaker 06:
None in this bargaining unit.

[00:14:27] Speaker 06:
Certainly, I can make that representation.

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
Okay, and so if we did not have them having preserved the excello issue, would this case be entirely moot?

[00:14:40] Speaker 06:
Again, so long as the court is to vacate the underlying joint employer ruling, per its usual practice, and SANS and, you know, under Monsignor, to allow re-litigation.

[00:14:55] Speaker 06:
Well, in SANS, VNLRB, this court has applied that same principle.

[00:15:00] Speaker 06:
Instead, as long as you're vacating the underlying decision,

[00:15:03] Speaker 06:
to allow relitigation of that issue, then that could work.

[00:15:08] Speaker 06:
But again, we do need that underlying joint employer ruling vacated.

[00:15:11] Speaker 06:
Otherwise, we're going to be stuck with it.

[00:15:13] Speaker 06:
we will have lost the ability to legally challenge.

[00:15:15] Speaker 06:
I thought you just said that you can get that, even if the case is moot.

[00:15:20] Speaker 06:
So long as the court vacates the underlying, yes, and understand the court can.

[00:15:23] Speaker 03:
Actually, that's not the picture, is if mootness isn't caused by the party appealing.

[00:15:28] Speaker 03:
And here, it's caused by the party appealing who ended the contract.

[00:15:32] Speaker 03:
I disagree.

[00:15:33] Speaker 03:
Why would you get the benefit of both?

[00:15:34] Speaker 06:
Yeah, I disagree.

[00:15:35] Speaker 06:
I don't believe that the mootness would be caused by the contract expiring.

[00:15:40] Speaker 06:
I don't think that's, that is not,

[00:15:43] Speaker 06:
the problem of the party.

[00:15:45] Speaker 06:
You have a contract that has a set term.

[00:15:47] Speaker 06:
And when the contract expires, that doesn't mean that we are the ones that rendered the issue moot.

[00:15:53] Speaker 06:
I mean, we do have these other remedy issues.

[00:15:55] Speaker 06:
But beyond that, it's a contract that expired of its own terms.

[00:15:58] Speaker 06:
That's different from terminating employees.

[00:16:00] Speaker 03:
You had a practice of extending it until the National Labor Relations Board sent you Google was a joint employer, and then it wasn't extended.

[00:16:07] Speaker 06:
I think there had been two or three extensions, right?

[00:16:09] Speaker 06:
But they were yearly.

[00:16:10] Speaker 06:
I mean, the way this contract was set up was to allow the parties to consider every year.

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
I know, but the problem with vacature is you're having your cake and eating it too, right?

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
You chose not to do the extension so that you wouldn't be bound by the board's decision.

[00:16:25] Speaker 03:
But then you also want to come here and say, oh, our ability to challenge that decision has been terminated through no action of our own.

[00:16:33] Speaker 06:
As I said, we're not advocating mootness, right?

[00:16:35] Speaker 06:
And we don't think that it is moot.

[00:16:37] Speaker 06:
But I'm saying if the court were to conclude that this case is moot,

[00:16:40] Speaker 06:
to saddle us.

[00:16:42] Speaker 03:
To be clear, your only basis for that is the Accelerate Reservation.

[00:16:46] Speaker 06:
The Accelerate Reservation and the collateral consequences of allowing that in joint political ruling to stand and not allowing us to re-litigate that issue in the pending ULPs.

[00:17:02] Speaker 06:
So that is where we are on mootness.

[00:17:04] Speaker 06:
This is why we didn't make the argument

[00:17:05] Speaker 06:
We don't think it's moot.

[00:17:06] Speaker 03:
For the future, there's a substantial issue.

[00:17:09] Speaker 03:
This is not a small mootness question.

[00:17:12] Speaker 03:
This is a very, very large one.

[00:17:15] Speaker 03:
And we expect counsel on jurisdictional matters to be a bit more forthcoming in their briefing on such issues.

[00:17:22] Speaker 03:
Just going forward, please.

[00:17:24] Speaker 06:
I understand, Your Honor.

[00:17:26] Speaker 06:
As for the actual joint employer ruling, if the court determines that the case is not moot and is not going to vacate, we do think that the board simply misapplied that rule.

[00:17:38] Speaker 06:
And we know it was actively trying to replace it at the time.

[00:17:41] Speaker 06:
And in doing so, it really did distort the operative rule and disregard the foundational precedence that the rule was expressly intended to codify.

[00:17:50] Speaker 06:
So we do think that the court

[00:17:53] Speaker 06:
should be reversing that joint employer ruling is arbitrary and capricious.

[00:17:58] Speaker 06:
If companies can't rely on the board to faithfully apply its own rules, then they can't structure their affairs with any reasonable expectation of compliance with those rules.

[00:18:09] Speaker 06:
Affirming would also upend countless outsourcing relationships.

[00:18:15] Speaker 03:
Under boards.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
Come back and tell me exactly which unfair labor practices you think keep this thing alive

[00:18:23] Speaker 06:
Which unfair labor practices?

[00:18:25] Speaker 03:
You said that was the other.

[00:18:26] Speaker 03:
You said both accepted.

[00:18:27] Speaker 03:
Oh, sorry.

[00:18:28] Speaker 06:
Yes.

[00:18:29] Speaker 06:
The union has filed an unfair labor practice based on the expiration of the contract.

[00:18:38] Speaker 06:
And that is premised on the concept that we were, in fact, joint employers.

[00:18:43] Speaker 06:
So if we can't challenge.

[00:18:45] Speaker 06:
Has the board ruled on that?

[00:18:48] Speaker 06:
No.

[00:18:48] Speaker 06:
The board is waiting on that.

[00:18:50] Speaker 06:
in part because we have this joint plural.

[00:18:52] Speaker 06:
So again, we're not going to be able to challenge.

[00:18:54] Speaker 03:
That is not before us.

[00:18:55] Speaker 06:
That is not before.

[00:18:56] Speaker 03:
That does not save this case from notice.

[00:18:59] Speaker 06:
Well, it does in so much as the collateral consequences.

[00:19:02] Speaker 04:
But again, if we vacate the board's decision, then that decision would have no collateral consequences.

[00:19:09] Speaker 04:
And in the new unfair labor practices about the contract expiring, you could make all over again the argument, which you may very well win,

[00:19:17] Speaker 04:
that you were not a joint employer and nothing about this dispute would get in the way of you winning that dispute.

[00:19:27] Speaker 06:
Correct.

[00:19:27] Speaker 06:
So long as the joint employer ruling is vacated, that is essential for any sort of mootness determination here.

[00:19:36] Speaker 03:
So you didn't argue mootness here because

[00:19:39] Speaker 03:
I'm still confused about it, because the whole premise is we want it vacated, which is dependent on mootness.

[00:19:45] Speaker 03:
It still seems odd to me that you didn't argue mootness and argue for vacature.

[00:19:48] Speaker 06:
Because we didn't think it was moot because of the fact that the board had retained the right to issue a retrospective remedy.

[00:19:55] Speaker 03:
But that would disappear with any mootness.

[00:19:58] Speaker 06:
Well, no.

[00:20:00] Speaker 06:
Well, unless the court were to vacate the joint clerks.

[00:20:05] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:20:05] Speaker 03:
Well, that's nice of you.

[00:20:08] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:20:08] Speaker ?:
OK.

[00:20:08] Speaker 06:
So, you know, as for the joint employer ruling, if the court wants to hear about that as well, I mean, the fundamental problem here is that in 2020, the board created a rule.

[00:20:19] Speaker 06:
It created its joint employer rule.

[00:20:21] Speaker 03:
And then the... Do you agree that governs this case?

[00:20:23] Speaker 06:
Yes.

[00:20:24] Speaker 06:
We do agree that the government's case.

[00:20:27] Speaker 03:
You agree that rule is still in effect?

[00:20:28] Speaker 06:
That is in effect.

[00:20:30] Speaker 06:
When the Eastern District of Texas vacated the 2023 rule, it also vacated the aspect of the 2023 rule that rescinded the 2020 rule, which means the 2020 rule comes back into place.

[00:20:41] Speaker 06:
So the 2020 rule is the operative rule.

[00:20:43] Speaker 06:
Now, when the board reached its determination in this adjudication,

[00:20:48] Speaker 06:
It noted that it had put out a notice of proposed rulemaking for the 2023 rule.

[00:20:56] Speaker 06:
In the adjudication, it didn't actually address any of the foundational precedents for the 2020 rule.

[00:21:01] Speaker 06:
And that's LERCO and TLI in Airborne Express.

[00:21:05] Speaker 06:
These were all literally the NLRB decisions that the board set in the 2020 rule.

[00:21:11] Speaker 06:
It was essentially adopting.

[00:21:12] Speaker 06:
It was saying, this is the path that we're going to take.

[00:21:14] Speaker 06:
We cited all those cases when we filed our request for review of the board, and they didn't distinguish any of them.

[00:21:21] Speaker 06:
They didn't take them on in any way.

[00:21:23] Speaker 06:
Yet in that same notice of proposed rulemaking, the board said, you know what, we disagree with TLI and LERCO in that line of cases.

[00:21:31] Speaker 06:
So we have fundamentally, they were not applying the rule that had been passed through the 2020 rule.

[00:21:40] Speaker 06:
And you can see that when you actually walk through the various sub-findings on the three essential terms and conditions of employment that they said supported a joint employer finding.

[00:21:51] Speaker 06:
If you look at supervision, the first thing they talked about was training.

[00:21:55] Speaker 06:
Well, the preamble to 2020 rule says, you know, we've considered training as an essential term or condition of employment, and we've concluded that's not going to be one of them.

[00:22:03] Speaker 06:
They settled with eight, and they said those are the eight exclusive terms and conditions of employment.

[00:22:08] Speaker 06:
When they talked about Google tools and processes.

[00:22:12] Speaker 06:
And again, this is a proprietary platform that Google has essentially contracted out to have people help to maintain the content right to ensure a cleaner and more accurate database is what the statement of work says.

[00:22:25] Speaker 06:
Obviously, you're needing Google tools and processes.

[00:22:29] Speaker 06:
The board, in its 2020 rule preamble, talked about the concept, the read factors, right, for independent contractors.

[00:22:36] Speaker 03:
Do they rely on tools and processes as a basis for joint employer in this case?

[00:22:40] Speaker 06:
The board has four sub-findings under supervision.

[00:22:44] Speaker 06:
One is training, which I said the 2020 rule said we exclude.

[00:22:47] Speaker 06:
Second is Google tools and processes, which again, the 2020 rule preamble says, actually, we don't find that instructive.

[00:22:55] Speaker 06:
Then it looks at prioritization and rates of performance.

[00:22:59] Speaker 06:
Prioritization is something that's talked about in LERCO.

[00:23:02] Speaker 06:
It's talked about in Southern California gas, the very board precedents that the 2020 rule was codifying and said, no, that's not indicative of a joint employer relationship.

[00:23:12] Speaker 06:
And then it looked at these QA rubrics.

[00:23:15] Speaker 06:
And the QA rubrics, that's fundamentally ensuring the performance that- I did say none of those factors are relevant in determining whether supervision

[00:23:24] Speaker 06:
Uh, it did not say no, but it didn't.

[00:23:28] Speaker 03:
Well, prioritization by themselves to join employer status.

[00:23:31] Speaker 03:
But at some point you got to look at something to figure out if you're supervising.

[00:23:35] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:23:35] Speaker 03:
But are training them and interacting with them daily with instructions on how to do their work and detailing and incredibly fine and minute

[00:23:49] Speaker 03:
levels, performance evaluations.

[00:23:52] Speaker 03:
You're telling me prior precedent says none of that is relevant.

[00:23:55] Speaker 06:
Yeah, I can speak to each of those.

[00:23:56] Speaker 06:
The training, I mean, that's advanced description of tasks, which is talked about in the rule as something that is permitted.

[00:24:05] Speaker 03:
That's a description when you're doing it every day.

[00:24:07] Speaker 06:
No, training happens at the, that's onboarding.

[00:24:09] Speaker 06:
That's when you start the job.

[00:24:10] Speaker 03:
No, you may continue training because there's new, there's records here about new tasks and new things coming along.

[00:24:16] Speaker 03:
Then they're having to train them in the process.

[00:24:18] Speaker 06:
Well, no, it's a, first of all, supervising, supervising them at an extraordinarily close level.

[00:24:24] Speaker 06:
I disagree with that view of the record, but again, the training is something that's advanced description of tasks.

[00:24:28] Speaker 06:
It really is.

[00:24:29] Speaker 03:
You're saying all this stuff is that the 2020 rules will never look at any of these things.

[00:24:32] Speaker 03:
What will they look at for supervision?

[00:24:34] Speaker 06:
The board will look at actually instructing individual employees on daily basis.

[00:24:39] Speaker 06:
That's not what we're talking about here.

[00:24:40] Speaker 06:
Training is something that Google created training materials that were given to companies.

[00:24:44] Speaker 03:
It's finding that that happened.

[00:24:46] Speaker 03:
What's that?

[00:24:46] Speaker 03:
If we read the order as finding that there was daily instruction on how to work, as well as extensive training, and this is sort of an ongoing process because things change, new issues come up.

[00:24:59] Speaker 06:
That was not the board's rationale.

[00:25:01] Speaker 03:
But if we were to read it that way, the board would have

[00:25:05] Speaker 03:
If a fair reading of the board's decision, you can, I'm not saying whether it is or not, but if there's a fair reading of the board's decision.

[00:25:11] Speaker 06:
The board didn't just rubber stamp the regional director's decision here.

[00:25:14] Speaker 06:
The board looks through all of these factors and actually disagreed with the regional director on some such as direction.

[00:25:19] Speaker 06:
So I don't think we can then, and they actually took what the regional director had relied on as direction and said, you know, we'll put that over here in the supervision category.

[00:25:27] Speaker 06:
That's their prerogative.

[00:25:29] Speaker 06:
But the point is, I don't think that you can basically give the board additional rationales other than the ones that they expressly provided in their order.

[00:25:37] Speaker 06:
And that's all that we were able to actually review.

[00:25:40] Speaker 03:
OK, thank you very much.

[00:25:57] Speaker 05:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:25:57] Speaker 05:
Joel Heller for the National Labor Relations Board.

[00:26:01] Speaker 05:
I will start with mootness.

[00:26:02] Speaker 05:
If the court would like to hear our view, I assume they do.

[00:26:05] Speaker 05:
So we also believe this case is not moot.

[00:26:08] Speaker 05:
For many of the same reasons that have already been stated, it actually is clear from the various statements made by the other councils that we just don't know on the basis of this record whether this work is still being done by cognizant employees that can be determined in a subsequent compliance proceeding done by cognizant employees.

[00:26:27] Speaker 03:
If it's.

[00:26:29] Speaker 03:
It's no longer under the contract that was under review and there's no contract.

[00:26:34] Speaker 03:
I'm not quite sure how cognizant employees are doing it if there's no contract at all.

[00:26:38] Speaker 03:
There's going to be someone needs to figure out what on earth is going on and then analyze what is on earth is going on in light of the joint employer rule.

[00:26:46] Speaker 03:
You couldn't rest on this record.

[00:26:47] Speaker 03:
Is that correct?

[00:26:48] Speaker 05:
That's correct.

[00:26:49] Speaker 03:
And also on this decision made on this record is moot.

[00:26:53] Speaker 05:
But sorry, my point was not that there's, we don't know if there are, not only that we don't know if there are cognizant employees doing this work, we don't know if there is a, if this contract was extended.

[00:27:02] Speaker 05:
I mean, I know Google says it hasn't been, but there's nothing in the record one way or the other on that point.

[00:27:08] Speaker 05:
That is something that could be determined in a subsequent compliance proceeding before the board.

[00:27:13] Speaker 05:
They could say there is no contract.

[00:27:14] Speaker 05:
This is essentially an impossible remedy.

[00:27:17] Speaker 05:
But on this record, we don't know that.

[00:27:20] Speaker 05:
But even assuming,

[00:27:21] Speaker 03:
that there is no contract newspaper articles about layoffs of employees and termination of the contract there's newspaper articles about the layoffs of those employees yes there may be other employees but even so let's assume the existence of a contract be relevant to whether there's a joint employer relationship and the terms of that contract

[00:27:43] Speaker 05:
There doesn't, if your question is, does there have to be a contract in order for there to be?

[00:27:47] Speaker 03:
That is not the question I asked.

[00:27:49] Speaker 03:
OK, sorry.

[00:27:49] Speaker 03:
No, I'm going to say it again.

[00:27:50] Speaker 05:
Could you say it again, please?

[00:27:52] Speaker 03:
Would the existence of a contract on its terms be relevant?

[00:27:56] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:27:56] Speaker 03:
In analyzing joint employers?

[00:27:58] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:27:58] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:27:59] Speaker 03:
And we agree that it seems to me there's no dispute.

[00:28:04] Speaker 03:
I assume you don't.

[00:28:05] Speaker 03:
I mean, there's articles about this.

[00:28:07] Speaker 03:
There's no basis for including, you know, accusing counsel here of misrepresenting anything.

[00:28:12] Speaker 03:
There is no, the contract on which this decision was based is gone.

[00:28:17] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:28:17] Speaker 03:
That is gone.

[00:28:19] Speaker 03:
They don't have a contract with Cognizant full stop.

[00:28:26] Speaker 03:
Don't have a contract.

[00:28:30] Speaker 03:
And so if there could be humans there that used to work for Cognizant that are still at Google, I don't know.

[00:28:37] Speaker 03:
But the purposes of a joint employer decision, which requires a very careful analysis of the relationship between the two companies, it does feel like there's been a very substantial upheaval

[00:28:49] Speaker 03:
here that would at a minimum require new analysis by the board.

[00:28:54] Speaker 05:
So I think if all of that is true, there's still a live controversy here.

[00:28:57] Speaker 05:
Because based on the order in this case, there are other remedies besides the direction to bargain, the present order to bargain, that go to Google if Google is a joint employer.

[00:29:11] Speaker 03:
The union's petition might not be moot.

[00:29:14] Speaker 03:
But Google and Cognizant's petition for review would be moot.

[00:29:17] Speaker 05:
I don't think so, because in addition to the order to bargain, there is the order to post the remedial notice or to mail it to the former employees.

[00:29:24] Speaker 05:
That is something that Google would still have to do if it was a joint employer.

[00:29:28] Speaker 05:
There's an ongoing cease and desist order.

[00:29:30] Speaker 03:
Does it have to be a joint employer at the time it does that posting and mailing?

[00:29:33] Speaker 05:
Would it have to?

[00:29:34] Speaker 05:
No, I don't think so, because it is saying it is saying.

[00:29:40] Speaker 03:
What does the notice say?

[00:29:42] Speaker 05:
It says a variety of things.

[00:29:43] Speaker 05:
It's in the board order.

[00:29:44] Speaker 05:
It says that.

[00:29:46] Speaker 05:
We will not refuse to bargain with Alphabet Workers Union over this.

[00:29:53] Speaker 03:
How is that not going to be mooted if, in fact?

[00:29:56] Speaker 05:
They still have to, even if they're not currently bargaining, there's other things it says.

[00:30:01] Speaker 03:
I know, but the poster's going to be inaccurate.

[00:30:05] Speaker 03:
And I don't know what they're supposed to post.

[00:30:08] Speaker 03:
Let me take a look.

[00:30:09] Speaker 03:
If there's no union, if the union, the employees of the union was elected to represent, aren't there?

[00:30:16] Speaker 03:
It shows.

[00:30:17] Speaker 03:
And there's no contract basis for it.

[00:30:20] Speaker 05:
It is, there's a statement of employee rights that is, I'm sorry, I'm trying to find it so I can get your exact language.

[00:30:28] Speaker 05:
Here.

[00:30:28] Speaker 04:
I think it's, are you a JA27?

[00:30:30] Speaker 05:
I am at the fourth page of the 2024 order appendix notice to employees that we are looking at.

[00:30:39] Speaker 05:
I apologize, I don't have the J.A.

[00:30:41] Speaker 05:
number with me, I'm sorry.

[00:30:43] Speaker 03:
Sorry, is it the 2024 order?

[00:30:45] Speaker 05:
The last page of the 2024 order.

[00:30:49] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:30:50] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:30:50] Speaker 05:
So it says federal law gives you the right to form, join, and assist a union, so on, so on.

[00:30:59] Speaker 04:
lead a little bit and ask instead of you saying what, what, instead of you pointing to parts of it, let me point to parts of it.

[00:31:06] Speaker 04:
And then you tell me why it's still not moot.

[00:31:09] Speaker 04:
It's referring to the alphabet workers union local 9009.

[00:31:12] Speaker 04:
And then from there on out, it just calls it the union.

[00:31:15] Speaker 04:
One of the things that says we will on request bargain with the union and how can Google on requests be required to bargain with the union when

[00:31:27] Speaker 04:
the union's employees are no longer with the union's members are no longer Google employees.

[00:31:33] Speaker 05:
So I think that doesn't what that if if you're correct on that, then I think what that means is perhaps that not everything in the in the posting is correct anymore.

[00:31:46] Speaker 05:
But that doesn't mean they don't have an obligation to send

[00:31:49] Speaker 05:
the notice and perhaps the notice will be amended to send an incorrect notice.

[00:31:54] Speaker 05:
No, not necessarily.

[00:31:55] Speaker 05:
They could just amend it unilaterally.

[00:31:56] Speaker 05:
They couldn't do it unilaterally.

[00:31:59] Speaker 05:
I would not go that far.

[00:32:01] Speaker 05:
But for example, in cases where the board wins in part and loses in part and we have to do a rule 19 judgment, sometimes that would involve a

[00:32:16] Speaker 05:
we would send, along with our proposed judgment, a proposed notice.

[00:32:21] Speaker 05:
And we could essentially conform the notice to the finding of the court so that they would be able to file a response.

[00:32:30] Speaker 05:
And the court would, of course, will on however it would like.

[00:32:34] Speaker 04:
I would point out also that if we just do what you want us to do and deny the petition, then

[00:32:41] Speaker 04:
we would not be putting you under any legal obligation to amend this incorrect notice.

[00:32:51] Speaker 03:
I'm not saying it's incorrect at the time of the board ruled, we're just saying now it would be inaccurate.

[00:32:55] Speaker 05:
I see what you're saying.

[00:32:57] Speaker 05:
I think that is something- Confusing.

[00:33:01] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:33:01] Speaker 03:
I mean- We have new employees in Google who wanna be represented by a different union and then they're being told that this is the union that I'm having.

[00:33:07] Speaker 05:
Right, so that is something I think I guess we would have to figure out

[00:33:10] Speaker 03:
Okay, so the bargaining order, so what else?

[00:33:13] Speaker 05:
Sorry?

[00:33:14] Speaker 03:
So what else is relevant?

[00:33:17] Speaker 05:
So the notice remedy.

[00:33:20] Speaker 03:
The notice remedy is sending the same thing to the employers?

[00:33:23] Speaker 05:
Sorry?

[00:33:24] Speaker 03:
And the notice remedy, is the content of the notice the same as this?

[00:33:28] Speaker 05:
This appendix?

[00:33:29] Speaker 03:
This poster.

[00:33:29] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:33:30] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:33:30] Speaker 03:
So that's got to get out also.

[00:33:33] Speaker 03:
That's got to get revisited.

[00:33:34] Speaker 05:
Revisited.

[00:33:35] Speaker 05:
I'm not sure it would.

[00:33:35] Speaker 05:
It's out altogether.

[00:33:36] Speaker 05:
And that's it.

[00:33:38] Speaker 05:
Also the there's an ongoing.

[00:33:41] Speaker 05:
Sorry.

[00:33:42] Speaker 03:
Surely this has happened for the board before.

[00:33:43] Speaker 03:
Let's assume at least your counsel for Google and Cognizant will confirm no implied contract or unwritten contract.

[00:33:54] Speaker 03:
And when the press says that the employees are laid off, that they aren't still working for

[00:33:59] Speaker 03:
Google.

[00:34:03] Speaker 03:
That's the notice they're supposed to send.

[00:34:06] Speaker 03:
You had rights.

[00:34:08] Speaker 03:
They weren't adhered to for two months.

[00:34:12] Speaker 03:
Sorry.

[00:34:13] Speaker 05:
Perhaps.

[00:34:14] Speaker 05:
I mean, there is a reason why these notices are posted.

[00:34:18] Speaker 05:
There is an informational aspect to them so that employees are aware of their rights and are aware that there has been a violation.

[00:34:25] Speaker 05:
Even if the remedy, I mean, there are notice postings, even if there are, is there's no other remedy.

[00:34:33] Speaker 03:
And you, I suppose.

[00:34:38] Speaker 03:
I think you could analogize it precedent of issuing these notices when 100% of the employees are no longer working.

[00:34:51] Speaker 05:
And I think an analogous situation is when a business has closed.

[00:34:56] Speaker 05:
There was a recent decision out of the Second Circuit where it was a school and the school claimed that it had closed.

[00:35:03] Speaker 05:
They no longer had any employees.

[00:35:05] Speaker 05:
And the facts aren't exactly the same because

[00:35:10] Speaker 05:
And because the question in that case was whether there should have, one of the questions in the case was whether there should have been an election at all.

[00:35:18] Speaker 05:
Whereas no one disagrees there should be an election here.

[00:35:21] Speaker 05:
But the fact that is analogous is that there was the argument that there simply are no other, there are no employees in this bargaining unit anymore.

[00:35:31] Speaker 05:
And the court, the Second Circuit, enforced the board's order in that case.

[00:35:35] Speaker 05:
I'm not sure, it was one of those,

[00:35:38] Speaker 05:
memorandum opinions.

[00:35:39] Speaker 05:
So I'm not sure how much detail was in the opinion itself.

[00:35:42] Speaker 03:
What was their rationale?

[00:35:44] Speaker 05:
I think similar to what I was saying is that there is this informational aspect to the order that providing the employees with notice of their rights, notice of the violation that had occurred.

[00:35:58] Speaker 03:
I mean, cognizant could send the notice.

[00:36:02] Speaker 05:
But both Google and Cognizant violated the act.

[00:36:05] Speaker 05:
And so that is, it's important.

[00:36:06] Speaker 03:
Presumably they don't both have to mail the notice, even if the contract were still in effect, only one of them has to send it, correct?

[00:36:12] Speaker 03:
Did you say they both have to send it?

[00:36:14] Speaker 03:
Everyone's going to be getting all this duplicate mail?

[00:36:17] Speaker 03:
That can't be right.

[00:36:18] Speaker 03:
And presumably Cognizant is the one that has

[00:36:20] Speaker 03:
all the personnel record information, including addresses of employees to mail things to.

[00:36:24] Speaker 03:
So I don't, the question here is whether Google is a joint employer or not, whether Cognizant was an employer, Cognizant- That's correct, that's correct.

[00:36:32] Speaker 03:
So that remedy could still run against Cognizant if one were to think, I mean, put aside that the notice might have to be rewritten or could just be coming from Cognizant, I don't know.

[00:36:47] Speaker 03:
Cognizant has a dispute of that.

[00:36:49] Speaker 03:
I assume in joint employer cases they don't both duplicate sending notices.

[00:36:56] Speaker 05:
I wouldn't think so for the reason you said, but I guess I can't say 100% for sure.

[00:37:00] Speaker 03:
Even if a notice still has to go, a congressman can send it.

[00:37:05] Speaker 05:
I think it would be signed by

[00:37:12] Speaker 05:
The notices are typically signed by representatives from the employer.

[00:37:16] Speaker 05:
So it might be that both Cognizant and, even if it's just one copy of the notice, maybe both Cognizant and Google representatives sign it.

[00:37:27] Speaker 05:
So other points, there's the, I know you've

[00:37:29] Speaker 05:
Been through this with the other counsel.

[00:37:31] Speaker 05:
But there are these other pending unfair labor practice charges that are being investigated before the board.

[00:37:36] Speaker 05:
And Google's liability under those would be keyed to its finding as a joint employer.

[00:37:42] Speaker 05:
There's the severed make whole remedy.

[00:37:44] Speaker 05:
And if the board subsequently does issue that remedy, the scope of Google's monetary liability under that remedy would depend on whether it was a joint employer.

[00:37:53] Speaker 03:
Is it right that if, so if, if this all feels like stuff we don't have the right record in front of us for to decide any of these issues and it seems like we are, would be deciding an issue that it just doesn't reflect the facts of the case as it comes to us.

[00:38:11] Speaker 03:
If we, so we send this back and vacate it.

[00:38:15] Speaker 03:
Let's just decide vacatur first.

[00:38:17] Speaker 03:
If we send it back to the board and say the world has shifted here.

[00:38:23] Speaker 03:
whatever the relationship is, if anything, it's nothing remotely like, as best we can tell what it was before, you all need to do a do-over here.

[00:38:31] Speaker 03:
Would that do-over include a fresh determination of what of this, because certification issues are forward-looking, wouldn't you have to do a fresh determination of whether, as of the day the board looks at the case again, let's just say six months from now, there is

[00:38:47] Speaker 03:
to a joint employer relationship?

[00:38:48] Speaker 05:
I think only as to the prospective aspects of the remedy and the bargaining aspect of it, but not as to these other remedies we are discussing, because they have to do with it.

[00:38:57] Speaker 03:
If vacated, you would have to, in determining these new remedial issues that didn't exist before the contract ended.

[00:39:06] Speaker 05:
But they did exist before the contract ended.

[00:39:08] Speaker 05:
I believe these other, the liability from a call relief, if the board orders that,

[00:39:16] Speaker 03:
That's the reserved issue.

[00:39:19] Speaker 05:
Sorry?

[00:39:19] Speaker 03:
That's the reserved issue.

[00:39:20] Speaker 05:
Yes, the separate issue.

[00:39:21] Speaker 05:
Correct.

[00:39:21] Speaker 03:
Part of this case at all.

[00:39:23] Speaker 05:
The merits of it are not part of this issue at all.

[00:39:24] Speaker 05:
But how much Google would owe under that remedy if the board issues it depends on whether it was a joint employer at the time it was refusing to bargain.

[00:39:38] Speaker 03:
I get us to the remedies that are before us now that we want to know.

[00:39:42] Speaker 03:
But as to something, let's say two years from now, the board gets around to looking at that issue.

[00:39:48] Speaker 03:
Does it not have some obligation to look at it under the circumstances of the time it's ruling?

[00:39:53] Speaker 05:
Because it looks at it at the time the violation occurred.

[00:39:56] Speaker 05:
So if there was a refusal to bargain while the old contract was still in effect, then the joint employer status of Google and Cognizant

[00:40:07] Speaker 05:
is determined based on the facts then in existence at the time of the filing.

[00:40:14] Speaker 03:
And the board's gonna decide that somehow something extraordinary happened in the certification challenge to make make whole remedy appropriate when the certification only existed for two months?

[00:40:24] Speaker 05:
if the board does issue that remedy, and we're assuming that there is no more contract.

[00:40:31] Speaker 03:
It's a great case to take on for Excello, wouldn't it, where there's only a two-month relation?

[00:40:34] Speaker 03:
I mean, you're going to have a lot of issues to deal with, and let's do it where there's only a two-month relationship.

[00:40:38] Speaker 03:
I don't know what make-hole remedy someone's going to get for two months.

[00:40:41] Speaker 03:
If it is a... If someone wanted to challenge the certification.

[00:40:43] Speaker 03:
I mean, the board would really... I'm sorry, I don't... I mean, I will say I will have a lot of questions in that case.

[00:40:51] Speaker 05:
I'm sure you will, and I'll be here to answer them.

[00:40:54] Speaker 05:
I don't think any of that actually goes to the mootness point, because you can say, well, it would be silly for the board to issue a remedy for only two months worth of failure to bargain and excel a remedy for only two months of bargaining.

[00:41:09] Speaker 05:
But if it was going to make that silly choice, then it would be doing so based on the

[00:41:17] Speaker 05:
relationship that existed between Google and Cognizant at that time.

[00:41:21] Speaker 05:
And so that's why that question is still alive.

[00:41:26] Speaker 03:
Is there not some level of rationality that we could assume on the part of the agency?

[00:41:34] Speaker 03:
Or not?

[00:41:36] Speaker 03:
Whether it's Article 3 rightness, eminence, something that just seems to me

[00:41:48] Speaker 03:
I'm having a lot of trouble conceiving that that one is ever coming to fruition.

[00:41:54] Speaker 05:
So you just that the the board might not ever issue an Excel remedy in this case precedent.

[00:42:01] Speaker 03:
This is where we are.

[00:42:02] Speaker 03:
There's all kinds of problems with trying to do a make whole remedy and and it would have to be a case where traditional remedies for a challenge in a case where they this is their only chance to challenge the basis for certificate certification challenge.

[00:42:19] Speaker 03:
It's made.

[00:42:22] Speaker 03:
I mean, it just seems to me.

[00:42:25] Speaker 05:
So is this a kind of?

[00:42:27] Speaker 03:
We don't even know when they're going to rule on this darn thing.

[00:42:29] Speaker 05:
That's correct.

[00:42:30] Speaker 05:
Right.

[00:42:31] Speaker 05:
I think what I can say is that there's a non-speculative chance that the board could issue an Excel remedy as to this case.

[00:42:39] Speaker 05:
And looking at that FERC case, that seems to be the standard.

[00:42:44] Speaker 03:
I was really going to put it in the speculative category, given we don't even know if and when they're going to rule on it.

[00:42:50] Speaker 03:
And then given this change in the factual circumstances, which would seem to be like the worst possible factual scenario in which to think.

[00:43:00] Speaker 03:
a make whole remedy is appropriate because it was only two months.

[00:43:03] Speaker 03:
There's no identification of exceptional misconduct or bad behavior whatsoever.

[00:43:09] Speaker 03:
And then you had a very serious issue just because we don't have much joint employer precedent.

[00:43:14] Speaker 03:
There's nothing to say who wins on the merits at the end of the day, but it was a very serious issue that needed to get litigated.

[00:43:19] Speaker 03:
Can you imagine a worst vehicle?

[00:43:22] Speaker 03:
Can you imagine a worst vehicle for the board to say, this is the one we're gonna

[00:43:27] Speaker 05:
Well, then I'm happy to say I have these other arguments as well.

[00:43:30] Speaker 05:
If you think, well, that one's too speculative, then we still have.

[00:43:34] Speaker 05:
We've been over it before, so I don't want to repeat myself.

[00:43:35] Speaker 05:
But there's the posting issue.

[00:43:37] Speaker 05:
There's the other pending unfair labor practice charges, which again are based on conduct that happened.

[00:43:43] Speaker 05:
while the facts were as were litigated in this case.

[00:43:46] Speaker 05:
And so there would be nothing new for the board to analyze to determine if there's a joint.

[00:43:52] Speaker 05:
If the question is, is there a joint employer relationship a year from now?

[00:43:55] Speaker 05:
Sure.

[00:43:55] Speaker 05:
We would have to look at a different record.

[00:43:57] Speaker 05:
But if the question is, was there one at the time this case was litigated?

[00:44:01] Speaker 05:
and those other amphora labor practices, the pending ones, go to that question, then I don't think the board would not have to reanalyze a new record to come up with its joint employer determination.

[00:44:16] Speaker 03:
If it's not moot.

[00:44:26] Speaker 05:
In my last minutes, if it's not moot.

[00:44:28] Speaker 04:
I have a couple merits.

[00:44:31] Speaker ?:
Sure.

[00:44:31] Speaker 04:
The Google managers did not work side by side in person or virtually with the Cognizant employees, correct?

[00:44:41] Speaker 05:
They didn't work side by side.

[00:44:42] Speaker 05:
This was largely a remote workforce.

[00:44:45] Speaker 05:
There was plenty of interaction between Google managers and the Cognizant workforce through emails, direct messages, those kind of things.

[00:44:57] Speaker 04:
Google managers did not provide oral instructions on how the cognizant employees would perform their jobs.

[00:45:04] Speaker 04:
Is that correct?

[00:45:04] Speaker 05:
That is not correct, no.

[00:45:06] Speaker 04:
What oral instructions did they give?

[00:45:08] Speaker 05:
They instructed the board's finding was that Google instructed Cognizant employees how to perform that work.

[00:45:16] Speaker 05:
We see that at the outset, when there's training at the outset, we see that as there are new assignments being, new projects being assigned.

[00:45:26] Speaker 05:
And for example, there is testimony where Cognizant employees say, well, when Google was introducing a new

[00:45:35] Speaker 05:
workflow, I think is the name, that we would watch them do the work so that we would know how to do it.

[00:45:43] Speaker 05:
There are emails between, you look skeptical.

[00:45:48] Speaker 04:
Well, only because everything you've said, including emails, sounds like it may very well be not oral instructions.

[00:45:54] Speaker 05:
Oh, you're drawing a distinction between oral versus written?

[00:45:56] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:45:58] Speaker 04:
I'm not saying it's a distinction that's going to decide the case, but I was just trying to get

[00:46:02] Speaker 04:
The fact straight, I think that the Google brief says that Google managers did not work side by side with cognizant employees in person or virtually as they completed tasks, providing quote, oral instructions on how to perform their jobs.

[00:46:21] Speaker 04:
And if that's wrong, let me know it's wrong.

[00:46:26] Speaker 05:
Let's see, is there any examples of oral instructions versus written instructions?

[00:46:33] Speaker 05:
I guess I don't know for sure in the example I just gave you where they were observing the Google employee do the work in order to learn how to do it if there was conversation at the time.

[00:46:43] Speaker 05:
I think at the outset, there is training at the outset, which I guess I can't say 100% for sure, but assumed had some oral component to it.

[00:46:52] Speaker 05:
They didn't just show them the PowerPoint silently.

[00:46:56] Speaker 04:
Google also says that Google managers did not provide individualized performance feedback.

[00:47:02] Speaker 04:
Is that correct?

[00:47:04] Speaker 05:
No.

[00:47:04] Speaker 05:
The Google employees reviewed some of the quality analysis, the QA scores, and had discussions with Cognizant employees about them.

[00:47:14] Speaker 05:
There's testimony about that.

[00:47:15] Speaker 03:
Between Google and the employee.

[00:47:18] Speaker 05:
And the individual employees.

[00:47:19] Speaker 05:
Yes, there is some evidence of that.

[00:47:21] Speaker 03:
Email versus vocalized because they were remote.

[00:47:26] Speaker 05:
I don't know if it was a phone call or an email.

[00:47:28] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:47:29] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure.

[00:47:35] Speaker 03:
Does it matter for joint employer whether it's oral or written as long as it's real time given in a virtual workplace?

[00:47:45] Speaker 05:
Right.

[00:47:46] Speaker 05:
I don't see any reason why it would.

[00:47:47] Speaker 05:
And there's certainly nothing in the regulation that makes that distinction.

[00:47:51] Speaker 05:
the supervision, the hours, the benefits.

[00:47:56] Speaker 05:
The board went through how there's evidence of direct and immediate

[00:48:00] Speaker 05:
control over those as those terms are.

[00:48:02] Speaker 04:
I've got a couple more.

[00:48:05] Speaker 04:
I just want to see if you're on the same page as Google or not.

[00:48:07] Speaker 04:
And then I know you have arguments that even if Google's correct about these facts, they're still wrong about the outcome.

[00:48:13] Speaker 04:
They say, nor did Cognizant cede control over everything except hiring, firing, and compensation to Google, giving Google exclusive daily supervision over Cognizant employees.

[00:48:27] Speaker 05:
Sorry, can you say that again?

[00:48:28] Speaker 04:
And it's comparing contrasting with international transfer of Florida.

[00:48:32] Speaker 04:
It's saying Google, sorry.

[00:48:37] Speaker 04:
Cognizant did not cede control over everything to Google.

[00:48:43] Speaker 04:
You definitely heard of that.

[00:48:45] Speaker 04:
And then Cognizant did not cede control over everything to Google except for hiring, firing, and compensation.

[00:48:53] Speaker 04:
That's also true.

[00:48:54] Speaker 04:
That's true.

[00:48:55] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:48:55] Speaker 04:
And they didn't give Google exclusive daily supervision over cognizant.

[00:49:01] Speaker 04:
That's true.

[00:49:02] Speaker 04:
And then I think this is my last one.

[00:49:04] Speaker 04:
Nope.

[00:49:04] Speaker 04:
That was my last one.

[00:49:05] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:49:05] Speaker 04:
I appreciate your patience and judgment.

[00:49:08] Speaker 05:
Sure.

[00:49:09] Speaker 05:
So when we're talking about supervision, just to respond to something that Google's counsel said before, the board's finding as to supervision was that its top line finding was that Google actually instructed cognitive employees how to perform their work.

[00:49:26] Speaker 05:
So the top line finding was instruction.

[00:49:28] Speaker 05:
There's components of that, examples of the training and the tools and resources.

[00:49:32] Speaker 05:
But those were not the board's independent reasons for finding supervision.

[00:49:36] Speaker 05:
It was going through instructions.

[00:49:38] Speaker 05:
specific examples in the record of those and again maybe they were oral maybe they were written i don't know there was here's a written one where the employee a college employee asked the google counterpart could you give me some specific protocols on how to do this particular task it was if there was a missing lyrics on one of the youtube music pages entries and the google

[00:50:01] Speaker 05:
employee responded with a link saying, here it is.

[00:50:04] Speaker 05:
Here's the specific protocols.

[00:50:06] Speaker 05:
There is this Google-created resource that Cognizant employees use that provides what a Cognizant employee called very specific guidelines as to a variety of tasks.

[00:50:18] Speaker 05:
We talked about how they observed the Google employees do the work so that they know how to do it.

[00:50:22] Speaker 05:
This all goes to the details, control over the details of the performance of the work, which is how the supervision is defined in the regulation.

[00:50:32] Speaker 05:
There's a well said you've read the briefs.

[00:50:35] Speaker 05:
There's plenty of evidence as to the performance metrics that Google sets as to the qualitative rubrics that Google creates.

[00:50:43] Speaker 05:
And one of those one of the questions in the QA is that the cognizant people are supposed to answer is whether the

[00:50:51] Speaker 05:
when performing the tasks, whether the task protocol was followed.

[00:50:55] Speaker 05:
So Google on the front end is setting what those protocols are.

[00:51:00] Speaker 05:
And then on the back end, they're telling Cognizant you need to evaluate and appraise the work based on whether they have conformed with those protocols that we have set.

[00:51:09] Speaker 04:
What should we do if we think the board was right about the board

[00:51:20] Speaker 04:
found that supervision hours and benefits factors support a joint employer.

[00:51:26] Speaker 04:
What should we do if we find that they were right about one or some of those factors and wrong about one or some of those three factors?

[00:51:33] Speaker 05:
Sure.

[00:51:34] Speaker 05:
Well, as a legal matter under the regulation, you need one or more of those essential terms and conditions.

[00:51:41] Speaker 05:
So as a legal matter, there could be a joint employer finding based on only one of those.

[00:51:46] Speaker 05:
I think if the question is once the board has now

[00:51:49] Speaker 05:
has made its finding, you knock out one of them and keep the other two or two and one or what have you.

[00:51:56] Speaker 05:
I think generally what would happen is remand to the board to reweigh the remaining factors and see if it comes out the same way.

[00:52:04] Speaker 05:
I think it's instructive when making the distinction between what counts for joint employer status and the things that are objectives, basic ground rules, all these words that Google is throwing around to look at this court's decision in Browning Ferris when it sets out a couple examples where it says this would not count as joint employer.

[00:52:22] Speaker 05:
evidence, and that's things like global oversight, advanced description of the tasks to be performed.

[00:52:28] Speaker 05:
And I think the facts here show that Google's evidence, Google's control doesn't fit into those boxes.

[00:52:34] Speaker 05:
It's not, it's not solely an advanced description because it's ongoing and it's not just a description, kind of a service level description.

[00:52:41] Speaker 05:
It's very specific.

[00:52:42] Speaker 05:
So the specificity and the ongoing nature of Google's control is what separates this from basic ground rules or those kind of commonplace aspects of

[00:52:51] Speaker 05:
of party-to-party contracting.

[00:52:54] Speaker 05:
And Google talks a lot, and this will be my last point unless there are other questions.

[00:52:59] Speaker 05:
Google talks a lot about how it kind of needs this level of control in order for the YouTube music program to work.

[00:53:05] Speaker 05:
It's very complicated.

[00:53:06] Speaker 05:
It's very important.

[00:53:07] Speaker 05:
And that's fine.

[00:53:08] Speaker 05:
But nothing in the board's decision prohibits Google from retaining this amount of control over the employees.

[00:53:15] Speaker 05:
But the point is when it makes the decision to retain that control over itself, that carries with it legal obligations and legal consequences and obligations to the employees who are subject to that control.

[00:53:26] Speaker 04:
Can I see what you're, what would, what if anything is wrong with this?

[00:53:31] Speaker 04:
Now I'm going, I am going back to Moodness.

[00:53:33] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:53:34] Speaker 04:
We dismiss Google's petition on Moodness grounds.

[00:53:40] Speaker 04:
We dismiss all but the retrospective compensation argument part of the union's petition on mootness grounds.

[00:53:53] Speaker 04:
We deny the union's petition with

[00:53:57] Speaker 04:
The part of it that says it was improper for the board to segregate out the compensation, retrospective compensation question.

[00:54:08] Speaker 04:
We vacate the board's decision under the SANS precedent that basically does Monsignor, but in an NLRB context.

[00:54:19] Speaker 04:
What that leaves for the board to do is to decide the retrospective compensation question.

[00:54:25] Speaker 04:
When it does that, it will have to once again decide whether Google is a joint employer.

[00:54:32] Speaker 04:
If it does decide that Google is once again a joint employer, it will decide whether to overrule the board precedent and apply retrospective compensation.

[00:54:44] Speaker 04:
I know, what are all the things you think is wrong with this?

[00:54:48] Speaker 05:
Well, one is that it would require the board to require re-litigation of an issue that has already been decided.

[00:54:54] Speaker 05:
So it would be a lot of extra, I would say, unnecessary work.

[00:54:58] Speaker 05:
The joint employer issue?

[00:54:59] Speaker 03:
The joint employer issue.

[00:55:01] Speaker 03:
It was decided on, if representations were accurate, decided in a universe that doesn't exist.

[00:55:06] Speaker 03:
They wouldn't be redoing it over.

[00:55:09] Speaker 03:
They would have to say, OK, what's the relationship now, if any?

[00:55:11] Speaker 03:
And what are the terms of it?

[00:55:14] Speaker 05:
I don't think so, because if I understand Judge Walker's

[00:55:17] Speaker 05:
scenario here, what the board is deciding is whether to issue the, it's using shorthand, the Excello remedy for the period at which Google and Kainizen were refusing to bargain.

[00:55:32] Speaker 03:
Oh, I misunderstood.

[00:55:32] Speaker 03:
I thought he was saying we would deny that one.

[00:55:36] Speaker 03:
Because, OK, I misunderstood the question.

[00:55:38] Speaker 03:
I apologize.

[00:55:39] Speaker 04:
Well, I'm not.

[00:55:40] Speaker 03:
I thought Excello was out.

[00:55:43] Speaker 04:
we would deny the unions part of their petition where they say, you should have done it already.

[00:55:48] Speaker 04:
You should have done the Excello.

[00:55:51] Speaker 05:
And so my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, please, is that so then what is still before the board in this case is the separate issue of whether to issue an Excello remedy in this case.

[00:56:06] Speaker 05:
And if that's true, the board would have to decide the scope of Google's remedy is

[00:56:13] Speaker 05:
under the Excel remedy would be the time at which it was a joint employer, which was when the facts existed as was litigated here.

[00:56:21] Speaker 05:
So if you're saying it's really just for those two months, then it was Google a joint employer with an obligation to bargain in January and February of 2024.

[00:56:30] Speaker 05:
And so those are the facts that the board has already looked at and parties have already litigated.

[00:56:35] Speaker 04:
But I suppose the board actually would not have to reach the merits on that question if it decided that the requested compensation remedy

[00:56:44] Speaker 05:
is inappropriate.

[00:56:46] Speaker 05:
That's correct.

[00:56:46] Speaker 05:
If there's not going to be that remedy, they wouldn't.

[00:56:48] Speaker 05:
Right.

[00:56:50] Speaker 05:
So what let's.

[00:56:52] Speaker 03:
The only issue is then they would have to decide that it is appropriate.

[00:56:57] Speaker 04:
And only if that would they have to, in your words, redo the merits.

[00:57:03] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:57:04] Speaker 04:
I think that's true.

[00:57:05] Speaker 03:
Do they have to do anything more than say we hereby adopt again our prior record?

[00:57:13] Speaker 03:
because we vacated it.

[00:57:15] Speaker 03:
So they're going to, you know, we can do that.

[00:57:17] Speaker 03:
I don't know if they'll be wise or not, but they can do that.

[00:57:20] Speaker 05:
And they would just see what I said before.

[00:57:25] Speaker 03:
Again, assuming they want to do this for their Excello.

[00:57:28] Speaker 03:
This is the vehicle they want for Excello.

[00:57:31] Speaker 03:
And then both issues would come up to us.

[00:57:36] Speaker 05:
I can see that happening.

[00:57:38] Speaker 05:
I think that

[00:57:40] Speaker 05:
I mean, there are the other reasons why I think it's not moot, aside from the excellent remedy.

[00:57:43] Speaker 05:
But if you're rejecting me on that one, what else would be the problem with that?

[00:57:49] Speaker 05:
I think there is a virtue to having developed law in this area.

[00:57:57] Speaker 05:
And I realize if it is truly moot, you can't

[00:57:59] Speaker 05:
Do an advisory opinion on asking you to do that, but in considering the moodiness issue.

[00:58:04] Speaker 05:
If it's a close call, perhaps one consideration is this is an area where there hasn't been a lot of.

[00:58:12] Speaker 05:
Guidance there aren't that many of these cases, even though I seem to be here for all of them and.

[00:58:19] Speaker 05:
So that is one thing to consider.

[00:58:21] Speaker 03:
And the fact that- Unfortunately, keeping you busy is not part of our mootness analysis.

[00:58:25] Speaker 03:
Nor is there any rounding up because of this jurisdiction.

[00:58:29] Speaker 04:
Don't you like being here?

[00:58:30] Speaker 05:
Oh, I love being here.

[00:58:31] Speaker 05:
This is fun.

[00:58:32] Speaker 05:
I think we like you being here.

[00:58:34] Speaker 05:
Yes, thank you.

[00:58:35] Speaker 05:
And just the fact that these employees voted unanimously for union representation.

[00:58:41] Speaker 05:
And it's important to vindicate the exercise of their rights under the NLRA.

[00:58:48] Speaker 05:
I hope that this case stays live for that purpose and for the others we've discussed.

[00:58:57] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much, counsel.

[00:58:58] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:58:58] Speaker 03:
Appreciate your assistance.

[00:58:59] Speaker 03:
All right, we'll give you, I guess, Ms.

[00:59:04] Speaker 03:
Campbell, you want two minutes of rebuttal, and then we'll give you the same amount, Mr. Silvera.

[00:59:10] Speaker 03:
Did I say that right, Silvera?

[00:59:11] Speaker 03:
Yes, correct.

[00:59:18] Speaker 02:
I'll be brief, but I would be remiss if I didn't make this point.

[00:59:23] Speaker 02:
The union urges this panel to deny the petitioner's, the employer's petition and enforce the board's order, regardless of whatever the court decides to do with the union's separate petition for additional remedies.

[00:59:38] Speaker 02:
And the reason is this.

[00:59:40] Speaker 02:
The board certified this unit in May of 2023.

[00:59:46] Speaker 02:
Based on my understanding of council's representation, the contract ended in February of 2024, if I recall correctly.

[00:59:54] Speaker 02:
So we had eight or so months under which these employers had an obligation to bargain with their employees.

[01:00:03] Speaker 02:
And they still have an obligation to bargain over the effects of ending a contract, the effects of which were 50 people

[01:00:16] Speaker 02:
in the Austin, Texas area lost their jobs, jobs that they use to pay their rent and support their families.

[01:00:24] Speaker 02:
And so both Google and Cognizant have an obligation to bargain, even if it's one last time, over the effects of the termination of that contract.

[01:00:36] Speaker 02:
Usually those negotiations have a lot to do with severance and those types of things.

[01:00:42] Speaker 04:
I genuinely do not know if they

[01:00:47] Speaker 04:
lost their jobs with cognizant.

[01:00:49] Speaker 04:
That's one possibility.

[01:00:50] Speaker 04:
Were transferred within cognizant to other cognizant responsibilities.

[01:00:54] Speaker 04:
That's a second possibility.

[01:00:56] Speaker 04:
Or you don't know.

[01:00:57] Speaker 04:
That's the third possibility.

[01:00:59] Speaker 02:
I know that the workers in the unit that I got to know during hearing and the election process were terminated sometime after the unit was certified.

[01:01:12] Speaker 02:
And we think that additional- Terminated by cognizant.

[01:01:15] Speaker 02:
terminated jointly by Google and Cognizant, correct?

[01:01:18] Speaker 02:
While long before the contract expired, we believe, we understand, again, I want to be careful to represent to the court that we weren't there.

[01:01:28] Speaker 02:
But our understanding is that other folks were brought in to do that work.

[01:01:32] Speaker 02:
That's why I did not know about the termination of the contract.

[01:01:37] Speaker 02:
I don't have direct knowledge of that.

[01:01:41] Speaker 02:
But those folks, and so that was one of the ULPs that's actually pending now.

[01:01:46] Speaker 02:
We allege that it was a retaliatory termination of the workers who organized.

[01:01:55] Speaker 02:
But even if our understanding is correct, they brought new folks into the bargaining unit, those folks who we don't know would be part of the effects bargaining and would have the opportunity to negotiate for the effects of their termination as well.

[01:02:11] Speaker 02:
And so for my clients, the issue is not moot because

[01:02:22] Speaker 02:
And it's not academic about what notices get posted or sent to people.

[01:02:25] Speaker 02:
It's very real because these are 50 individuals' lives and livelihoods that they have one last shot at bargaining over.

[01:02:33] Speaker 04:
I thought maybe my first question to you was, do they still work for Google?

[01:02:42] Speaker 04:
Do they still work for Google?

[01:02:43] Speaker 04:
And I thought you said you didn't know.

[01:02:45] Speaker 02:
Yeah, thank you for reminding me to finish my thought.

[01:02:49] Speaker 02:
Those folks that I know that I can represent were part of the vote.

[01:02:56] Speaker 02:
I don't believe that any of them worked for Google or Cognizant, either one at this time.

[01:03:02] Speaker 02:
If there were folks who were employed and were in the bargaining unit at the time the contract ended, the union just was not able to stay in touch with those folks in the same way.

[01:03:12] Speaker 02:
And so I can't make a representation about that.

[01:03:15] Speaker 03:
Do you have any more points to wrap up?

[01:03:20] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[01:03:20] Speaker 02:
My last point is, your honor asked my opposing counsel what it would take, what facts it would take to find supervision, a joint employer factor for supervision.

[01:03:33] Speaker 02:
And if I wrote down his answer correctly, he said actually instructing employees on a daily basis.

[01:03:39] Speaker 02:
And that is precisely what happened in this case.

[01:03:41] Speaker 02:
And so there is more than a factual basis to uphold the board's decision on joint employer and remand, and I'm sorry, and enforce that order regardless of what you do with our petition and allow these folks the opportunity to bargain over effects.

[01:03:59] Speaker 03:
When did the union first request bargaining?

[01:04:02] Speaker 03:
Do you have that date?

[01:04:04] Speaker 02:
It would have been right after certification maybe.

[01:04:07] Speaker 03:
Which I thought the board order was in January.

[01:04:13] Speaker 02:
Certification, I apologize, certification is in the record at Joint Appendix 727 and that's the date that I'm going off of.

[01:04:22] Speaker 03:
So they didn't have any obligations until you first requested to bargain?

[01:04:25] Speaker 02:
They did, certainly they had an obligation beginning on that date and for those eight months or so I were here because they didn't

[01:04:32] Speaker 02:
They didn't bargain during that time, but they still have.

[01:04:35] Speaker 03:
They didn't have to bargain until you first requested to bargain.

[01:04:39] Speaker 02:
Right, which would have been.

[01:04:40] Speaker 02:
I apologize.

[01:04:41] Speaker 02:
I don't have the letter, but we did.

[01:04:43] Speaker 02:
We did that immediately after the certification by letter to Council.

[01:04:48] Speaker 03:
Right, that's the board certification order or the regional director?

[01:04:53] Speaker 02:
The certification order comes from the board.

[01:04:57] Speaker 03:
I had January 3, 2024 is that date.

[01:05:00] Speaker 03:
You mentioned a date in May.

[01:05:02] Speaker 02:
May 4, 2023 again at Joint Appendix 727.

[01:05:07] Speaker 04:
That's when the regional director certified the union.

[01:05:13] Speaker 02:
That is the official certification that comes out and so our position would be that their obligation to bargain happened then.

[01:05:21] Speaker 02:
and we demand the workers demanded bargaining shortly thereafter.

[01:05:24] Speaker 03:
It's not even when the board denies review of the regional director's decision?

[01:05:29] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[01:05:36] Speaker 03:
It's your position.

[01:05:37] Speaker 02:
I see what you're saying, that they were essentially appealing through the board's procedure while after certification.

[01:05:44] Speaker 02:
Certification is when the bargaining obligation begins

[01:05:48] Speaker 03:
And if folks want to- You're saying certificate just by the regional director, not even, because the board denied review of the regional director's decision in July of 23.

[01:05:57] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[01:05:58] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[01:05:58] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[01:05:59] Speaker 02:
Their obligation begins at the time of certification.

[01:06:04] Speaker 02:
By the regional director.

[01:06:05] Speaker 02:
By the regional director.

[01:06:06] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[01:06:07] Speaker 02:
So May, 2023.

[01:06:08] Speaker 04:
And what if a union loses at the board stage?

[01:06:12] Speaker 02:
Certainly they can avail themselves of the appellate procedure, the petition for review, and that's their choice.

[01:06:16] Speaker 02:
They did that here.

[01:06:18] Speaker 02:
And I think if they lost and it came back down, then that would just be something that parties would hash out.

[01:06:25] Speaker 02:
If it came back down as a single employer, then effectively, they wouldn't have reached a first contract ever in a couple of months anyway.

[01:06:33] Speaker 02:
That's extremely unlikely.

[01:06:36] Speaker 02:
But those are the kinds of things that would get hashed out and bargaining and do regularly all the time between parties.

[01:06:45] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[01:06:54] Speaker 06:
And I just want to make three quick points and answer any questions you may have.

[01:06:59] Speaker 06:
First, on the mootness issue and the proposed remedy that Judge Walker suggested, again, as long as the underlying joint employer ruling is being vacated, that's fine.

[01:07:10] Speaker 06:
And then they can go ahead.

[01:07:12] Speaker 06:
And if they say, as adopted, and we can then challenge that on appeal, that all works out.

[01:07:16] Speaker 03:
I want to pin some things down.

[01:07:18] Speaker 03:
What's that?

[01:07:19] Speaker 03:
I want to pin some things down.

[01:07:21] Speaker 03:
And I would like those representations in writing.

[01:07:24] Speaker 03:
after argument, and that is the contract that was subject to the board's analysis here has in fact expired on February 29, 2024.

[01:07:34] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[01:07:35] Speaker 03:
I think that's what you're... Yes.

[01:07:38] Speaker 03:
So second, there's no implied or unwritten contract between Google and Cognitive

[01:07:47] Speaker 06:
Correct.

[01:07:47] Speaker 06:
Now, I do want to be clear about the contract expiring.

[01:07:50] Speaker 06:
That was the contract between Google and Cognizant for this Austin unit to be working.

[01:07:56] Speaker 06:
So yes, that contract expired.

[01:07:58] Speaker 06:
And there's no implied contract as to that.

[01:08:00] Speaker 06:
I do believe that Cognizant workers elsewhere may be doing some of this work, but it's not this Austin unit.

[01:08:07] Speaker 03:
So that's an expression.

[01:08:08] Speaker 03:
OK, so then there may be a contract between Google and Cognizant

[01:08:14] Speaker 03:
Outside Austin.

[01:08:16] Speaker 06:
Yes, I believe outside of the United States, actually.

[01:08:19] Speaker 03:
Outside the United States.

[01:08:20] Speaker 03:
OK.

[01:08:21] Speaker 03:
And are the terms of that contract the same?

[01:08:24] Speaker 06:
I do not believe so, but I can't make a representation here right now in terms of the level of similarity.

[01:08:33] Speaker 03:
OK.

[01:08:34] Speaker 03:
And is that contract ongoing?

[01:08:37] Speaker 06:
I would have to check on that.

[01:08:40] Speaker 03:
And are any of the employees from the original bargaining unit

[01:08:45] Speaker 03:
part of that new contract?

[01:08:47] Speaker 06:
No.

[01:08:48] Speaker 06:
I mean, on that point, I do just want to clarify something for the record here.

[01:08:52] Speaker 06:
When the contract terminated, that did not mean that those employees lost their jobs.

[01:08:57] Speaker 06:
Cognizant has a deployable bench.

[01:08:59] Speaker 06:
What happens essentially is they get assigned out, allocated to certain projects.

[01:09:02] Speaker 03:
Newspaper articles about them getting laid off.

[01:09:05] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[01:09:05] Speaker 06:
Well, what happens is that when the contract with one of the

[01:09:10] Speaker 06:
parties that is seeking your services expires, then they go back in the deployable bench.

[01:09:15] Speaker 06:
And then Cognizant, they can, within Cognizant, seek other jobs at Cognizant, other projects that they can work on.

[01:09:21] Speaker 03:
So are those folks still employed by Cognizant?

[01:09:23] Speaker 06:
I don't believe they are employed at this point.

[01:09:25] Speaker 06:
But my point is they did not get terminated upon the expiration of the contract.

[01:09:29] Speaker 03:
Because they've all been fired by or laid off by Cognizant.

[01:09:33] Speaker 06:
Or left, did not seek actual other opportunities within Cognizant.

[01:09:38] Speaker 06:
I think there's a variety of different circumstances there.

[01:09:41] Speaker 06:
But the point is that it's not as if, because I heard opposing counsel say that, well, they were fired by Google and Cognizant, and that's simply false.

[01:09:49] Speaker 04:
I actually thought, and I may have misheard her, but I thought once we kind of got to the bottom of it, she was talking about people who were fired before the Google Cognizant contract expired.

[01:10:03] Speaker 04:
They were fired, in her view, in retaliation for

[01:10:08] Speaker 04:
trying to form a union.

[01:10:10] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[01:10:10] Speaker 06:
And I think they have a separate ULP over that.

[01:10:12] Speaker 04:
I'm not aware.

[01:10:13] Speaker 04:
Exactly.

[01:10:14] Speaker 04:
I'm not expecting you to agree with her application there.

[01:10:18] Speaker 04:
But I think that is a separate question of the people who were in the would-be bargaining unit and still employed when the contract expired in February 2024.

[01:10:32] Speaker 04:
What happened to them?

[01:10:33] Speaker 04:
And it sounds like you're saying none of them are still doing work for Google.

[01:10:38] Speaker 04:
they were given an opportunity to maybe find another place at Cognizant, but at the end of the day, some were laid off and some may have left.

[01:10:47] Speaker 06:
As far as I know, that's correct.

[01:10:49] Speaker 06:
But again, it's because they were with Cognizant.

[01:10:50] Speaker 03:
It would be nice to include information from Cognizant about whether the employees in that unit that was a certified unit were terminated or laid off prior to the contract's expiration.

[01:11:07] Speaker 06:
Yeah, again, I believe that that is subject to separate proceedings, separate ULP proceedings, but I understand.

[01:11:12] Speaker 03:
They should just know whether they were on their payroll or not, and if not, how they were offed for purposes of answering this informational question from the court.

[01:11:23] Speaker 03:
Sure, I think that- I'm not asking you to send have a line that says, and we hear one, even assuming it was true, that we hereby confess to an unfair- Right.

[01:11:31] Speaker 03:
I was asking for that.

[01:11:32] Speaker 03:
I want to know factually what happened to that group.

[01:11:36] Speaker 03:
of people as in they are still employed by cognizant.

[01:11:41] Speaker 03:
They were laid off by cognizant on X date, but they were terminated by cognizant on X date.

[01:11:48] Speaker 03:
It's 50 employees, 50 or 60 employees.

[01:11:52] Speaker 03:
I'd be able to do that.

[01:11:54] Speaker 06:
Okay.

[01:11:54] Speaker 06:
Okay.

[01:11:54] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[01:11:57] Speaker 06:
I have to make my one last point.

[01:12:00] Speaker 06:
Yes.

[01:12:00] Speaker 06:
Yeah.

[01:12:01] Speaker 06:
On the actual joint employer issue, there was discussion of working side by side.

[01:12:05] Speaker 06:
And I think that that is important because all of the cases that the board cited in its order, the quantum resources case, the international Florida case, and then the gourmet words, all of those were working side by side cases in the sense that you had employees of both the party contracting for services and that contractors employees.

[01:12:28] Speaker 06:
That were working side by side doing the same job essentially here no one cognizant did the same job as people at google and this is why google actually outsourced this work is because they wanted google employees be working on actually.

[01:12:42] Speaker 06:
the software development, upgrading the system, and this maintenance work, because this is really, it's almost like digital janitorial work in a certain sense, right?

[01:12:52] Speaker 06:
It's essentially, you're looking through the database and saying, does this look right?

[01:12:56] Speaker 06:
Is this misspelled?

[01:12:57] Speaker 06:
Does this have the right number of tracks underneath it?

[01:13:01] Speaker 06:
And all of that is the work that Cognizant employees were doing.

[01:13:05] Speaker 03:
The accuracy of their online PDFs.

[01:13:07] Speaker 03:
The accuracy.

[01:13:08] Speaker 06:
actually content and they brought to that their music industry knowledge so they did bring some specialized knowledge to that and then they had to learn how to work on just what they're doing right like what tool do you use to go ahead and update the um the name of a song that's misspelled right but that's not instruction in the sense that we think of under the 2020 rule if the case is moved this next question it's not going to matter but there's something in the record about one

[01:13:38] Speaker 04:
Cognizant employee getting individualized feedback from Google.

[01:13:45] Speaker 04:
What's your response on that?

[01:13:46] Speaker 06:
Sure.

[01:13:47] Speaker 06:
Look around JA 199 to 202, and you'll see the actual testimony of the person that he says he got individualized feedback from.

[01:13:55] Speaker 06:
It's a gentleman named John Weinman.

[01:13:57] Speaker 06:
And what he explains is that Google employees will do these calibration reviews, where they're actually looking at reviews that, in this case, Cognizant has already done.

[01:14:07] Speaker 06:
And they're doing QA to make sure that the accuracy is correct.

[01:14:13] Speaker 06:
So they're essentially seeking to ensure that the contract is being performed as a contracted form.

[01:14:18] Speaker 03:
Is that the form that's on day 532 to 535 or 6?

[01:14:22] Speaker 06:
I think that's a few different pages, 532 to 536.

[01:14:25] Speaker 06:
But yes, the one.

[01:14:26] Speaker 03:
What is that form on 532 to 536?

[01:14:29] Speaker 06:
As I said, I think it's a couple of different things.

[01:14:30] Speaker 06:
If I can grab it.

[01:14:32] Speaker 06:
I think it's a couple of different screenshots that are not necessarily all the same.

[01:14:37] Speaker 03:
That part of the review.

[01:14:38] Speaker 06:
But my point is, yes, the review that actually says, here's the score for this individual.

[01:14:43] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[01:14:44] Speaker 03:
That's the bottom line of this.

[01:14:45] Speaker 03:
This is like, one, it's print way too small for me to even read.

[01:14:48] Speaker 03:
It is so many lines of granular information.

[01:14:52] Speaker 03:
So this part of the review process.

[01:14:54] Speaker 06:
Yeah, no.

[01:14:56] Speaker 06:
That is not the QA.

[01:14:57] Speaker 06:
I don't think that's the fight.

[01:14:58] Speaker 06:
What is it?

[01:15:01] Speaker 04:
But JA, are we at again?

[01:15:02] Speaker 03:
So it's union exhibit eight.

[01:15:03] Speaker 03:
533, 534, 535.

[01:15:05] Speaker 03:
Oh, yeah, that's a work.

[01:15:06] Speaker 03:
And there's a total on 534.

[01:15:08] Speaker 06:
Yeah, that's workflow.

[01:15:09] Speaker 06:
That's essentially here are various tasks that can be picked up for cognitive employees to work on.

[01:15:14] Speaker 03:
Does anybody check to make sure this is all done?

[01:15:18] Speaker 06:
What's that?

[01:15:19] Speaker 03:
Who checks to make sure this is all done?

[01:15:22] Speaker 06:
Checks to make sure that all of the tasks are done.

[01:15:24] Speaker 06:
I believe that this goes to Cognizant and then individual Cognizant employees can pick them up.

[01:15:30] Speaker 06:
And then there is a Cognizant tier that says, hey, has our unit actually done all of the things that Google has asked us to do?

[01:15:37] Speaker 06:
What's that?

[01:15:38] Speaker 03:
This doesn't go to Google.

[01:15:39] Speaker 06:
I mean, Google at some point has to make sure that the various tasks it's asked if it's contractual perform, have they actually been completed?

[01:15:45] Speaker 06:
But that doesn't mean that they're the ones evaluating whether they were done accurately.

[01:15:49] Speaker 06:
That's something that Cognizant does.

[01:15:51] Speaker 03:
And then the 530.

[01:15:53] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[01:15:55] Speaker 03:
That total thing up and how much time it took them to do it, the volume that they did.

[01:16:00] Speaker 03:
This is all for Google, right?

[01:16:04] Speaker 06:
Those are forms that get filled out by Cognizant employees and Cognizant ultimately looks at.

[01:16:10] Speaker 03:
Does this form go to Google?

[01:16:12] Speaker 06:
Does it go to Google?

[01:16:13] Speaker 06:
I believe Google has access to it, but Google does not actually... Google creates it?

[01:16:18] Speaker 06:
Google creates the form, yes, because it's the one that is higher cognizant to provide it.

[01:16:21] Speaker 03:
I'm just more mindful of it than the 536 evaluation thing.

[01:16:24] Speaker 06:
Yeah, I'm trying to find the evaluation.

[01:16:35] Speaker 06:
Yeah, 536 is a holiday schedule.

[01:16:38] Speaker 03:
All right, mine is not a holiday schedule.

[01:16:43] Speaker 06:
Here, so 562 is what I was referring to.

[01:16:46] Speaker 03:
No, I think.

[01:16:47] Speaker 03:
Oh, actually, I think it's 566.

[01:16:48] Speaker 03:
I see it's a different number on this page now.

[01:16:50] Speaker 03:
That's also off my eyes to read.

[01:16:52] Speaker 03:
566.

[01:16:54] Speaker 03:
What's 566?

[01:16:56] Speaker 06:
566 is, yeah, that's an end of day form saying what a COGS employee has done.

[01:17:03] Speaker 06:
But 566 is the form.

[01:17:04] Speaker 03:
End of day form.

[01:17:05] Speaker 03:
That's right.

[01:17:06] Speaker 03:
566.

[01:17:06] Speaker 03:
So this is Sam's end of day form.

[01:17:09] Speaker ?:
Yeah.

[01:17:10] Speaker 03:
And this goes to Cognizant or to Google?

[01:17:12] Speaker 06:
To Cognizant.

[01:17:13] Speaker 06:
Google at all?

[01:17:15] Speaker 06:
Google has access, I think, to all this, because it's on a Google form, essentially.

[01:17:19] Speaker 06:
But in terms of who uses it, that's Cognizant.

[01:17:22] Speaker 03:
Who fills it out?

[01:17:23] Speaker 03:
No, who reviews it.

[01:17:26] Speaker 03:
And then both Google and Cognizant see this.

[01:17:30] Speaker 03:
Google has to monitor the contracts executed.

[01:17:34] Speaker 06:
Right.

[01:17:36] Speaker 06:
Google does the spot checking and the compliance control.

[01:17:38] Speaker 06:
So that's what 562 is.

[01:17:40] Speaker 06:
That's an example of a task where Google has essentially done a second review of that.

[01:17:45] Speaker 06:
And it does a few of these.

[01:17:46] Speaker 06:
That, through the system, yes, the COGS employee can see.

[01:17:50] Speaker 06:
But the testimony is clear, J19090201.

[01:17:52] Speaker 03:
Did you only do a few of those?

[01:17:54] Speaker 03:
Or was there a factual review?

[01:17:55] Speaker 06:
She said he did that about monthly.

[01:17:57] Speaker 06:
Monthly calibration reviews is what he would do.

[01:18:00] Speaker 06:
For each employee?

[01:18:00] Speaker 06:
No, not for each employee.

[01:18:02] Speaker 06:
It was a random sampling.

[01:18:03] Speaker 06:
This is the point.

[01:18:04] Speaker 06:
It wasn't individual employees.

[01:18:06] Speaker 06:
This was all, I would do a sampling of the unit's work.

[01:18:09] Speaker 06:
So there are a number of people that are assigned to this workflow.

[01:18:12] Speaker 06:
I don't care who is doing these individual assignments, but to monitor the performance of the contract, I have to look at some of these and say, is the work being done the way that we contract for it to be done?

[01:18:22] Speaker 06:
Is it being done accurately?

[01:18:24] Speaker 06:
Are they maintaining the accuracy of the database?

[01:18:27] Speaker 06:
And so they would do that QA process.

[01:18:30] Speaker 06:
And at J199-201, Mr. Weinman clearly says, yeah, I would go ahead and fill it out, score it, and then

[01:18:38] Speaker 06:
I'm done with it at that point.

[01:18:39] Speaker 06:
I never had any back and forth with individual employees about that.

[01:18:43] Speaker 06:
When did that ever happen?

[01:18:44] Speaker 06:
With Cognizant.

[01:18:45] Speaker 06:
Cognizant could do whatever it wanted with this.

[01:18:47] Speaker 06:
It could use them to evaluate its employees.

[01:18:49] Speaker 06:
But Google wasn't

[01:18:51] Speaker 06:
doing individual performance appraisals.

[01:18:54] Speaker 06:
All it was doing was making sure that the services that it contracted for were getting done.

[01:18:58] Speaker 06:
And it was doing that at a QA level.

[01:19:00] Speaker 06:
And that's completely consistent with Southern California Gas and LERCO and all these other board precedents that were completely ignored by the board's orders.

[01:19:09] Speaker 06:
Which is why, as much as we try to talk about the facts in this sometimes, I think we do have to also look separately

[01:19:15] Speaker 06:
at whether this rationale was arbitrary and capricious because it's very clear that the board did not look at a single one of the cases that was the foundation for the board's rule in 2020 and all of those cases support the fact that the type of things that were happening here you know advance instructions checking to make sure that the contract has been performed um occasional uh

[01:19:38] Speaker 06:
in interaction with employees.

[01:19:40] Speaker 06:
All of that does not make you a joint employer.

[01:19:44] Speaker 06:
And the board didn't look at any of those cases.

[01:19:46] Speaker 03:
How do I do this?

[01:19:47] Speaker 03:
How do I deal with this?

[01:19:49] Speaker 06:
Remember what the rule says, isolated, sporadic, and de minimis.

[01:19:53] Speaker 03:
That's substantial.

[01:19:54] Speaker 03:
So that's daily or almost daily.

[01:19:55] Speaker 03:
That would not be isolated, sporadic, or de minimis.

[01:19:59] Speaker 03:
But it's not daily.

[01:19:59] Speaker 03:
I'm not asking tax things.

[01:20:00] Speaker 03:
To be crystal clear, I'm not trying to lock you in on anything here.

[01:20:04] Speaker 03:
but if there were daily or almost daily interactions requesting information how to perform these types of things that would not fall within your sporadic intermittence right and i think it would depend on the amount because in southern california even if it's daily it has to be more than once a day in southern well i think i can point you to southern california gas where it talked about there might be daily you know

[01:20:29] Speaker 06:
I need this cup of coffee.

[01:20:31] Speaker 06:
I need this, right?

[01:20:32] Speaker 03:
A cup of coffee is not the same thing.

[01:20:33] Speaker 03:
I'm talking about the work itself.

[01:20:35] Speaker 06:
Oh, the work, yeah.

[01:20:35] Speaker 06:
In terms of almost daily people saying, how do I do this to Google employees?

[01:20:41] Speaker 06:
No, the record doesn't show that.

[01:20:42] Speaker 06:
And if there were a real constant level of I'm asking Google about all of this and I'm not asking my cognizant managers, that would be a different scenario.

[01:20:51] Speaker 06:
That is not this record.

[01:20:53] Speaker 06:
We have a few isolated, sporadic, and de minimis instances in here.

[01:20:57] Speaker 06:
That's what they point to.

[01:20:58] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much to all council for the helpful discussion.