Muffley ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Spartan Mining Co.

• Decision Date: 01 July 2009
• Docket Number: No. 08-1973.,No. 08-2201.,No. 08-2067.,08-1973.,08-2067.,08-2201.
• Citation: 570 F.3d 534
• Parties: Gary W. MUFFLEY, Regional Director of the Ninth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioners-Appellees, v. SPARTAN MINING COMPANY, d/b/a Mammoth Coal Company, Respondent-Appellant, and Massey Energy Company, and its subsidiary, Respondent. United Mine Workers of America, Amicus Supporting Appellees. Gary W. Muffley, Regional Director of the Ninth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of; National Labor Relations Board, Petitioners-Appellees, v. Massey Energy Company, and its subsidiary, Respondent-Appellant, and Spartan Mining Company, d/b/a Mammoth Coal Company, Respondent. United Mine Workers of America, Amicus Supporting Appellees. Gary W. Muffley, Regional Director of the Ninth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of; National Labor Relations Board, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Spartan Mining Company, d/b/a Mammoth Coal Company; Massey Energy Company, and its subsidiary, Respondents-Appellees. United Mine Workers of America, Amicus Supporting Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

570 F.3d 534

Gary W. MUFFLEY, Regional Director of the Ninth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioners-Appellees, v. SPARTAN MINING COMPANY, d/b/a Mammoth Coal Company, Respondent-Appellant, and Massey Energy Company, and its subsidiary, Respondent.

United Mine Workers of America, Amicus Supporting Appellees.

Gary W. Muffley, Regional Director of the Ninth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of; National Labor Relations Board, Petitioners-Appellees, v. Massey Energy Company, and its subsidiary, Respondent-Appellant, and Spartan Mining Company, d/b/a Mammoth Coal Company, Respondent.

United Mine Workers of America, Amicus Supporting Appellees.

Gary W. Muffley, Regional Director of the Ninth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of; National Labor Relations Board, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Spartan Mining Company, d/b/a Mammoth Coal Company; Massey Energy Company, and its subsidiary, Respondents-Appellees.

United Mine Workers of America, Amicus Supporting Appellants.

No. 08-1973.

No. 08-2067.

No. 08-2201.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: May 12, 2009.

Decided: July 1, 2009.

ARGUED: Forrest Hansbury Roles, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Spartan Mining Company, d/b/a Mammoth Coal Company and Massey Energy Company, and its subsidiary. Laura T. Vazquez, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for Gary W. Muffley, Regional Director of the Ninth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board. Judith E. Rivlin, United Mine Workers of America, Fairfax, Virginia, for Amicus Curiae United Mine Workers of America. ON BRIEF: Brace R. Mullett, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Charleston, West Virginia; Richard R. Parker, Jennifer S. Rusie, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stew-Art, PC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Spartan Mining Company, d/b/a Mammoth Coal Company and Massey Energy Company, and its subsidiary. John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel, Barry J. Kearney, Associate General Counsel, Judith I. Katz, Assistant General Counsel, Steven L. Sokolow, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for Gary W. Muffley, Regional Director of the Ninth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board. Charles F. Donnelly, United Mine Workers of America, Charleston, West Virginia; Grant Crandall, United Mine Workers of America, Fairfax, Virginia, for Amicus Curiae United Mine Workers of America.

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the opinion, in which Judge GREGORY and Judge DUNCAN joined.

OPINION

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:

After an administrative law judge found that Mammoth Coal Company had systematically discriminated against union members, the National Labor Relations Board sought injunctive relief in federal district court pursuant to § 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court issued a detailed written opinion, explaining its order granting this relief in part and denying it in part. The court ordered Mammoth to offer employment to persons that it had refused to hire because of union affiliation but denied substantial additional injunctive relief sought by the Board. Mammoth appeals, and the Board cross-appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.

A.

In October 2004, A.T. Massey Coal Company acquired in bankruptcy the coal mining assets of Cannelton Industries, Inc. and Dunn Coal and Dock (Cannelton/Dunn). Massey assigned these assets to its subsidiary, Spartan Mining Company, which does business as Mammoth Coal Company (Mammoth). Mammoth then took over operation of the coal mining facilities located on the Cannelton/Dunn property.

In December 2004, Mammoth began hiring production and maintenance workers for this property. Prior to resuming mining operations, Mammoth offered employment interviews to, and eventually hired, most of the non-bargaining unit employees who had worked at Cannelton/Dunn. Mammoth largely refused, however, to extend employment or even interviews to Cannelton/Dunn laborers who were members of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA). Instead, Mammoth filled vacant positions with inexperienced trainees and nonunion employees from its own nearby facilities, even though those facilities themselves were experiencing labor shortages.

On June 2, 2005, in reaction to this apparent illegal activity, the UMWA filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board. The General Counsel for the Board investigated the matter and filed a complaint with the Board against Mammoth on August 18, 2006, alleging multiple violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Over a six-week period, commencing on January 22, 2007, and ending on March 15, 2007, an administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a 16-day evidentiary proceeding regarding this complaint. On November 21, 2007, in an exhaustively detailed opinion, the ALJ found that Mammoth had violated the NLRA.

The ALJ first held that Mammoth violated §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1), (3) (2006), by discriminatorily refusing to hire union employees of Cannelton/Dunn in order to avoid an obligation to recognize and bargain with the union. The ALJ found abundant support for a prima facie case of discrimination, including not just circumstantial evidence but also overt anti-union statements made by Mammoth officials. In reaching its conclusion, the ALJ considered, analyzed, and then rejected each of Mammoth's proffered non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decisions, noting that these justifications were "contradictory" and had "shift[ed]" over the course of litigation. Moreover, the ALJ also found that Mammoth, as a legal successor to the Cannelton/Dunn operation that had failed to recognize and bargain collectively with the predecessor union, had violated § 8(a)(5) of the NLRA. Id. § 158(a)(5).

Based on these findings, the ALJ's recommended order called for broad relief, including immediate employment offers and back pay for 85 listed discriminatees, forced recognition and bargaining with the union, rescission of any unilateral changes to employment terms and conditions, and remission of all wages and benefits that Mammoth would have paid absent discrimination. Both sides filed exceptions to the ALJ's proposed order; the matter remains pending before the Board.

B.

In order to preserve the Board's remedial power during the pendency of administrative proceedings, the Board's regional director petitioned the federal district court for temporary injunctive relief under § 10(j) of the NLRA. Section 10(j) provides a means for the Board to seek an order from the court temporarily enjoining asserted unfair labor practices. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(j) (2006); Kinney v. Pioneer Press, 881 F.2d 485, 487-88 (7th Cir.1989). In December 2007, due to anticipated reductions from its full five-member complement, which would take the Board below its quorum of three members, and pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 153(d) (2006), the Board delegated its § 10(j) powers to its General Counsel. The General Counsel, in turn, recused himself (because of personal ties to the case) and delegated this power in the case at hand to the Deputy General Counsel.

Shortly after the General Counsel delegated this authority to him, the Deputy General Counsel authorized the regional director to petition the district court for temporary injunctive relief under § 10(j). Mammoth moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the Board lacked authority to delegate its § 10(j) powers. In a written opinion, the district court denied this motion. Muffley v. Massey Energy Co., 547 F.Supp.2d 536 (S.D.W.Va.2008).

The district court then held an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the Board's petition, at which the court heard testimony from a number of witnesses. During that hearing, Mammoth conceded that the Board had demonstrated "reasonable cause" to believe that Mammoth violated the NLRA. After consideration of both the evidence offered by the parties and their oral and written arguments, the district court issued a thorough and well-reasoned opinion. Muffley v. Massey Energy Co., No. 2:08-cv-00073, 2008 WL 4103881 (S.D.W.Va. August 29, 2008). The court found that limited injunctive relief—ordering Mammoth to offer employment to the alleged discriminatee employees—was "just and proper" under § 10(j) to preserve the effectiveness of any ultimate Board order. Id. at *9. But the court refused to grant the other injunctive relief that the Board requested. Specifically, the court declined to order Mammoth to recognize and bargain with the union, post notices of the district court's order throughout its workplace, or rescind any unilaterally imposed employment conditions, finding those measures unnecessary to preserve the Board's remedial powers in this case. Id. at *12. Both Mammoth and the Board noted timely appeals.

While those appeals were pending before us, Mammoth moved in this court for a stay of the district court's order that it offer employment to the alleged discriminatee employees. The order, Mammoth claimed, would result in irreparable harm to the company because it might have to displace some of its current employees to accommodate the hiring of discriminatees. Before we could act on Mammoth's motion, however, the company withdrew the motion, acknowledging that, after it offered positions to all of the discriminatees, it had been able to hire all who sought employment without laying off any employees. See Mammoth's Mot. to Withdraw Mot. For Stay of Inj. Pending Appeal at 2, No. 08-1973 (4th Cir. Oct. 15, 2008).

II.

As a preliminary matter, Mammoth argues that neither ...