Local 814, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 74-1036

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtBefore BAZELON, Chief Judge, and TAMM and ROBB; PER CURIAM; BAZELON
Citation546 F.2d 989,178 U.S.App.D.C. 223
Parties93 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2305, 93 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2450, 93 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2800, 178 U.S.App.D.C. 223, 79 Lab.Cas. P 11,612 LOCAL 814, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Karl J. Leib, Jr., Intervenor. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SANTINI BROTHERS, INC., Respondent.
Decision Date17 September 1976
Docket Number74-1243,Nos. 74-1036

Page 989

546 F.2d 989
93 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2305, 93 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2450,
93 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2800, 178 U.S.App.D.C. 223,
79 Lab.Cas. P 11,612
LOCAL 814, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, et al., Petitioners,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Karl J. Leib,
Jr., Intervenor.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
SANTINI BROTHERS, INC., Respondent.
Nos. 74-1036, 74-1243.
United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.
Sept. 17, 1976.
As Amended Oct. 6, 1976.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1977.

Michael E. Abram, New York City, was on the supplemental brief for petitioners.

John S. Irving, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor, Associate Gen. Counsel; Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel and Alan Banov, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., were on the supplemental brief for respondent.

Karl J. Lieb, Jr., Miami, Fla., was on the supplemental brief for intervenor.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and TAMM and ROBB, Circuit Judges.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

Dissenting opinion filed by Chief Judge BAZELON.

PER CURIAM:

In Local 814, Teamsters (Santini Brothers, Inc.), 208 N.L.R.B. 184 (1974) the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) affirmed without comment an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision that a provision of Local 814's collective bargaining agreement with Santini Brothers, Inc. violated sections 8(b)(4) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)(4), 158(e) (1970). The effect of the contested clause is to force owner-operators of tractor trailers who contracted with Santini for long distance hauling to join Local 814 or lose their contracts. On review in this court we agreed with the Board's conclusions if the owner-operators are not "employees" within the meaning of section 2(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(3) (1970). Local 814, Teamsters v. NLRB, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 387, 512 F.2d 564, 567 (1975). The opinion of the ALJ adopted by the NLRB in Santini had concluded that the owner-operators were not employees within the meaning of section 2(3). However, shortly after issuing its Santini decision, the Board adopted the decision of another ALJ which concluded

Page 991

that owner-operators who worked for another firm in the moving and storage industry were employees. Local 814, Teamsters (Molloy Brothers Moving and Storage, Inc.), 208 N.L.R.B. 276 (1974). We therefore remanded the record of Santini to the NLRB for clarification and explanation of these ostensibly inconsistent decisions. Local 814, Teamsters v. NLRB, supra, 512 F.2d at 567.

We now have before us the Board's Supplemental Decision in Santini wherein the NLRB has articulated the factual distinctions between its two decisions. These distinctions indicate that Molloy Brothers exercises greater control over its owner-operators than Santini Brothers and thus explain the different conclusions reached by the Board as to employee status. Having clarified the basis for its different results the Board has fully complied with this court's remand mandate. Local 814, Teamsters v. NLRB, supra, 512 F.2d at 567; see NLRB v. Silver Bay Local 962, 510 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1975).

A majority of the Board found seven factual distinctions between Molloy and Santini. 1 Petitioner Local 814 attacks these distinctions as "essentially meaningless". Petitioner's Brief at 11. Two dissenting Board members also question both the existence and sufficiency of differences between the cases. Local 814, Teamsters (Santini Brothers, Inc.), 223 N.L.R.B. ---, --- (No. 121, at 12-13 (1976) (Members Fanning & Jenkins, dissenting).

We must keep in mind that where, as here, an agency is charged with administering a broad statutory mandate, courts must of necessity defer to agency judgment. Local 814, Teamsters v. NLRB, supra, 512 F.2d at 572 (Bazelon, C. J., concurring in part, dissenting in part); cf. NLRB v. Food Store Employees, 417 U.S. 1, 9, 94 S.Ct. 2074, 40 L.Ed.2d 612 (1974). The remand in this case was to assure that the NLRB had in fact exercised its judgment in nearly simultaneously affirming the decisions of different administrative law judges who had reached ostensibly inconsistent conclusions. The distinctions detailed in the Board's Supplemental Decision show that the NLRB has considered the facts in each case and finds them distinguishable, thereby warranting different results. We find that the Board has exercised its judgment and engaged in reasoned analysis in arriving at the different results in Santini and Molloy.

Simply because the petitioner and two Board members do not find the NLRB's arguments...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 practice notes
  • Central & Southern Motor Freight Tariff Ass'n v. U.S., Nos. 83-1581
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 29, 1985
    ...v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 618 F.2d 819, 826 (D.C.Cir.1980). 126 Cf. Local 814, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Bd., 546 F.2d 989, 991 (D.C.Cir.1976) (per curiam) ("[W]here, as here, an agency is charged with administering a broad statutory mandate, courts must of necessi......
  • Menkes v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 09–5372.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 8, 2011
    ...Alpharma, Inc. v. Leavitt, 460 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C.Cir.2006). As we noted in Local 814, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. NLRB, 546 F.2d 989, 992 (D.C.Cir.1976) (per curiam): The “ post hoc rationalization” rule is not a time barrier which freezes an agency's exercise of its judgment aft......
  • Friends of the Earth v. U.S. E.P.A., Civil Action No. 04-0092 RMU.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • November 29, 2004
    ...as long as the court can find "essential postulates for the agency rule" in the record. Local 814, Int'l Bhd. Of Teamsters v. N.L.R.B., 546 F.2d 989, 992 Specifically, the plaintiff contends that EPA (1) never offered a sediment memory rationale during administrative hearings and (2) never ......
  • Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Export-Import Bank of U.S., Civil Action No. 13–0424 RC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 30, 2015
    ...rationales offered by anyone other than the proper decisionmakers.’ ” 460 F.3d at 6 (quoting Local 814, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. NLRB, 546 F.2d 989, 992 (D.C.Cir.1976) ). Alpharma thus requires a court to ask whether the party who provided the remand explanation was a “proper decisionmake......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
41 cases
  • Central & Southern Motor Freight Tariff Ass'n v. U.S., Nos. 83-1581
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 29, 1985
    ...v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 618 F.2d 819, 826 (D.C.Cir.1980). 126 Cf. Local 814, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Bd., 546 F.2d 989, 991 (D.C.Cir.1976) (per curiam) ("[W]here, as here, an agency is charged with administering a broad statutory mandate, courts must of ne......
  • Menkes v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 09–5372.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 8, 2011
    ...Alpharma, Inc. v. Leavitt, 460 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C.Cir.2006). As we noted in Local 814, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. NLRB, 546 F.2d 989, 992 (D.C.Cir.1976) (per curiam): The “ post hoc rationalization” rule is not a time barrier which freezes an agency's exercise of its judgment aft......
  • Friends of the Earth v. U.S. E.P.A., Civil Action No. 04-0092 RMU.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • November 29, 2004
    ...as the court can find "essential postulates for the agency rule" in the record. Local 814, Int'l Bhd. Of Teamsters v. N.L.R.B., 546 F.2d 989, 992 Specifically, the plaintiff contends that EPA (1) never offered a sediment memory rationale during administrative hearings and (2) neve......
  • Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Export-Import Bank of U.S., Civil Action No. 13–0424 RC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 30, 2015
    ...rationales offered by anyone other than the proper decisionmakers.’ ” 460 F.3d at 6 (quoting Local 814, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. NLRB, 546 F.2d 989, 992 (D.C.Cir.1976) ). Alpharma thus requires a court to ask whether the party who provided the remand explanation was a “proper decisionmake......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT