NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
BENCH BOOK
An NLRB Trial Manual
January 2022 Edition
Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind
Editor
Judge Sharon Levinson Steckler Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone
Associate Editor Associate Editor
FOREWORD
A handbook for NLRB trial examiners or administrative law judges has existed in various
forms since the earliest days of the National Labor Relations Act. The Bench Book was first
published in 2001 and has been updated periodically since. Judge Jeffrey Wedekind has served
as its editor since 2010. Beginning with the January 2022 edition, Judges Sharon Levinson
Steckler and Mara-Louise Anzalone have joined him as associate editors.
The January 2022 edition updates the March 2021 edition with citations to numerous
additional Board and court decisions. It also includes substantial additional discussion of various
matters, including evidentiary issues relating to electronically stored information (ESI). See, e.g.,
§ 16-803.6, Regularly Conducted Activity: Business Records, § 16-901.3, Authenticating ESI, and
§ 16-902.2, Self-authenticating ESI.
Like previous editions, this edition of the Bench Book is designed to provide NLRB judges
with a reference guide during unfair labor practice (ULP) hearings when other resources may not
be readily available. However, it is also a useful tool for all trial practitioners before the Board. It
sets forth Board precedent and other rulings and authorities on certain recurring procedural and
evidentiary issues that may arise during the hearing. It is not a digest of substantive law. Nor
should it be cited as precedent or considered a substitute for issue-specific research. A good
source for such research is the NLRB’s Classification Outline and Index (also known as
CITENET, the Board’s website search database of Board cases) particularly Chapter 596
“Procedure in ULP Proceedings,” Chapter 737 “Evidence,” and Chapter 700 “General Legal
Principles.”
The basic sources that govern Board ULP hearings are the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Board's Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, and Board decisions. The Board also applies, so far as practicable, the
Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), and frequently seeks guidance from the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (FRCP). All citations in the Bench Book to the Board’s Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, the FRE, and the FRCP have been updated to reflect the most recent
amendments.
The Bench Book includes references to unpublished Board orders, unappealed
administrative law judge decisions, and other Agency documents that are not binding precedent.
It also includes citations to some of the two-Member Board decisions that issued from January 1,
2008–March 29, 2010, and the recess-Board decisions that issued from January 4, 2012–August
4, 2013. These decisions, which are marked with an asterisk (*), lack precedential weight and
should be cited, if at all, with caution, unless they have been reaffirmed. See New Process
Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010) (holding that the two-Member Board lacked authority to
issue its decision in that case); and NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513 (2014) (holding that
the appointments of Members Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn during a 3-day
intrasession recess were invalid). However, they may provide useful guidance in evaluating
similar issues and factual situations.
A search of the Bench Book can be performed by pressing the “Ctrl” and “F” keys together
and typing the search word(s) in the box.
Robert A. Giannasi
Chief Administrative Law Judge
i
BENCH BOOK
An NLRB Trial Manual
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
CHAPTER 1. MODEL STATEMENTS, ORDERS, AND OATHS .................................................. 1
§ 1–100 Judge’s Opening Statement .................................................................................... 1
§ 1–200 Judge’s Closing Statement ...................................................................................... 1
§ 1–300 Sequestration Order ................................................................................................ 2
§ 1–400 Witness Oath .......................................................................................................... 3
§ 1–500 Interpreter's Oath .................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2. THE TRIAL JUDGE ................................................................................................ 5
§ 2–100 Designation ............................................................................................................. 5
§ 2–200 Ex Parte Communications ....................................................................................... 5
§ 2–210 Basic Prohibition ................................................................................................. 5
§ 2–220 Exceptions to Basic Prohibition ........................................................................... 5
§ 2–230 Procedure When Prohibited Communication Received ....................................... 6
§ 2–300 Duties and Powers of Trial Judge ............................................................................ 7
§ 2–400 Disqualification of Judge ......................................................................................... 9
§ 2–410 Grounds Asserted for Disqualification ................................................................. 9
§ 2–420 Disqualification Procedure................................................................................. 12
CHAPTER 3. PLEADINGS ......................................................................................................... 13
§ 3–100 The Charge ........................................................................................................... 13
§ 3–110 General Principles ............................................................................................. 13
§ 3–120 Filing and Service Under Section 10(b) ............................................................. 13
§ 3–130 Sufficiency of the Charge .................................................................................. 14
§ 3–140 Scope of Investigation of the Charge ................................................................ 14
§ 3–200 Complaint .............................................................................................................. 14
§ 3–210 Complaint Closely Related to Timely Charge .................................................... 15
§ 3–220 Adequacy of Complaint ..................................................................................... 16
§ 3–230 Bill of Particulars or More Definite Statement .................................................... 16
§ 3–300 Amendments to Complaints .................................................................................. 18
§ 3–310 Who May Seek and Who May Grant Amendments ........................................... 18
§ 3–320 When Amendments Are Allowed ....................................................................... 19
§ 3–330 Amendments and Section 10(b) ........................................................................ 22
§ 3–340 De Facto Amendment—Unpleaded But Fully Litigated ...................................... 22
§ 3–400 Consolidation and Severance ............................................................................... 26
§ 3–410 General Principles ............................................................................................. 26
§ 3–420 Consolidation .................................................................................................... 26
§ 3–430 Severance or Bifurcation ................................................................................... 27
§ 3–500 Withdrawal or Dismissal ........................................................................................ 29
§ 3–550 Revival of Withdrawn or Dismissed Charge ...................................................... 30
1
To proceed directly to a chapter or section, place the cursor over it and left click the mouse.
ii
§ 3–600 Answer to Complaint ............................................................................................. 31
§ 3–610 Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................ 33
§ 3–620 Affirmative Defenses ......................................................................................... 34
§ 3–700 Section 10(b) Affirmative Defense ......................................................................... 35
§ 3–710 Computation of Section 10(b) Period ................................................................ 35
§ 3–720 Background Evidence ....................................................................................... 36
§ 3–730 Continuing Violations ........................................................................................ 36
§ 3–740 Backpay for Continuing Violations ..................................................................... 37
§ 3–750 Fraud or Deception ........................................................................................... 37
§ 3–800 Other Affirmative Defenses ................................................................................... 37
§ 3–810 Charging Party’s Motive or Misconduct ............................................................. 37
§ 3–820 Laches .............................................................................................................. 38
§ 3–830 Inadequate Investigation/Compliance with Casehandling Manual ..................... 39
§ 3–840 Deferral to Grievance Arbitration ....................................................................... 39
§ 3–850 Prior Settlement ................................................................................................ 41
§ 3–860 Section 8(g) Notice ........................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER 4. FILING AND SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS ........................................................... 42
§ 4–100 Filing of Documents .............................................................................................. 42
§ 4–200 Service of Documents ........................................................................................... 43
§ 4–300 Determining Date of Service ................................................................................. 44
§ 4–400 Proof of Service .................................................................................................... 44
§ 4–500 Failure of Service .................................................................................................. 45
§ 4–600 Efforts to Frustrate Service .................................................................................... 45
§ 4–700 Special Aspects of Service of Particular Documents ............................................. 46
§ 4–710 Charges and Amended Charges ....................................................................... 46
§ 4–720 Complaint and Notice of Hearing....................................................................... 47
§ 4–730 Compliance Specifications ................................................................................ 47
§ 4–740 Answers to Complaints and to Compliance Specifications ................................ 47
§ 4–750 Subpoenas ........................................................................................................ 47
CHAPTER 5. TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING ........................................................................ 48
§ 5–100 Before Hearing Opens .......................................................................................... 48
§ 5–200 After Hearing Opens ............................................................................................. 48
§ 5–300 Requests for Continuance to Obtain Counsel ........................................................ 48
§ 5–310 Length of Continuance to Obtain Counsel or Substitute Counsel ...................... 50
§ 5–320 When Counsel or Party Leaves After Request Is Denied .................................. 50
§ 5–400 Motions for Continuance to Prepare a Defense ..................................................... 50
§ 5–500 Motions for Continuance Because of Unavailable Witness .................................... 50
§ 5–600 Motions to Change Location of Hearing ................................................................ 51
CHAPTER 6. APPEARANCES AT HEARING............................................................................ 53
§ 6–100 Representation at Hearing .................................................................................... 53
§ 6–110 Respondent Not Represented by Counsel ........................................................ 53
§ 6–200 Ethical Issues Involving Representation ................................................................ 53
§ 6–210 Attorney as Witness .......................................................................................... 53
§ 6–220 Conflicts of Interest ........................................................................................... 54
§ 6–230 “Skip Counsel” Violations .................................................................................. 54
§ 6–300 Failure of Party to Appear at Hearing .................................................................... 55
§ 6–400 Rights of Charging Parties and Alleged Discriminatees ......................................... 55
§ 6–500 Intervention at Hearing .......................................................................................... 56
§ 6–510 Necessary Parties ............................................................................................. 59
iii
§ 6–520 Parties in Interest .............................................................................................. 60
§ 6–600 Misconduct by Attorney or Representative ............................................................ 60
§ 6–610 Exclusion of Counsel ......................................................................................... 60
§ 6–620 Authority to Admonish or Reprimand Counsel ................................................... 61
§ 6–630 Suspension of Counsel ..................................................................................... 63
§ 6–640 Awarding Litigation Costs .................................................................................. 64
§ 6–650 Counsel Misconduct as Unfair Labor Practice ................................................... 65
CHAPTER 7. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE .................................................................................... 66
§ 7–100 Conference Calls .................................................................................................. 66
§ 7–200 Pretrial Discovery .................................................................................................. 66
§ 7–300 Depositions ........................................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER 8. SUBPOENAS ....................................................................................................... 68
§ 8–100 Issuance of Subpoenas ......................................................................................... 68
§ 8–110 Application for Subpoena .................................................................................. 68
§ 8–120 Service of Subpoena ......................................................................................... 68
§ 8–125 Timing of Service of Subpoena ......................................................................... 69
§ 8–130 Geographic Reach of Subpoena ....................................................................... 70
§ 8–140 Fees and Mileage Required to be Paid ............................................................. 70
§ 8–150 Expert Witnesses, Required Fees and Mileage ................................................. 70
§ 8–200 Revocation of Subpoenas ..................................................................................... 70
§ 8–205 Petition to Revoke “In Writing” ........................................................................... 70
§ 8–210 “Within 5 Business Days” Requirement ............................................................. 71
§ 8–215 Standing to File Petition to Revoke ................................................................... 71
§ 8–220 Judge’s Authority to Revoke Sua Sponte .......................................................... 73
§ 8–225 Grounds for Revoking Subpoena ...................................................................... 74
§ 8–230 Ruling on Petition to Revoke ............................................................................. 75
§ 8–235 Admitting Subpoena Ruling and Related Pleadings Into the Record ................. 76
§ 8–300 Scope of Subpoenas ............................................................................................. 76
§ 8–310 Material Must Be “Reasonably Relevant” .......................................................... 76
§ 8–320 Request Must Not Be Vague or Overbroad ....................................................... 78
§ 8–330 Burdensomeness of Production ........................................................................ 79
§ 8–340 Electronically Stored Information (ESI) .............................................................. 82
§ 8–350 Possession or Control ....................................................................................... 83
§ 8–400 Privileged or Protected Material ............................................................................ 84
§ 8–405 Attorney-Client Privilege .................................................................................... 84
§ 8–410 The Privilege and Collective-Bargaining and Business Records........................ 89
§ 8–415 Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege .................................................................... 90
§ 8–420 Crime/Fraud Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege ........................................... 91
§ 8–425 Duration of Attorney-Client Privilege ................................................................. 91
§ 8–430 Work Product Doctrine ...................................................................................... 92
§ 8–435 Waiver of Work Product Protection ................................................................... 93
§ 8–440 Board Agent Testimony and Files ..................................................................... 93
§ 8–445 Jencks Statements ............................................................................................ 94
§ 8–450 Audio/Video Recordings .................................................................................... 95
§ 8–455 Identity of Union Supporters (Authorization Cards) ........................................... 95
§ 8–460 Collective-Bargaining Information...................................................................... 96
§ 8–465 Mediator’s Privilege ........................................................................................... 98
§ 8–470 Reporter’s Privilege ........................................................................................... 98
§ 8–475 State Confidentiality Rules ................................................................................ 99
§ 8–480 Foreign Blocking Statutes ................................................................................. 99
iv
§ 8–500 Procedures for Evaluating Privilege Claims ......................................................... 100
§ 8–510 Privilege Log ................................................................................................... 100
§ 8–520 In Camera Inspection ...................................................................................... 102
§ 8–600 Protective Orders ................................................................................................ 103
§ 8–700 Noncompliance with Subpoena ........................................................................... 106
§ 8–710 Failure of Witness to Appear and Testify ......................................................... 106
§ 8–720 Failure to Produce Documents ........................................................................ 106
§ 8–730 Failure to Preserve Evidence (Litigation Holds and Spoliation) ....................... 111
§ 8–740 Interference with Subpoena Compliance ......................................................... 113
§ 8–800 Enforcement of Subpoenas on Behalf of Private Party ........................................ 113
CHAPTER 9. SETTLEMENTS .................................................................................................. 115
§ 9–100 In General ........................................................................................................... 115
§ 9–200 Promoting Settlement .......................................................................................... 115
§ 9–220 At Pretrial Conference ..................................................................................... 115
§ 9–230 At the Trial ...................................................................................................... 116
§ 9–240 After the Trial .................................................................................................. 116
§ 9–300 Judge’s Role in Approving Settlements ............................................................... 116
§ 9–320 Settlements Before Hearing Opens ................................................................. 116
§ 9–330 Settlements After Hearing Opens and Before Decision Issues ........................ 118
§ 9–340 Settlement After Judge’s Decision Issues—ADR Program .............................. 118
§ 9–400 Standards for Approving or Rejecting Settlements .............................................. 118
§ 9–410 Types of Settlements—Formal, Informal, and Non-Board ............................... 118
§ 9–420 Formal Settlements ......................................................................................... 118
§ 9–430 Informal and Non-Board Settlements .............................................................. 119
§ 9–440 Settlement by Consent Order .......................................................................... 121
§ 9–500 Procedures for Considering, Accepting, or Rejecting Settlement......................... 123
§ 9–600 Various Provisions of Settlement Agreements ..................................................... 125
§ 9–610 Nonadmission Clauses ................................................................................... 125
§ 9–620 Reservation Clauses: Settlement Bar Rule ..................................................... 125
§ 9–630 Joint and Several Liability ............................................................................... 126
§ 9–640 Waiver and Release Provisions ...................................................................... 126
§ 9–650 Taxability ......................................................................................................... 126
§ 9–700 Grievance/Arbitration Settlements ....................................................................... 127
§ 9–800 Setting Aside Settlement Agreements ................................................................. 127
§ 9–900 Default Judgment for Noncompliance with Settlement ........................................ 128
§ 9–1000 Decision Vacated by Settlement.......................................................................... 129
§ 9–1100 Role of Settlement Judge .................................................................................... 129
CHAPTER 10. MOTIONS AND SPECIAL APPEALS ............................................................... 131
§ 10–100 Motions In Limine ................................................................................................ 131
§ 10–200 Motions for Decision Based on Stipulated Record ............................................... 131
§ 10–300 Motions for Summary and Default Judgment....................................................... 132
§ 10–400 Motions to Dismiss .............................................................................................. 133
§ 10–500 Motions to Reopen Record .................................................................................. 134
§ 10–600 Interlocutory Special Appeals from Judges’ Rulings ............................................ 135
CHAPTER 11. SEQUESTRATION OF WITNESSES ................................................................ 137
§ 11–100 In General ........................................................................................................... 137
§ 11–200 Scope of Sequestration Order ............................................................................. 137
§ 11–210 Conferring with Counsel .................................................................................. 137
§ 11–300 Requests to Separate Witnesses ........................................................................ 138
v
§ 11–400 Who Should and Should Not Be Separated ........................................................ 139
§ 11–500 Violation of Sequestration Order ......................................................................... 141
CHAPTER 12. THE HEARING RECORD ................................................................................. 142
§ 12–100 Public hearings ................................................................................................... 142
§ 12–200 Opening a Hearing by Telephone or Mail ............................................................ 142
§ 12–300 Taking Testimony by Telephone ......................................................................... 142
§ 12–400 Taking Testimony by Videoconference................................................................ 143
§ 12–500 Holding Remote Hearings by Videoconference ................................................... 146
§ 12–600 The Hearing Transcript ....................................................................................... 147
§ 12–700 Tape Recorders in Hearing ................................................................................. 148
§ 12–800 Television Cameras in Courtroom ....................................................................... 149
§ 12–900 Redacting Private Information (Social Security Numbers) ................................... 149
CHAPTER 13. BOARD PRECEDENT AND RELITIGATION OF ISSUES ................................ 150
§ 13–100 Binding Board Precedent, Judge Required to Follow .......................................... 150
§ 13–200 Adopted Judge Decisions, When Not Binding Precedent .................................... 150
§ 13–300 Reliance on Prior Findings of Another Judge ...................................................... 150
§ 13–400 Reliance on Settlements ..................................................................................... 152
§ 13–500 Reliance on Portions of Other Records ............................................................... 152
§ 13–600 Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel .................................................................. 152
§ 13–700 Judicial Estoppel ................................................................................................. 156
CHAPTER 14. SUPPLEMENTAL OR RELATED PROCEEDINGS .......................................... 158
§ 14–100 Compliance Proceedings .................................................................................... 158
§ 14–110 Compliance Specification ................................................................................ 158
§ 14–120 Answer to Compliance Specification ............................................................... 159
§ 14–130 Rights of Charging Parties and Discriminatees ............................................... 160
§ 14–140 Burdens of Proof and Production .................................................................... 161
§ 14–150 Specific Remedial Issues ................................................................................ 168
§ 14–200 Consolidated Representation Cases ................................................................... 170
§ 14–300 Remands ............................................................................................................ 171
§ 14–400 Bankruptcy Proceedings ..................................................................................... 172
§ 14–500 Injunction Proceedings ........................................................................................ 172
CHAPTER 15. OPENING AND CLOSING STATEMENTS, ...................................................... 174
BRIEFS, AND DECISIONS ....................................................................................................... 174
§ 15–100 Opening Statements ........................................................................................... 174
§ 15–200 Pretrial or Trial Briefs .......................................................................................... 174
§ 15–300 Closing Arguments .............................................................................................. 174
§ 15–400 Posthearing Briefs ............................................................................................... 174
§ 15–500 Briefs Not Part of Official Record ......................................................................... 175
§ 15–600 Expedited Decision Without Briefs ...................................................................... 175
§ 15–700 Bench Decision ................................................................................................... 176
§ 15–710 In General ....................................................................................................... 176
§ 15–720 Deciding to Issue Bench Decision ................................................................... 176
§ 15–730 Procedures for Issuance of Bench Decisions .................................................. 176
§ 15–800 Contents of Judge’s Decision .............................................................................. 177
CHAPTER 16. EVIDENCE........................................................................................................ 179
§ 16–100 Federal Rules Apply “So Far as Practicable” ....................................................... 179
§ 16–102 FRE 102. Purpose.............................................................................................. 179
vi
§ 16–102.1 Taut Record .................................................................................................... 180
§ 16–103 FRE 103. Rulings on Evidence........................................................................... 180
§ 16–103.1 Timing of Objections ....................................................................................... 180
§ 16–103.2 Offers of Proof ................................................................................................. 182
§ 16–104 FRE 104. Preliminary Questions ........................................................................ 183
§ 16–104.1 Voir Dire Examination ..................................................................................... 183
§ 16–105 FRE 105. Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other Parties or for
Other Purposes ................................................................................................... 184
§ 16–106 FRE 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements ............... 184
§ 16–201 FRE 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts .................................................. 184
§ 16–301 FRE 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally ............................................... 186
§ 16–400 Relevancy ........................................................................................................... 186
§ 16–401 FRE 401. Test for Relevant Evidence ................................................................ 186
§ 16–402 FRE 402. General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence ....................................... 187
§ 16–402.1 Parol Evidence ................................................................................................ 187
§ 16–402.2 Evidence of Animus and Unlawful Motive ........................................................ 187
§ 16–402.3 Evidence of Coercion ...................................................................................... 189
§ 16–402.4 Evidence of Presettlement Conduct ................................................................ 190
§ 16–402.5 Evidence Affecting Remedy ............................................................................ 190
§ 16–402.6 Stolen Evidence .............................................................................................. 195
§ 16–402.7 Tape Recordings ............................................................................................. 195
§ 16–402.8 State Agency Decisions .................................................................................. 196
§ 16–403 FRE 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time,
or Other Reasons ................................................................................................ 197
§ 16–404 FRE 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts ......................................... 198
§ 16–405 FRE 405. Methods of Proving Character ............................................................ 198
§ 16–406 FRE 406. Habit; Routine Practice ....................................................................... 199
§ 16–407 FRE 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures........................................................ 199
§ 16–408 FRE 408. Compromise Offers and Negotiations ................................................. 200
§ 16–501 FRE 501. Privileges in General .......................................................................... 202
§ 16–501.1 Fifth Amendment Claims ................................................................................. 203
§ 16–502 FRE 502. Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver .... 205
§ 16–600 Witnesses ........................................................................................................... 206
§ 16–601 FRE 601. Competency to Testify in General ...................................................... 206
§ 16–601.1 Trial Attorney for Party .................................................................................... 207
§ 16–601.2 Interested Parties ............................................................................................ 207
§ 16–602 FRE 602. Need for Personal Knowledge ............................................................ 207
§ 16–603 FRE 603. Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully .............................................. 208
§ 16–604 FRE 604. Interpreter .......................................................................................... 208
§ 16–604.1 Simultaneous or Consecutive Interpretation .................................................... 209
§ 16–604.2 Objections to Interpretation ............................................................................. 209
§ 16–604.3 Translation of Documents. .............................................................................. 210
§ 16–604.4 Assisting Hearing Impaired Witness ................................................................ 210
§ 16–604.5 Appointment and Payment of Interpreter ......................................................... 211
§ 16–605 FRE 605. Judge’s Competency as a Witness ..................................................... 211
§ 16–607 FRE 607. Who May Impeach a Witness ............................................................. 211
§ 16–607.1 Impeachment Generally .................................................................................. 211
§ 16–607.2 Limits on Impeachment: Names of Prounion Employees ............................... 212
§ 16–608 FRE 608. A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness .................. 212
§ 16–608.1 Impeachment on Collateral Matters ................................................................. 213
§ 16–608.2 Use of extrinsic evidence ................................................................................ 214
§ 16–608.3 Evaluating Credibility Based on Specific Acts.................................................. 214
vii
§ 16–609 FRE 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction ........................... 214
§ 16–610 FRE 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions .............................................................. 216
§ 16–611 FRE 611. Mode and Order of Presenting Evidence ............................................ 216
§ 16–611.1 Mode and Order of Examination ..................................................................... 216
§ 16–611.2 Cross-Examination Beyond the Scope ............................................................ 217
§ 16–611.3 Redirect, Recross, Rebuttal, and Surrebuttal Testimony ................................. 217
§ 16–611.4 Leading Questions/Hostile Witnesses ............................................................. 218
§ 16–611.5 Failure to Call Witness: Adverse Inference ...................................................... 219
§ 16–612 FRE 612. Writing Used to Refresh a Witness’s Memory..................................... 221
§ 16–613 FRE 613. Witness’s Prior Statement .................................................................. 223
§ 16–613.1 Jencks Statements .......................................................................................... 224
§ 16–614 FRE 614. Court’s Calling or Examining a Witness .............................................. 228
§ 16–615 FRE 615. Excluding Witnesses .......................................................................... 228
§ 16–700 Opinions and Expert Testimony .......................................................................... 229
§ 16–701 FRE 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses ................................................. 229
§ 16–702 FRE 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses ......................................................... 229
§ 16–702.1 Polygraph Evidence ........................................................................................ 230
§ 16–702.2 Prior Notice to Opponent ................................................................................. 231
§ 16–703 FRE 703. Bases of an Expert’s Opinion Testimony ............................................ 231
§ 16–704 FRE 704. Opinion on an Ultimate Issue ............................................................. 232
§ 16–705 FRE 705. Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Expert’s Opinion ............. 232
§ 16–706 FRE 706. Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses ..................................................... 232
§ 16–800 Hearsay .............................................................................................................. 233
§ 16–801 FRE 801. Definitions; Exclusions from Hearsay ................................................. 233
§ 16–801.1 Purpose of Evidence: Truth of the Matter Asserted ......................................... 234
§ 16–801.2 Affidavit of Recanting Witness ......................................................................... 235
§ 16–801.3 Admission or Statement by Opposing Party .................................................... 235
§ 16–802 FRE 802. The Rule Against Hearsay .................................................................. 238
§ 16–802.1 Corroborated hearsay ..................................................................................... 239
§ 16–802.2 Double hearsay ............................................................................................... 239
§ 16–803 FRE 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — Regardless of Whether the
Declarant Is Available as a Witness .................................................................... 239
§ 16–803.1 Present Sense Impression .............................................................................. 242
§ 16–803.2 Excited Utterance ............................................................................................ 244
§ 16–803.3 State of Mind: Motive ...................................................................................... 244
§ 16–803.5 Recorded Recollection .................................................................................... 245
§ 16–803.6 Regularly Conducted Activity: Business Records ............................................ 246
§ 16–804 FRE 804. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — When the Declarant Is
Unavailable as a Witness .................................................................................... 249
§ 16–804.1 Declarant Unavailable ..................................................................................... 250
§ 16–804.2 Declarant Deceased........................................................................................ 250
§ 16–805 FRE 805. Hearsay Within Hearsay ..................................................................... 250
§ 16–806 FRE 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant’s Credibility .......................... 251
§ 16–807 FRE 807. Residual Exception ............................................................................ 251
§ 16–807.1 Notice Not Required ........................................................................................ 251
§ 16–900 Authentication and Identification .......................................................................... 252
§ 16–901 FRE 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence ................................................ 252
§ 16–901.1 Circumstantial Evidence .................................................................................. 253
§ 16–901.2 Audio and Video Recordings ........................................................................... 253
§ 16–901.3 Electronically Stored Information (ESI) ............................................................ 254
§ 16–901.4 Signatures/Union Authorization Cards ............................................................ 254
§ 16–901.5 Documents Obtained from Opposing Party ..................................................... 255
viii
§ 16–902 FRE 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating .................................................. 256
§ 16–902.1 Newspaper/Television Reports ....................................................................... 257
§ 16–902.2 Electronically Stored Information (ESI) ............................................................ 258
§ 16–903 FRE 903. Subscribing Witness’s Testimony ........................................................ 258
§ 16–1000 Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs ........................................... 258
§ 16–1001 FRE 1001. Definitions That Apply to This Article ................................................ 258
§ 16–1002 FRE 1002. Requirement of the Original .............................................................. 259
§ 16–1003 FRE 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates ................................................................ 259
§ 16–1004 FRE 1004. Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content ....................................... 259
§ 16–1005 FRE 1005. Copies of Public Records to Prove Content ...................................... 260
§ 16–1006 FRE 1006. Summaries to Prove Content ........................................................... 260
§ 16–1007 FRE 1007. Testimony or Statement of a Party to Prove Content ........................ 261
§ 16–1101 FRE 1101. Applicability of the Rules .................................................................. 261
APPENDIX: .............................................................................................................................. 262
COMMON EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS ................................................................................ 262
1
CHAPTER 1. MODEL STATEMENTS, ORDERS, AND OATHS
§ 1–100 Judge’s Opening Statement
The following is a suggested opening statement:
This is a formal hearing before the National Labor Relations Board in
___________________, Case __________. [If consolidated with an objections-
to-election case, add: "consolidated with Case__________ for hearing on
objections to election.'']
The administrative law judge presiding is _________________. I am
assigned to the _____________ office of the Division of Judges. Any written
motions, position statements, or other communications during the hearing should
be addressed to that office.
Will the parties’ counsel or other representatives please state their
appearances for the record at this time. For the General Counsel . . . For the
Charging Party . . . For the Respondent . . .
Thank you. Although we are here to litigate the case, I am advising you
now, before I have heard any of the testimony, that I intend to also offer you an
opportunity for settlement discussions at two specific stages of the hearing: first,
at the conclusion of the General Counsel's case and, second, at the end of the
trial. If I inadvertently forget to do so, please call it to my attention. And do not
hesitate to request a reasonable recess at any other time for further settlement
discussions if you believe they may be fruitful.
General Counsel, would you please introduce the pleadings and other
formal papers at this time. After they are in evidence, I will address any
preliminary motions or other procedural matters the parties may wish to raise
before their opening statements.
The judge may also want to ask if the appearance sheet is completed.
§ 1–200 Judge’s Closing Statement
The following is a suggested closing statement:
The parties will be provided ____ [up to 35] days to file posthearing briefs.
The due date will therefore be _________________. The briefs should be filed
directly with the Judges Division office in ______________, regardless of
whether they are e-filed or mailed. See Sections 102.2–102.5 of the Board’s
Rules for filing and service requirements.
Any request for an extension of time for the filing of briefs must be made
in writing to the [Chief Judge or Deputy or Associate Chief Judge] in that office
and served on the other parties. The positions of the other parties regarding the
extension should be obtained and set forth in the request. It is the policy of the
Division of Judges to grant discretionary extensions only when they are clearly
2
justified. Requests for extensions must contain specific reasons and show that
the requesting party cannot reasonably meet the current deadline.
Please refer to the Board’s Rules and Regulations for further information
regarding the filing of briefs and proposed findings for my consideration, and
regarding procedures before the Board after the issuance of my decision.
Finally, I remind you that settlement is still an option. In fact, now that the
evidence is all in, you might be better able to assess your chances of winning
than you were at the outset of the trial. I therefore encourage all parties to revisit
and carefully weigh the risks entailed and decide whether an amicable settlement
of the issues might not offer a more satisfactory solution.
There being nothing further, the hearing is now closed. Off the record.
§ 1–300 Sequestration Order
A full discussion of Board precedent with respect to separating, excluding, or sequestering
witnesses is set forth in CHAPTER 11, Sequestration of Witnesses, below. The following is a
model sequestration order set forth in Greyhound Lines, 319 NLRB 554 (1995):
Counsel has invoked a rule requiring that the witnesses be sequestered.
This means that all persons who are going to testify in this proceeding, with
specific exceptions that I will tell you about, may only be present in the hearing
room when they are giving testimony.
The exceptions are alleged discriminatees, natural persons who are
parties, representatives of non-natural parties, and a person who is shown by a
party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause. They may remain in
the hearing room even if they are going to testify or have testified. However,
alleged discriminatees, including charging parties, may not remain in the hearing
room when other witnesses on behalf of the General Counsel or the charging
party are giving testimony [regarding] events as to which the alleged
discriminatees will be expected to testify.
The rule also means that from this point on until the hearing is finally
closed, no witness may discuss with other potential witnesses either the
testimony that they have given or that they intend to give. The best way to avoid
any problems is simply not to discuss the case with any other potential witness
until after the hearing is completed.
Under the rule as applied by the Board, with one exception, counsel for a
party may not in any manner, including the showing of transcripts, inform a
witness about the content of the testimony given by a preceding witness, without
express permission of the administrative law judge. The exception is that counsel
for a party may inform the counsel’s own witness of the content of testimony,
including the showing of transcripts, given by a witness for the opposing side to
prepare for rebuttal of such testimony.
3
I expect counsel to police the rule and to bring any violation of it to my
attention immediately. It is the obligation of counsel to inform potential witnesses
who are not now present in the hearing room of their obligations under the rule.
It is also recommended that witnesses be reminded as they leave the witness stand that they are
not to discuss their testimony with any other witness or potential witness until the hearing is
completed.
The following is a shortened version of the Greyhound order:
A sequestration order is being issued in this proceeding. This means that
all persons who expect to be called as witnesses in this proceeding, other than a
person designated as essential to the presentation of a party’s case, will be
required to remain outside the courtroom whenever testimony or other
proceedings are taking place.
A limited exception applies to witnesses who are alleged discriminatees in
this matter. They may be present in the courtroom at all times, except when
witnesses for the General Counsel or a charging party are giving testimony
regarding the same events that the alleged discriminatees are expected to testify
about.
The sequestration order also prohibits all witnesses from discussing with
any other witness or possible witness the testimony they have already given or
will give.
Likewise, counsel for a party may not disclose to any witness the
testimony of any other witness. Counsel may, however, inform his/her own
witness of the content of testimony given by any opposing party’s witness to
prepare to rebut that testimony.
It is counsel’s responsibility to make sure that they and their witnesses
comply with this sequestration rule.
The judge should also ask each party to identify on the record the person designated as essential
to the presentation of that party’s case.
§ 1–400 Witness Oath
Examination is under oath. NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.30. The oath should
be administered to each witness in a manner calculated to impress the witness with the duty to
testify truthfully.
A solemn affirmation instead of an oath is acceptable. See FRE 603 and FRCP Rule
43(b). If a witness is unwilling, based on religious conviction, to either swear or affirm, any
statement that can reasonably be construed as a promise or undertaking to testify truthfully will
suffice. See Union Starch & Refining Co., 82 NLRB 495, 496 (1949); and Ferguson v. C.I.R.,
921 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1991). But see Gordon v. State of Idaho, 778 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1985)
(witnesses need not “swear” or “affirm” or raise their right hand, but their alternative statement
must indicate that they understand they can be prosecuted for perjury for failing to tell the truth,
i.e., that they are testifying under penalty of perjury).
4
A party that will be calling a witness it knows is unwilling to swear or affirm should bring
this to the judge’s attention before the oath is administered.
The traditional oath is:
Do you swear that your testimony in this hearing will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A typical affirmation substitutes “affirm” for “swear” and omits “so help you God”
or any similar religious reference:
Do you affirm that your testimony at this hearing will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Some judges add or substitute a reference that a witness may be prosecuted for perjury
for failing to tell the truth. For example:
Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that your testimony in
this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth [so
help you God]?
Following the oath or affirmation, the witness should be asked to give his/her name to the
court reporter, and to spell it if necessary.
§ 1–500 Interpreter's Oath
The following is a suggested interpreter’s oath:
Do you solemnly swear that you are fluent in both English and
__________ [foreign language] and that you will truthfully and accurately
interpret and translate, to the best of your skill and understanding, the questions
asked of the witnesses and their answers in this proceeding?
5
CHAPTER 2. THE TRIAL JUDGE
§ 2–100 Designation
Section 102.15 of the Board’s Rules states that the complaint shall contain “a notice of
hearing before an administrative law judge.” Similarly, Section 101.10(a) of the Board’s
Statements of Procedure states that a “designated administrative law judge presides over the
hearing.”
The administrative law judge is designated by the Chief Judge or Deputy or Associate
Chief Judge in the appropriate office, “as the case may be.” NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec.
102.34. The designation “is a matter for administrative determination by the Board with which the
parties have no concern.” East Texas Steel Castings Co., 116 NLRB 1336, 1337 (1956), enfd.
255 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1958).
§ 2–200 Ex Parte Communications
§ 2–210 Basic Prohibition
Once designated, the judge is prohibited from ex parte communication with any of the
parties to the proceeding. NLRB Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.126 and 102.128(e). Nor shall
any person “knowingly and willfully solicit the making of an unauthorized ex parte communication
by any other person.” Sec. 102.131.
An ex parte communication is any “oral or written communication not on the public record
with respect to which reasonable prior notice to all parties is not given.” Sec. 102.127(b). See
also Sec. 102.129. The prohibition continues “until the issues are finally resolved by the Board.”
Sec. 102.128.
Even communications with the judge regarding inadvertent errors in a judge’s decision
may be considered improper if the errors are substantive. See Wilco Business Forms, 280
NLRB 1336 n. 2 (1986) (representative of the General Counsel notified an Associate Chief Judge
of the omission of two employees’ names from the decision’s list of laid off employees, prompting
the deciding judge to issue an errata adding the names). See also Today’s Man, 263 NLRB 332,
333 n. 3 (1982) (Board’s Executive Secretary treated as a prohibited ex parte communication a
letter from the respondent’s counsel to the judge requesting deletion of certain language from the
judge’s decision).
§ 2–220 Exceptions to Basic Prohibition
Not every off-the-record communication between the judge and a party is prohibited.
Section 102.130 of the Board’s Rules lists a number of ex parte communications that are
permitted. These include:
Communications regarding matters that a judge is authorized to handle ex parte (Sec.
102.130(a)). This includes applications for subpoenas. NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec.
102.31(a); and Blake Construction Co., 245 NLRB 630 n. 1 (1979), enfd. in part 663 F.2d 272
(D.C. Cir. 1981). Thus, a party may submit a subpoena application to a judge outside the
presence of other parties and without serving them with a copy of the application.
6
Communications regarding the status of a proceeding (Sec. 102.130(b)). See, e.g., Care
Manor of Farmington, 314 NLRB 248 n. 2 (1994) (judge did not make an improper ex parte
communication by calling counsel for the General Counsel to advise that he would be presiding
and to request that counsel notify the respondent’s counsel of that fact, as there was no evidence
that a prohibited topic was discussed).
Communications which all parties agree, or which the judge formally rules, may be made
ex parte (Sec. 102.130(c)). See, e.g., Kendick Engineering, 244 NLRB 989 n. 2 (1979)
(rejecting respondent’s claim that the judge improperly had an ex parte off-the-record
conversation with the General Counsel during the trial, as the conversation occurred with
respondent’s assent).
Communications proposing settlement or agreement for disposition of any or all issues
(Sec. 102.130(d)). See, e.g., Sanford Home for Adults, 253 NLRB 1132 n. 1 (1981) (judge did
not engage in improper ex parte communication by meeting privately with counsel for the General
Counsel and the Regional Director to discuss settlement possibilities, as there was no evidence
that the conversation, which occurred with respondent’s knowledge on the heels of a settlement
discussion with all parties, in any way involved the merits of the complaint allegations), enfd. 669
F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1981); and Sumo Airlines, 317 NLRB 383 n. 1 (1995) (judge’s statement to the
alleged discriminatees about a pending settlement offer did not constitute an improper ex parte
communication, as there was no evidence that the communication in any way involved the merits
of the complaint allegations).
Communications between the trial judge and fellow judges. Although not specifically listed
in rule 102.130, it is also permissible for the trial judge to consult with fellow judges concerning a
legal or procedural issue in a case. See Pioneer Hotel, Inc. v. NLRB, 182 F.3d 939, 944 and n.
2 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In that case, the court rejected the respondent’s contention that the ALJ
engaged in an improper ex parte communication by consulting with a colleague on the correct
procedure for handling a motion to amend the complaint to add a new allegation. The court noted
that 5 U.S.C. § 557(d)(1)(A) and Section 102.126 of the Board’s Rules only prohibit
communications with “interested person[s] outside the Agency,” and that 5 U.S.C. § 554((d)(1)
only prohibits communications with “a person or party on a fact in issue.”
See also Rule 2.9(A)(3) of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct (2020 Edition), which
states: “A judge may consult with court staff and court officials whose functions are to aid the
judge in carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities, or with other judges, provided the
judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of the
record, and does not abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the matter.”
§ 2–230 Procedure When Prohibited Communication Received
Oral communications. If the ex parte communication is oral, the judge should refuse to
listen, inform the communicator of the prohibition, and advise the communicator to put what he or
she has to say in writing, with copies to all parties. If the communication was completed, the
judge should prepare a memorandum stating its substance, place it “on the public record of the
proceeding,” and serve copies “on all other parties to the proceeding and on the attorneys of
record for the parties.” NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.132(a) and (b).
Written communications. If the communication is written, the judge should place it “on the
public record of the proceeding,” and serve copies “on all other parties to the proceeding and on
the attorneys of record for the parties.” Ibid.
7
In both situations, parties have 14 days after the judge has served the copies to file with
the judge and serve on all other parties, “a statement setting forth facts or contentions to rebut
those contained in the prohibited communication.” Any such responses “will be placed in the
public record of the proceeding, and provision may be made for any further action, including
reopening of the record which may be required under the circumstances.” Sec. 102.132(b).
It is not clear what further steps should be taken by the judge. Section 102.133(a) of the
Board’s Rules provides:
Where the nature and circumstances of a prohibited communication . . . are such
that the interests of justice and statutory policy may require remedial action, the
Board, the Administrative Law Judge, or the Regional Director, as the case may
be, may issue to the party making the communication a Notice to Show Cause,
returnable before the Board within a stated period not less than 7 days from the
date of issuance, why the Board may not determine that the interests of justice
and statutory policy require that the claim or interest in the proceeding of a party
who knowingly makes a prohibited communication, or knowingly causes a
prohibited communication to be made may be dismissed, denied, disregarded, or
otherwise adversely affected on account of such violation.
Succeeding subsections of Section 102.133 set forth actions to be taken by the Board but do not
provide for further action by a judge who issues the notice to show cause.
§ 2–300 Duties and Powers of Trial Judge
The administrative law judge’s basic duty is “to inquire fully into the facts . . . whether the
Respondent has engaged in or is engaging in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce as set
forth in the complaint or amended complaint.” NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.35(a).
Specific powers of administrative law judges are enumerated in Section 102.35(a)(1)–(a)(13) of
the Board’s Rules, several of which are discussed below.
To regulate the course of the hearing (Sec. 102.35(a)(6)). The judge should direct the
hearing so that it “take[s] place in a dignified atmosphere, free of threats and intimidation,”
Altemose Construction Co. v. NLRB, 514 F.2d 8, 12–13 (3d Cir. 1975), and is “confined to
material issues and conducted with all expeditiousness consonant with due process,”
Indianapolis Glove Co., 88 NLRB 986, 987 (1950).
In doing so, “the question of whether certain lines of inquiry or responses of witnesses
should be curtailed rests within [the judge’s] sound discretion.” American Life Insurance and
Accident Co., 123 NLRB 529, 530 (1959). In appropriate circumstances, the judge may even
place time limits on a party’s presentation of its case. See, e.g., Dickens, Inc., 355 NLRB 255,
256–258 (2010) (judge acted within his discretion by imposing a 3-hour limit on the respondent’s
owner, who appeared pro se, to testify in narrative form, with additional time if necessary, and by
cutting off his testimony after 4 hours); and University Medical Center, 335 NLRB 1318 n. 1,
1343 (2001) (judge did not violate respondent’s due process rights by imposing, on the tenth day
of hearing, a time limit of 1 week for respondent to finish its case, and by requiring respondent to
rest a half day after the 1 week deadline), enfd. in part 335 F.3d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
However, the judge “must guard against expediting a hearing by limiting either party in the
full development of its case.” Indianapolis Glove, above. See also Better Monkey Grip Co.,
113 NLRB 938, 940 (1955) (trial examiner improperly “cut off lines of inquiry and limited the
response of witnesses to such an extent that the development of the case may have been
8
hampered”); and Boetticher & Kellogg Co., 137 NLRB 1392 n. 1, 1398–1399 (1962) (trial
examiner improperly barred respondent from cross-examining a General Counsel witness
because respondent refused his direction to conduct cross examination before the charging party
union had questioned the witness).
See also §§ 16–102, 16–403, 16–607, and 16–611, below.
If appropriate or necessary, to exclude persons or counsel from the hearing for
contemptuous conduct (Sec. 102.35(a)(6)). Although Section 102.38 provides that “any person
shall have the right to appear at the hearing in person, by counsel, or by other representative,”
the right of parties and counsel to appear at trials is not unlimited. Indeed, the same section
states that “the participation of any party shall be limited to the extent permitted by the
administrative law judge.” See also Section 102.177(a) of the Board’s Rules (“misconduct at any
hearing before an administrative law judge . . . shall be ground for summary exclusion from the
hearing”), discussed in § 6–610, Exclusion of Counsel, below.
To strike all related testimony of a witness who refuses to answer a proper question (Sec.
102.35(a)(6)). See, e.g., Nassau Insurance Co., 280 NLRB 878, 897 (1986) (judge properly
acted within her discretion by striking the entire testimony of a General Counsel witness who
failed to appear for further examination); and Today’s Man, 263 NLRB 332 (1982) (judge
properly ruled that the respondent’s president could not assert the attorney-client privilege in
response to certain questions on cross examination, directed him to respond to the questions,
and issued an order striking his entire testimony when he failed to do so).
To hold conferences for the settlement or simplification of issues (Sec. 102.35(a)(7)). See
§ 7–100, Conference Calls, and § 9–220, Promoting Settlement at Pretrial Conference, below.
To rule on procedural requests and motions (Sec. 102.35(a)(8)). This authority is
addressed more fully below in Chapter 10, Motions and Special Appeals (discussing, inter alia,
motions in limine, motions to dismiss and for summary or default judgment, and motions to
reopen the record). See also § 3–230 (motions for a bill of particulars or more definite
statement), § 3–400, et seq. (motions for consolidation and severance), § 3–740 (motions for
deferral to grievance arbitration), § 5–300, et seq. (motions to change the date or location of the
hearing), § 8–415 (motions for a protective order), § 12–400 (applications to take testimony by
videoconference); and § 12–500 (motions regarding whether to hold an in-person or remote
hearing).
To approve stipulations of fact (Sec. 102.35(a)(9)). See § 10–200, Motions for Decision
Based on Stipulated Record, below.
To make and file decisions (Sec. 102.35(a)(10)). “After a hearing for the purpose of taking
evidence upon a complaint, the administrative law judge will prepare a decision.” NLRB Rules
and Regulations, Sec. 102.45(a). See also NLRB Statements of Procedure, Sec. 101.11(a).
Thus, in Machinists Lodge 1129 (Sunbeam Appliance Co.), 216 NLRB 630 (1975), the Board
held that the judge erred in granting the respondent’s posthearing motion to transfer the case
directly to the Board for issuance of a decision over the objections of the General Counsel and
the charging party. See also § 15–800, Contents of Judge’s Decision, below.
To call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce documentary and other
evidence (Sec. 102.35(a)(11)). This section corresponds to FRE 614 and has generally been
applied consistently therewith. Thus, it is not improper for the judge to question witnesses.
Teamsters Local 722 (Kasper Trucking), 314 NLRB 1016, 1017 (1994) (the judge may
9
examine witnesses or interrupt questioning in order to clarify testimony or develop a complete
and integrated record), enfd. mem. 57 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir. 1995); Indianapolis Glove, above (“[I]t
is appropriate for [the judge] to question witnesses in order to ascertain their credibility or to
clarify their testimony.”); and NLRB v. Honaker Mills, 789 F.2d 262, 265 (4th Cir. 1986) (judge
properly “attempted to obtain more specific statements from the witnesses to determine the
weight that he should assign to their testimony”). The judge may also call a witness to testify.
See, e.g., Chipotle Services, LLC, 363 NLRB No. 37, slip op. at 8 (2015) (judge called a witness
to question him about respondent’s efforts toward subpoena compliance), enfd. 849 F.3d 1161
(8th Cir. 2017).
However, care should be taken to avoid examining witnesses to the extent that the judge
“takes out of the hands of either party the development of its case,” Indianapolis Glove Co.,
above, or “appear[s] to assume the role of an advocate in attempting to impeach [the witnesses’]
prior testimony,” Better Monkey Grip Co., above.
The judge’s failure to ask questions of a party witness is generally not grounds for
reversal. See Advocate South Suburban Hospital v. NLRB, 468 F.3d 1038, 1048 (7th Cir.
2006) (“[I]n an adversary legal system it is generally the attorney’s duty to provide specific
testimony. [The respondent] cannot palm off on the ALJ its apparent failure to properly question
[the witness]”).
§ 2–400 Disqualification of Judge
Section 102.36 of the Board’s Rules states that an administrative law judge “may withdraw
from a proceeding because of a personal bias or for other disqualifying reasons.”
§ 2–410 Grounds Asserted for Disqualification
“The functions of all administrative law judges . . . are conducted in an impartial manner,”
NLRB Statements of Procedure, Sec. 101.10(b). “It is essential not only to avoid actual partiality
and prejudgment … in the conduct of Board proceedings, but also to avoid even the appearance
of a partisan tribunal.” Indianapolis Glove Co., 88 NLRB 986, 987 (1950).
Former representation of a party. Former service on the staff of the General Counsel’s
office is not grounds for disqualification. Heads & Threads Co., 261 NLRB 800 n. 1 (1982), enfd.
in part 724 F.2d 282 (2d Cir. 1983). Nor is past representation of a private party, at least if that
representation was relatively remote in time. See Centeno Super Markets, 220 NLRB 1151 n. 1
(1975) (8 or 9 years had passed by time of trial), enfd. 555 F.2d 442 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied
434 U.S. 1064 (1978). See also 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(a) and (b)(1)(iv) (prohibiting any Agency
employee from participating in a matter involving a party or representative of a party for whom the
employee had served as an officer, director, trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant,
contractor, or employee within the past year).
However, judges should recuse themselves if they previously served as a lawyer in the
matter, participated personally and substantially as a government lawyer or public official
concerning the proceeding, or publicly expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the matter
while serving in government employment. See Rule 2.11 of the ABA Model Code of Judicial
Conduct (2011 Edition) (also discussing other grounds for disqualification).
Prior disposition statistics. In Eldeco, Inc. v. NLRB, 132 F.3d 1007, 1010 (4th Cir. 1997),
the Fourth Circuit rejected the employer’s contention that the judge was biased because
approximately 89% of his decisions in the last 20 years were in favor of labor unions. The court
10
stated that such statistics are “irrelevant,” citing its earlier decision in Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. v.
NLRB, 97 F.3d 65, 69 (4th Cir. 1996) (“To evaluate an ALJ’s impartiality in this way amounts to
judging his record by mere result or reputation, and in reality, such statistics tell us little or
nothing.”).
Prior rulings against party. “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for
a bias or partiality motion . . . and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of
favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is involved.” Liteky v. U.S.,
510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Thus, bias may not be inferred simply because the judge made
evidentiary rulings unfavorable to the party. United Nurses Associations of California v.
NLRB, 871 F.3d 767, 778 (9th Cir. 2017). Likewise, a judge who previously decided a case
against a respondent is not disqualified from presiding over the remand of the case. NLRB v.
Donnelly Garment Co., 330 U.S. 219, 236–237 (1947). See also Waterbury Hotel
Management v. NLRB, 314 F.3d 645, 650–651 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (judge did not err in refusing to
recuse himself simply because he had ruled against respondent’s predecessor in an unrelated
case). But see St. Mary’s Nursing Home, 342 NLRB 979, 980 n. 6 (2004) (judge’s adherence to
an erroneous ruling, after an initial remand, and allegations that the judge showed “irritation” and
“impatience,” warranted a second remand to another judge to remove any suggestion of bias or
prejudice), second remand decision affd. 240 Fed. Appx. 8, 10, 12–13 (6th Cir. 2007).
Criticism of counsel, parties, or witnesses. “[J]udicial remarks during the course of a trial
that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases,
ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge”; however, the criticisms “may do so if they
reveal an opinion that derives from an extrajudicial source; and they will do so if they reveal such
a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S.
at 555.
It is generally not evidence of bias that the judge rebuked counsel for improper conduct.
See U.S. v. Logan, 998 F.2d 1025, 1029 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied 510 U.S. 1000 (1993) (judge
“upbraided” counsel for flouting the judge’s orders); and U.S. v. Mendoza, 468 F.3d 1256, 1262
(10th Cir. 2006) (judge referred counsel to a bar disciplinary board). See also Merillat
Industries, 307 NLRB 1301, 1301–1302 (1992), where the Board rejected the charging party
union’s contention that the judge’s actions in an unrelated case—questioning counsel for the
General Counsel’s professional integrity and thereafter withdrawing from that case and reporting
the matter to the Regional Director—created the appearance of impartiality, notwithstanding that
the judge’s accusations were gratuitous and unwarranted.
But compare New York Times Co., 265 NLRB 353 (1982) (reversing and remanding case
to another judge for a hearing de novo because the trial judge made unsupported statements
“impugn[ing] the good faith of the Union and question[ing] whether the General Counsel and the
Charging Party were abusing the Board’s processes”); and Reading Anthracite Co., 273 NLRB
1502 (1985) (same, where the trial judge made “serious accusations” in a “hostile tone” to
respondent’s counsel, including telling the attorney that he would be “suborning perjury” if he
attempted to ask certain questions of his witness, and accused the attorney, without any basis or
justification, of engaging in “contemptuous and unethical conduct” by filing a motion for the
judge’s disqualification). See also Victor’s Café 52, Inc., 338 NLRB 753, 756–757 (2002), where
the Board cautioned judges against using intemperate language about a witness or counsel that
“undermines the confidence of parties, representatives, and the public in the overall fairness and
equity of the Board’s treatment of parties. . .and ability to. . .render a fair judgment.”
Suggestions to counsel regarding litigation strategy or tactics. Such suggestions are
generally improper. See Thermoid Co., 90 NLRB 614 n. 2 (1950) (“[W]e do not condone the
11
practice of a Trial Examiner during a recess offering suggestions in trial tactics to counsel.”). For
specific examples, compare Reading Anthracite Co., above (judge’s conduct as a whole,
including his statement that he “would appreciate it if counsel [for the General Counsel] would
maintain a reasonably militant posture” with respect to the relevance of certain questioning by the
respondent’s counsel, at the very least gave the appearance of partiality and prejudgment
sufficient to warrant disqualification), with Thermoid, above (trial examiner did not commit
prejudicial error by suggesting that the General Counsel move to make respondent’s witness his
own in order to examine the witness beyond the scope of respondent’s direct examination, as the
suggestion “related to a technical rule of cross-examination procedure and, in any event, involved
general background evidence upon which the Trial Examiner relied only to a very limited extent”),
and Teamsters Local 722 (Kasper Trucking), 314 NLRB 1016, 1017 (1994) (finding no bias
based on an “isolated incident” where the judge told the General Counsel to ask additional
questions to more fully develop the record on a particular issue, as the judge might have
accomplished the same thing through his own questioning), enfd. mem. 57 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir.
1995).
Questioning witnesses. It is well established that bias may not be inferred simply because
the judge questioned the party’s witnesses. United Nurses Associations of California, above,
871 F.3d at 778. See also § 2–300, Duties of Trial Judge, above, regarding the authority of
administrative law judges to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and the limits to that
authority.
Gratuitous remarks. The Board has cautioned against making gratuitous remarks
regarding witnesses or testimony, Better Monkey Grip Co., 113 NLRB 938, 940 (1955), or
matters “extraneous to the legal and factual issues,” Teamsters Local 777 (Crown Metal), 145
NLRB 197, 198 n. 4 (1963), enfd. 340 F.2d 905 (7th Cir. 1964).
Comments about the merits and evidence presented. A judge’s opinions, formed “on the
basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior
proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-
seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at
555. Thus, the Board has rejected allegations of bias where judges expressed an opinion about a
particular defense after all the evidence had been received, Teamsters Local 722, above, 314
NLRB at 1018, or about the ultimate merits of the case in the context of suggesting the possibility
of settlement, Roto Rooter, 288 NLRB 1025 n. 2 (1988). See also NLRB v. Honaker Mills, 789
F.2d 262, 265 (4th Cir. 1986) (“A judge’s remarks that constitute mere expressions of a point of
law are not sufficient to show personal bias or prejudice”).
However, the Board has cautioned judges that it is “both advisable and prudent” to “refrain
both on and off the record from making unnecessary remarks or comments to parties concerning
the merits of their cases,” Aerosonic Instrument Corp., 116 NLRB 1502, 1503 (1956). See also
Center for United Labor Action, 209 NLRB 814, 814–815 (1974) (directing that a new judge be
appointed where the original judge expressed his view, prior to hearing any evidence, that some
allegations did not constitute unfair labor practices and that he therefore intended to preclude
introduction of any evidence to support the allegations); and Reading Anthracite, above (same,
where the judge made statements throughout the hearing creating the impression that he had
prejudged the ultimate issue in the case and exhibited hostility, bias, and prejudice towards the
respondent).
Encouraging settlement. “[S]imply encouraging the parties to consider settlement . . .
[does] not display bias or create the impression of prejudgment.” J. Westrum Electric, 365
NLRB No. 151, slip op. at 1 n.1 (2017) (rejecting the respondent’s contention that the judge
12
displayed bias by encouraging the parties to discuss settlement after the General Counsel
finished presenting his case and again at the close of the hearing), enfd. mem. per curiam 753
Fed. Appx. 421 (8th Cir. 2019), cert. denied 140 S.Ct. 2771 (2020). See also §§ 9–200 through
9–240, below.
Copying from briefs. The Board discourages judges from extensively adopting and relying
on partisan briefs. Fairfield Tower Condominium Assn., 343 NLRB 923 n.1 (2004). See also
Waterbury Hotel Management, above, 314 F.3d at 650–651. Indeed, in Dish Network Service
Corp., 345 NLRB 1071 (2005), the Board set aside the judge’s decision and remanded the case
to a new judge for an independent review of the record and preparation of a new decision
because the judge had copied verbatim extensive portions of the briefs filed by the General
Counsel and the charging party even though the Board had previously warned him in another
case where he did so that it did not condone the practice. See also J.J. Cassone Bakery, 345
NLRB 1305 (2005); and § 15–400, Posthearing Briefs, below.
§ 2–420 Disqualification Procedure
The provisions regarding disqualification of administrative law judges are set forth in
Section. 102.36(a) of the Board’s Rules. A party may request the judge to withdraw “on grounds
of personal bias or disqualification” at any time following the judge’s designation and before filing
of the judge’s decision. The requesting party must file with the judge “promptly upon the
discovery of the alleged facts a timely affidavit setting forth in detail the matters alleged to
constitute grounds for disqualification.” If, in the judge’s opinion, the affidavit is filed “with due
diligence and is sufficient on its face,” the judge “will promptly disqualify himself/herself and
withdraw from the proceeding.” If the judge does not disqualify himself/herself, the judge “must
rule upon the record, stating the grounds for that ruling.” See also NLRB Statements of
Procedure, Sec. 101.10(b).
The foregoing provisions require a party seeking to disqualify a judge based on the
judge’s hearing conduct to file the motion with the judge before the judge issues a decision. See
Al Bryant, Inc., 260 NLRB 128 n. 1 (1982) (judge erred in admonishing respondent’s counsel for
filing the recusal motion with him rather than with the Board), enfd. 711 F.2d 543 (3d Cir. 1983),
cert. denied 464 U.S. 1039 (1984). If a party fails to file the motion with the judge before issuance
of the judge’s decision, although aware of the asserted disqualifying facts, a subsequent motion
for disqualification will be regarded by the Board as untimely. See Roto Rooter, 288 NLRB 1025
n. 2 (1988); Central Mack Sales, 273 NLRB 1268 n. 2 (1984); and Sanford Home for Adults,
253 NLRB 1132 n. 1 (1981), affd. in relevant part 669 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1981).
For what constitutes “due diligence,” see Manor West, Inc., 311 NLRB 655 n. 1 (1993)
(respondent’s motion to disqualify, which was filed with the trial judge 7 weeks after the hearing
closed but well before the judge’s decision issued, was filed with due diligence and was not
untimely).
13
CHAPTER 3. PLEADINGS
§ 3–100 The Charge
See Secs. 102.9–102.14 of the Board’s Rules.
§ 3–110 General Principles
Under Section 10(b) of the Act, the General Counsel cannot issue a complaint unless a
charge has been filed. See Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC, 368 NLRB No. 10, slip op.
at 4–5 (2019), and cases cited there.
A charge may be filed by anyone: a labor organization, an employee, an employer, or any
other individual or entity. See NLRB Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.9 (a charge may be filed
by “any person”) and 102.1(a) (the term “person” has the same meaning set forth in Section 2 of
the Act); and Sec. 2(1) of the Act (“The term “person” includes one or more individuals, labor
organizations, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, . . . or receivers”). See
also FDRLST Media, LLC, 2–CA–243109, unpub. Board order issued Feb. 7, 2020 (2020 WL
1182438). In that case, the respondent web magazine argued that the complaint should be
dismissed because the charging party was “nothing more than a random person on the internet”
who saw the publisher’s allegedly unlawful tweet. The Board rejected the argument as “the clear
and unambiguous weight of both Board and Supreme Court authority holds that any person may
file an initial charge,” citing NLRB v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., 318 U.S. 9, 17–18 (1943),
and Castle Hill Health Care Center, 355 NLRB 1156, 1190 (2010).
The charge must be filed with the Regional Director for a Region in which the alleged
unfair labor practice occurred or with the General Counsel. NLRB Rules and Regulations, Secs.
102.10 and 102.33. However, the venue where the charge was filed does not affect the Board’s
jurisdiction or the validity of the complaint. See FDRLST Media, above; Harris Corp., 269 NLRB
733, 734 n. 1 (1984); and Allied Products Corp., 220 NLRB 732, 733 (1975).
§ 3–120 Filing and Service Under Section 10(b)
Under Section 10(b) of the Act, a charge must be both filed and served within 6 months of
the alleged unfair labor practice. Dun & Bradstreet Software Services, 317 NLRB 84, 84–85
(1995) (charge served on respondent a day late was untimely, even if the charging party received
erroneous advice from the Board’s regional office), affd. 79 F.3d 1238 (1st Cir. 1996). But see
Guild San Jose, 370 NLRB No. 47, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2020) (the failure to properly serve the
charge within the 10(b) period is cured by timely service of the complaint within the 10(b) period,
absent a showing of prejudice), and cases cited there. For a discussion of what constitutes
service of the charge, see Chapter 4, Service of Documents, below.
The charge must also be signed. NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.11. But an
unsigned copy served on the respondent is adequate if the original filed with the Regional Office
is signed. Freightway Corp., 299 NLRB 531 (1990). The Board has also held that the failure of a
charging party to comply with the sworn acknowledgment or declaration requirements of Section
102.11 does not affect the timeliness of the filing of the charge. Alldata Corp., 324 NLRB 544,
544–545 (1997), enf. denied on other grounds, 245 F.3d 803, 807 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
14
See also § 3–210, Complaint Closely Related to Timely Charge; § 3–330, Amendments
and Section 10(b); § 3–550, Revival of Withdrawn or Dismissed Charge; and § 3–700, Section
10(b) Affirmative Defense, below.
§ 3–130 Sufficiency of the Charge
A charge merely serves to initiate a Board investigation to determine whether a complaint
should be issued. It is not a pleading and is not measured by the standards applicable to a
pleading in a private lawsuit. See FDRLST Media, above, citing NLRB v. Fant Milling Co., 360
U.S. 301, 307 (1959) (the role of the Board is not “to adjudicate private controversies” but “to
advance the public interest in eliminating obstructions to interstate commerce.”); and NLRB v.
Indiana & Michigan Electric, above, 318 U.S. at 18 (“The charge does not . . . serve the
purpose of a pleading.”). Thus, a charge "is sufficient if it informs the alleged violator of the
general nature of the violation charged against him and enables him to preserve the evidence
relating to the matter.'' NLRB v. Louisiana Mfg. Co., 374 F.2d 696, 704–705 (8th Cir. 1967),
quoting NLRB v. Raymond Pearson, Inc., 243 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir. 1957).
§ 3–140 Scope of Investigation of the Charge
The Regional Office is not required to limit the investigation of a charge to the specific
unfair labor practices alleged therein. See NLRB v. Fant Milling Co., above, 360 U.S. at 307–
309 (“Once its jurisdiction is invoked the Board must be left free to make full inquiry under its
broad investigatory power in order properly to discharge the duty of protecting public rights which
Congress has imposed upon it. There can be no justification for confining such an inquiry to the
precise particularizations of a charge.”).
Section 10062.5 of the NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 1) provides that, where the
Regional Office’s investigation uncovers evidence of other unfair labor practices not specified in
the charge, the Region should make a determination whether the charge is sufficient to support
the additional allegations, and if it is not, the charging party should be apprised of the deficiency
and given an opportunity to file an amended charge.
Although the Casehandling Manual is not binding on the Board (see § 3–830, below), the
Board has implicitly approved the foregoing procedure. See Leukemia and Lymphoma
Society, 363 NLRB No. 123 (2016). In that case, the respondent moved to dismiss certain
allegations involving its handbook rules because the allegations were unrelated to the charge; the
Region evaluated the handbook on its own initiative; and the charging party amended the charge
to include the handbook allegations at the Region’s suggestion or direction. The Board found “no
merit” in the respondent’s contention that the allegations were barred by Section 10(b) in these
circumstances, noting that the investigative procedure respondent described “conforms to Section
10062.5 of the NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 1) Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings.”
§ 3–200 Complaint
The disposition of charges, and the decision whether a complaint should issue or be
litigated, is within the exclusive province of the General Counsel and is not subject to review.
Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 182 (1967). See also Cincinnati Enquirer, 298 NLRB 275 (1990),
(judge erred by stating that the Regional Director was “without authority” to issue the complaint),
review denied 938 F.2d 284 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
15
§ 3–210 Complaint Closely Related to Timely Charge
A complaint is not restricted to the precise allegations of the charge. The complaint may
also allege matters relating to and growing out of the charged conduct. NLRB v. Fant Milling
Co., above, 360 U.S. at 309. The test is stated in Redd-I, Inc., 290 NLRB 1115, 1116 (1988):
If a charge was filed and served within six months after the violations alleged in the
charge, the complaint (or amended complaint), although filed after the six months,
may allege violations not alleged in the charge if (a) they are closely related to the
violations named in the charge, and (b) occurred within six months before the filing
of the charge.
See also Old Dominion Freight Line, 331 NLRB 111 (2000).
In evaluating whether allegations are “closely related” under Redd-I, the Board considers:
1) whether the otherwise untimely allegation and the allegations in the timely-
filed charge are of the same class, i.e., whether the allegations involve the same
legal theory and usually the same section of the Act (legally related);
2) whether the otherwise untimely allegation and the allegations in the timely-
filed charge arise from the same factual situation or sequence of events (factually
related); and
3) whether the respondent would raise the same or similar defenses to the
otherwise untimely allegation and the allegations in the timely-filed charge.
Charter Communications, LLC, 366 NLRB No. 46, slip op. at 2 (2018), reconsideration denied
by unpub. Board order issued June 7, 2018 (2018 WL 2761559), enfd. 939 F.3d 798 (6th Cir.
2019). See also Applebee’s, 367 NLRB No. 44, slip op. at 2–3 (2018).
It is not necessary under the first factor that the otherwise untimely allegation involve the
same section of the Act as the timely allegations. Nickles Bakery of Indiana, 296 NLRB 927
n. 5 (1989).
The second factor is satisfied when the timely and untimely allegations (1) “demonstrate
similar conduct, usually during the same time period with a similar object,” (2) share a causal
nexus and “are part of a chain or progression of events,” or (3) “are part of an overall plan to
undermine union activity.” Charter Communications, above, slip op. at 2 n. 7, citing Carney
Hospital, 350 NLRB 627, 630 (2007). The second factor is not satisfied “merely because timely
and untimely allegations pertain to events that occurred during or in response to the same union
campaign.” Ibid.
The third factor “is concerned, at least in part, with whether a reasonable respondent
would have preserved similar evidence and prepared a similar case in defending against the
untimely allegations as it would in defending against the timely allegations.” Charter
Communications, above, slip op. at 3, citing Fry’s Food Stores, 361 NLRB 1216, 1217 n. 5
(2014). See also Applebee’s, above, slip op. at 3 (“[I]t is only necessary for this part of the test
that the defenses be similar, not that they be identical.”). It is not a mandatory factor, i.e., the
Board may find allegations closely related even if this third factor is not satisfied. See
Earthgrains Co., 351 NLRB 733, 734 n. 8 (2007), citing Carney Hospital, above, 350 NLRB at
16
628 n. 8. See also Costco Wholesale Corp., 366 NLRB No. 9, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2018) (finding
that the Redd-I “closely related” test was satisfied based solely on the first two factors).
See also § 3–330, Amendments and Section 10(b); § 3–550, Revival of Withdrawn or
Dismissed Charge; and § 3–700, Section 10(b) Affirmative Defense, below.
§ 3–220 Adequacy of Complaint
Like all pleadings before the Board, the requirements of a complaint are governed by the
Board’s Rules rather than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Nissan North America,
Inc., 10-CA-198732, unpub. Board order issued Nov. 16, 2017 (2017 WL 5516533), at n. 2; and
Component Bar Products, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 140, slip op. at 10 (2016). Section 102.15 of the
Board’s Rules states that a complaint “will” contain:
(a) A clear and concise statement of the facts upon which the Board asserts
jurisdiction, and
(b) A clear and concise description of the acts which are claimed to constitute
unfair labor practices, including, where known, the approximate dates and
places of such acts and the names of Respondent’s agents or other
representatives who committed the acts.
“Applying this rule, the Board and the courts have consistently found that an unfair labor
practice complaint is not judged by the strict standards applicable to certain pleadings in other,
different contexts.” Artesia Ready Mix Concrete, 339 NLRB 1224, 1226 (2003), citing, e.g.,
NLRB v. Piqua Munising Wood Products Co., 109 F.2d 552, 557 (6th Cir. 1940) (“The Act
does not require the particularity of pleading of an indictment or information, nor the elements of a
cause like a declaration at law or a bill in equity. All that is requisite in a valid complaint before
the Board is that there be a plain statement of the things claimed to constitute an unfair labor
practice that respondent may be put upon his defense.”). See also Kumho Tires Georgia, 370
NLRB No. 32, slip op. at 5 n. 15 (2020) (“The General Counsel is not required to plead the exact
testimony in his complaint.”).
However, as discussed in § 3–600 below, the Board will not issue a default (no answer)
summary judgment on a complaint that fails to include a clear or specific factual basis to
determine that the alleged conduct was unlawful.
§ 3–230 Bill of Particulars or More Definite Statement
If a respondent believes the complaint provides inadequate notice of the allegations, it
may file a motion for a bill of particulars or more definite statement with the Division of Judges.
See, e.g., Full-Fill Industries, LLC, 25–CA–249830, unpub. Board order issued Nov. 17, 2020
(2020 WL 6781765), at 1 n. 2 (such prehearing motions are properly filed with the Division of
Judges rather than the Board).
Although FRCP 12(e) requires such a motion to be filed before a responsive pleading, the
Board’s Rules do not impose any deadline or timeframe. Nissan North America, above.
However, the motion is normally filed before the hearing opens so that the respondent can use
the additional details to prepare its defense. In that event, the motion will be handled by the Chief
Judge or Deputy or Associate Chief Judge in the appropriate office, unless the trial judge has
been designated.
17
If the motion is not filed until after the hearing opens, the trial judge will rule on the
motion. The General Counsel’s opening statement, however, may provide the details or
clarification the respondent seeks, thereby rendering the motion moot. See Stor-Rite Metal
Products, 283 NLRB 856, 861 n. 6 (1987), enf. denied on other grounds 856 F.2d 957 (7th Cir.
1988).
As a general matter, "a bill of particulars is justified only when the complaint is so vague
that the party charged is unable to meet the General Counsel's case.'' Affinity Medical Center,
364 NLRB No. 67, slip op. at 2 (2016), quoting North American Rockwell Corp. v. NLRB, 389
F.2d 866, 871 (10th Cir. 1968). Thus, in Affinity, the Board held that the judge erred in requiring
the GC to provide additional information regarding a proposed amendment to the complaint, as
the proposal already stated the nature of the alleged conduct (specific unilateral rule changes),
the names of the supervisors allegedly involved in each change, the dates of the changes, and
the location. See also Dal-Tex Optical Co., 130 NLRB 1313 n. 1 (1961) (employer’s motion for
particulars regarding certain alleged 8(a)(1) threats or statements was properly denied where the
complaint described the nature of the activity, the dates, and the names of the agents that made
the alleged threats or statements); Mid-Atlantic Restaurant Group LLC d/b/a Kelly’s Taproom
v. NLRB, 722 Fed. Appx. 284, 287 (3rd Cir. 2018) (ALJ did not abuse his discretion in denying
the employer’s motion for a bill of particulars regarding an employee’s alleged 8(a)(1) discharge
as the complaint adequately pled that the employee had openly complained about shift
schedules, that her complaints constituted protected concerted activity, and that she was
discharged for that activity); and Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. NLRB, 318 F.3d 1173,
1181–1182 (10th Cir. 2003) (employer was not denied due process because the complaint’s
8(a)(5) bad-faith bargaining allegation, which alleged that the employer had insisted on proposals
granting it unilateral control over the employees’ terms and conditions of employment, failed to
specifically identify the bargaining proposals).
Compare Guitar Center Stores, Inc., 13–CA–130446, unpub. Board order issued Nov. 3,
2015 (2015 WL 6735635). In that case, the 8(a)(5) complaint alleged that the respondent had
bargained in bad faith “at various times” during the previous 2 years by, inter alia, making
regressive bargaining proposals and unilateral changes to mandatory subjects of bargaining,
failing to make proposals for an extended period of time, and implementing benefits in nonunion
facilities. The Board held that the judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the respondent’s
motion for a bill of particulars and ordering the General Counsel to identify the regressive
bargaining proposals and unilateral changes at issue, the period of time during which respondent
unlawfully failed to make proposals, and the benefits implemented at nonunion stores.
A rough rule of thumb is that a complaint should allege the 4 Ws: who committed the act,
what was done, when was it done, and where. See also Sec. 102.15 of the Board’s Rules, set
forth in § 3–220, above. Thus, the following additional information need not be pleaded:
Names of employees who were allegedly threatened or interrogated. The names of
employees to whom an alleged threat or other 8(a)(1) violation was directed need not be pleaded,
and a respondent is not entitled to disclosure of the names before the hearing. See Walsh-
Lumpkin Wholesale Drug Co., 129 NLRB 294, 295 (1960); and Storkline Corp., 141 NLRB
899, 902–903 (1963), enfd. in part 330 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1964). See also Pacific 9
Transportation, Inc., 21–CA–116403, unpub. Board order issued June 11, 2015 (2015 WL
3643583). In that case, the judge ordered the General Counsel to disclose the identity of the
driver or drivers allegedly interrogated given that the respondent had asserted, as an affirmative
defense, that its drivers were independent contractors, the respondent had the burden of proving
that defense with respect to the particular driver(s) involved, and the respondent would be
expected to proceed with its defense as early as the first day of hearing. The Board reversed,
18
noting that the respondent could request a continuance to prepare its defense, if needed. See
also § 7–100, below, discussing the Board’s policy against pretrial discovery.
Dates alleged discriminatees engaged in union or concerted activity. The date(s) that an
alleged discriminatee engaged in protected union or concerted activity likewise need not be
pleaded. Cannoli Factory, 29–CA–187620, unpub. Board order issued April 18, 2017 (2017 WL
1462121).
Theory of the case. The General Counsel is also not required to plead evidence or the
theory of the case in the complaint. See Stein, Inc., 9–CA–215131, unpub. Board order issued
March 17, 2020 (2020 WL 1931433), at 1 n. 2 (“The General Counsel is not required to set forth a
precise legal theory in the complaint.”), citing Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. NLRB, 2 F.3d 1162,
1169 (D.C. Cir. 1993). See also McDonald’s USA, LLC, 362 NLRB 1347 (2015); Artesia Ready
Mix Concrete, Inc., 339 NLRB 1224, 1226 n. 3 (2003); Boilermakers Local 363 (Fluor Corp.),
123 NLRB 1877, 1913 (1959); and North American Rockwell, above, 389 F.2d at 871.
With respect to General Counsel motions for a bill of particulars regarding affirmative
defenses asserted in a respondent’s answer, see § 3–620, below.
§ 3–300 Amendments to Complaints
§ 3–310 Who May Seek and Who May Grant Amendments
After the hearing opens, the complaint may only be amended on motion by the General
Counsel. The judge may not amend the complaint over the GC’s objection or in a manner
inconsistent or contrary to the GC’s motion. GPS Terminal Services, 333 NLRB 968, 968–969
(2001). Nor may the judge find a violation on a theory that the GC has expressly disclaimed.
Indiana Bell Telephone Co., 370 NLRB No. 93, slip op. at 1 (2021); and Mid-Atlantic Regional
Council of Carpenters (Goodell, Devries, Leech & Dann, LLP), 356 NLRB 61 n. 2 (2010).
The Board has also held that the judge may not find a violation based on an allegation or
theory that has been asserted only by the charging party. See Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 363
NLRB No. 195, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2016) (“It is well settled that a charging party cannot enlarge
upon or change the General Counsel’s theory of a case.”), citing Kimtruss Corp., 305 NLRB
710, 711 (1991) (judge erred in finding an 8(a)(1) violation based on the charging party’s theory
as well as the GC’s theory). See also GTE Automatic Electric, 196 NLRB 902, 903 (1972)
(judge erred by granting the charging party’s motion to amend the complaint to allege an 8(a)(3)
discharge); Winn-Dixie Stores, 224 NLRB 1418, 1420 (1976), (judge erred in finding that the
respondent engaged in surface bargaining as claimed by the charging party, as the GC had not
acquiesced in expanding the complaint’s 8(a)(5) allegations to include that allegation), enfd. in
part 567 F.2d 1343 (5th Cir. 1978); Zurn/N.E.P.C.O., 329 NLRB 484 (1999) (judge properly
refused to consider charging party’s theory that respondent’s hiring policy was unlawful on its
face, as the GC argued only that it was unlawfully applied); and Concord Honda, 367 NLRB No.
104, slip op. at 1 n. 3 (2019) (Board refused to consider the charging party union’s arguments that
the employer’s arbitration agreement was not enforceable under the FAA or other federal
statutes, both because these alternative legal theories were “wholly outside the scope of the
General Counsel’s complaint” and because such claims were not within the Board’s jurisdiction
and “should be presented to the court or agency that has jurisdiction to consider them.”).
19
The courts generally agree. See Weigand v. NLRB, 783 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2015);
and Operating Engineers Local 150 v. NLRB, 325 F.3d 818, 830 (7th Cir. 2003) (General
Counsel, not the charging party, controls the issues raised in the complaint).
But see § 3–340, De Facto Amendment—Unpleaded But Fully Litigated, below,
discussing when the judge may find a different violation even without a motion to amend the
complaint. See also Service Employees Local 32BJ v. NLRB, 647 F.3d 435, 446 (2d Cir. 2011)
(Board erred in refusing to consider an alternative theory of violation urged by the charging party
simply because that theory had not been alleged by the General Counsel; Board has authority to
consider such a theory if it is closely related to the subject matter of the complaint and was fully
litigated), decision on remand 365 NLRB No. 162 (2017).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a charging party may submit additional evidence in support
of the General Counsel’s theory of the case. See, e.g., DH Long Point Mgt. LLC, 369 NLRB No.
18, slip op. at 13 n. 37 (2020), enfd. mem. per curiam 858 Fed. Appx. 366 (D.C. Cir. 2021). In
that case, the ALJ ruled that the charging party union could present testimony about a manager’s
coercive statement as additional evidence of the employer’s animus and discriminatory motive for
disciplining and discharging an employee, even though the manager’s statement was not alleged
as a violation in the complaint. The ALJ noted that the employer was given adequate notice at
the outset of the hearing that the union would be presenting such evidence.
As discussed in § 6–400, below, charging parties may also submit, and the judge may
consider, evidence regarding an appropriate remedy different from the remedy sought by the
General Counsel.
§ 3–320 When Amendments Are Allowed
Section 102.17 of the Board’s Rules authorizes the judge to grant complaint amendments
“upon such terms as may be deemed just” during or after the hearing until the case has been
transferred to the Board. See also Folsom Ready Mix, Inc., 338 NLRB 1172 n. 1 (2003).
Although this provision affords the judge “wide discretion” to grant or deny a motion to amend, in
exercising that discretion the judge should consider: “(1) whether there was surprise or lack of
notice, (2) whether there was a valid excuse for the delay in moving to amend, and (3) whether
the matter was fully litigated.” Rogan Bros. Sanitation, Inc., 362 NLRB 547, 549 n. 8 (2015),
enfd. 651 Fed. Appx. 34 (2d Cir. 2016). See also § 3–330, Amendments and Section 10(b),
below, discussing allegations occurring more than 6 months before the motion to amend but
within 6 months of the charge.
During trial. In Rogan Bros., above, the Board held that the first and third factors
supported allowing the General Counsel to amend the complaint during the trial to allege that the
respondent employers were a single employer as well as alter egos. Although the GC had stated
at the outset of the hearing that no single-employer allegation was being made, the GC
subsequently filed the motion to amend during a 2-month adjournment, before the GC rested, and
the allegation was thereafter fully litigated. Accordingly, the Board found that the judge did not
abuse his discretion in granting the GC’s motion. The Second Circuit agreed (albeit in an
unpublished opinion). The court found no prejudice as the single-employer theory was
substantially similar to the alter ego theory alleged in the complaint, it was added before the GC
completed the case in chief, and the respondent could have recalled any of the GC’s witnesses
that had already testified.
See also Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, 363 NLRB No. 112, slip op. at 1 n.1
(2016) (judge did not deny the respondent due process by granting the General Counsel’s motion
20
to add an 8(a)(1) allegation involving an employer leaflet 12 days after the hearing opened, as the
respondent did not produce the leaflet in response to the GC’s subpoena until 7 days after the
hearing opened and the respondent had an opportunity to introduce evidence regarding the
allegation before the hearing closed), enfd. 847 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2017); Amglo Kemlite
Laboratories, 360 NLRB 319, 323 (2014) (judge erred in denying the General Counsel’s motion,
on the last day of the 3-day hearing, to amend the complaint to allege an 8(a)(1) threat of mass
discharge, as the respondent did not object to the testimony at the time it was adduced and had
the opportunity to examine both the witness and the official who made the remark, and the motion
amended an existing complaint allegation, which alleged a similar threat on the same day, to
conform to that evidence), enfd. 833 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2016); and Pincus Elevator & Electric
Co., 308 NLRB 684, 684–685 (1992) (judge abused her discretion by denying the General
Counsel’s motion during the hearing to add a Johnnie’s Poultry allegation that respondent’s
counsel had improperly questioned employees about the case without giving assurances against
reprisal, as the respondent’s counsel had first introduced the subject employee statement, the
allegation was fully litigated, and the respondent had therefore suffered no prejudice), enfd. mem.
998 F.2d 1004 (3d Cir. 1993).
But see King Soopers, Inc. v. NLRB, 859 F.3d 23, 33 (D.C. Cir. 2017), denying enf. in
relevant part of 364 NLRB No. 93, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2016). In that case, the court reversed the
Board and found that the General Counsel’s mid-trial motion to amend the complaint came too
late because the GC had access to all of the relevant information necessary to investigate the
charge for a full year before the hearing, provided no valid excuse for failing to include the charge
in the initial complaint, and did not make the motion to amend until after the company had
finished cross-examining the GC’s key witness).
Compare also Latino Express, Inc., 358 NLRB 823 n. 3, and JD. at 827 n. 2 (2012),
reaffd. 361 NLRB 1171 (2014) (judge did not abuse his discretion in denying, as “inexcusably late
and prejudicial,” the General Counsel’s motion, at the end of the second day of the 3-day hearing,
to amend the complaint to allege that respondent unlawfully served subpoenas on employees 2
weeks before the hearing that sought union-related pamphlets, letters, emails, and other
documents in their possession).
At close of trial. In Stagehands Referral Service, 347 NLRB 1167 (2006), the Board
affirmed the judge’s denial of a motion to amend the complaint at the end of the hearing. The
complaint alleged that the union had discriminatorily failed to refer a single discriminatee, and the
General Counsel sought to add an allegation that the entire hiring hall operation was unlawful
because no objective criteria were applied. The Board found that the amendment would not have
been “just” because: (1) the respondent had not been given notice that the hiring hall operation
would be placed in issue; (2) the GC did not move to amend as soon as the evidence came to
light, but only after the respondent had rested; and (3) it could not be assumed that the
respondent’s handling of the case would have been unchanged, as the lack of objective criteria
had little or no bearing on the union’s decision not to refer the discriminatee. Id. at 1171.
Compare Bruce Packing Co., 357 NLRB 1084, 1085–1086 (2011), revd. in relevant part
795 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2015). In that case, the General Counsel moved to amend the 8(a)(3)
complaint to add an 8(a)(1) promise-of-benefits allegation. As in Stagehands Referral Service,
the GC made the motion at the end of the hearing, after the respondent had rested, even though
the relevant testimony had been elicited from one of the GC’s employee witnesses the day
before. The ALJ denied the motion, citing the lateness of the motion and the GC’s delay in
making it. The Board, however, held that the judge should have granted the motion because the
issue had been fully litigated. The Board noted that respondent had called the supervisor, who
21
denied making the promise, and respondent failed to identify any other evidence or defense that it
would have presented if the motion to amend had been made earlier.
The D.C. Circuit reversed. The court rejected the Board’s argument that the respondent
had a burden to identify with specificity the testimony or defenses it could have presented to
defeat the allegation. The court stated that, “[w]hen a late amendment deprives an employer of
notice and the opportunity to litigate its liability, we will find prejudice warranting reversal so long
as there is even a chance that the company could have successfully defended against the
charge.” The court found that the respondent satisfied this “low standard” because, had the
respondent been given earlier notice, it could have attacked the employee’s credibility regarding
the allegation, cross-examined her to expose any inconsistencies, and explored the issue more
fully with the supervisor and other witnesses. The court also rejected the Board’s argument that
the respondent could have recalled witnesses to rebut the employee’s testimony as the ALJ had
closed the hearing without giving the respondent a chance to reopen evidence and, “moreover,”
respondent was not “required to attempt to recall witnesses to cure the prejudice created” by the
late amendment. Bruce Packing Co. v. NLRB, 795 F.3d at 24.
But see Boar’s Head Provisions Co., 370 NLRB No. 124, slip op. at 1 n.2 (2021). There,
the ALJ granted the General Counsel’s motion at the end of the hearing to amend a complaint
allegation that the respondent denied off-duty employees access to the parking lots to instead
allege that respondent engaged in and created the impression of surveillance of the employees’
union activities. On exceptions, the respondent argued that it was prejudiced by the judges’
ruling, citing the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bruce Packing Co. v. NLRB, above. The Board,
however, found that the respondent “could not have successfully defended against the unlawful
surveillance charge” as the respondent had “called and elicited testimony from most, if not all, of
[its] witnesses that were involved in the alleged surveillance activity” and the “clear record
evidence” established that the respondent treated employee handbilling activity in a disparate
manner compared to other, non-union employee activity such as selling fruit and vegetables from
employees’ vehicles.
After trial. In Desert Aggregates, 340 NLRB 289, 292–293 (2003), the Board denied the
General Counsel’s posthearing motion to amend the complaint to allege an additional 8(a)(1)
statement by a manager. (The motion had been made in the GC’s posthearing brief and the
judge failed to rule on it.) The Board found that the respondent did not have fair notice that the
manager’s statement would be alleged as a violation because the manager’s testimony about the
statement emerged incidentally during the GC’s cross-examination, and, consequently, was not
fully litigated. See also Sheet Metal Workers Local 91 (Schebler Co.), 294 NLRB 766, 774–
775 (1989) (affirming judge’s denial of the General Counsel’s posthearing request to amend the
complaint to allege an additional 8(b)(3) violation), enfd. in part and remanded in part 905 F.2d
417 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
Compare Roundy’s Inc., 356 NLRB 126 (2010), enfd. 674 F.3d 638, 646–647 (7th Cir.
2012). In that case, the complaint alleged that the respondent had unlawfully prohibited union
representatives from handbilling at several of its stores. Although the General Counsel asserted
only a disparate treatment theory at trial, the GC’s posthearing brief also argued that the
respondent had failed to show that it had a sufficient property interest to exclude the handbillers.
The judge found that the GC had asserted this new theory too late. The Board, however,
remanded for the judge to take evidence on the property-interest issue, noting that it was the
respondent’s burden to establish a sufficient property interest and that it would be unnecessary to
reach the disparate treatment theory if the respondent lacked a sufficient property interest to
exclude the handbillers. The judge thereafter reopened the hearing, found a violation at most of
the respondent’s stores under the property-interest theory, and the Board affirmed on that basis.
22
Obviously, the relevant factors identified by the Board can only be considered and applied
if the General Counsel specifies exactly what is being added to or amended in the complaint.
Thus, nonspecific, open-ended motions to conform the pleadings to the proof should be rejected.
§ 3–330 Amendments and Section 10(b)
A complaint may be amended to allege conduct outside the 10(b) period if the conduct
occurred within 6 months of a timely filed charge and is “closely related” to the allegations of the
charge. Fry’s Food Stores, 361 NLRB 1216 (2014), citing Redd-I, Inc., 290 NLRB 1115 (1988).
For a discussion of the Redd-I “closely related” test, see § 3–210, Complaint Closely Related to
Timely Charge, above. See also § 3–550, Revival of Withdrawn or Dismissed Charge; and
§ 3–700, Section 10(b) Affirmative Defense, below.
§ 3–340 De Facto Amendment—Unpleaded But Fully Litigated
Judges occasionally must decide whether it is appropriate to find a violation in the
absence of a specific allegation in the complaint. This typically arises in three situations: (1)
where the conduct was alleged as a violation, but of a different section of the Act; (2) where the
conduct was alleged as a violation, but on a different theory; and (3) where the conduct was not
alleged as a violation at all. The issue may also sometimes arise where the evidence indicates
that the alleged violation occurred on a different date than that alleged in the complaint.
In Pergament United Sales, 296 NLRB 333, 334 (1989), enfd. 920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir.
1990), a case involving the first situation, the Board stated that the test is whether the issue “is
closely connected to the subject matter of the complaint and has been fully litigated.” With
respect to whether an issue has been “fully litigated,” the Board stated that this “rests in part on
whether the absence of a specific allegation precluded a respondent from presenting exculpatory
evidence or whether the respondent would have altered the conduct of its case at the hearing,
had a specific allegation been made.”
This same test has since been applied in the other two situations as well. See cases cited
below. See also Service Employees Local 32BJ v. NLRB, 647 F.3d 435, 447 (2d Cir. 2011)
(noting, in remanding for the Board to properly apply the Pergament rule, that “the Board has
applied this rule to a variety of circumstances”). Nevertheless, the judge should be careful to
identify which of the three situations is presented. See *Massey Energy/Mammoth Coal, 358
NLRB 1643, 1652 n. 36 (2012), where the Board majority, in finding liability based on an
unalleged theory, rejected as “inapposite” cases cited by the respondent and the dissent that
involved unalleged violations.
Violations of a different section of the Act
For cases involving this situation, see Pergament, above (judge properly found that the
respondent’s refusal to hire employees violated 8(a)(4) rather than 8(a)(3) as alleged, because
both involved the lawfulness of the respondent’s motivation for failing to hire the employees, no
party objected to the General Counsel’s introduction of the evidence relevant to the 8(a)(4) issue,
and the respondent’s personnel director corroborated the evidence and admitted that the
employees were not hired because of the pending NLRB charges); KenMor Electric Co.., 355
NLRB 1024 (2010) (employer’s job application referral system violated 8(a)(1) rather than 8(a)(3)
as alleged), enf. denied in relevant part sub nom. Independent Electrical Contractors of
Houston, Inc., v. NLRB, 720 F.3d 543 (5th Cir. 2013); Airborne Freight Corp., 343 NLRB 580,
581 (2004) (supervisor’s alleged 8(a)(1) and (3) statements and refusal to transfer an employee
23
both also violated 8(a)(4)); and Valley Cabinet & Mfg., 253 NLRB 98, 100 n. 10 (1980)
(respondent union’s 8(b)(2) failure to notify an employee of her dues obligations before
requesting her discharge also violated 8(b)(1)A)), enfd. mem. 691 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1982).
.
Violations based on a different theory
The Board considers the following four factors in evaluating whether it is appropriate to
find a violation on a theory that was not clearly articulated by the General Counsel:
(1) whether the language of the complaint encompasses the legal theory upon
which the violation was found; (2) whether the factual record is complete, or, in
other words, whether the facts necessary to find a violation under the theory in
question were litigated; (3) whether the law is well established; and (4) the
General Counsel’s representations about the theory of violation, and the
differences between the litigated theory and the theory [in question].
DirectSat USA, LLC, 366 NLRB No. 40, slip op. at 1 (2018) (finding that all four factors were met
in that case), enfd. 925 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 2019). See also IBEW Local 58 (Paramount
Industries, Inc.), 365 NLRB No. 30, slip op. at 4 n. 17 (2017) (holding that it was proper to find
an 8(b)(1)(A) violation on an additional theory that the General Counsel had not clearly pursued,
as “the conduct was alleged in the complaint,” “all of the underlying facts [were] undisputed,” “the
law [was] well established,” and “no due process concerns [were] implicated”), rev. denied 888
F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
For additional examples where the Board has found a violation on a different theory, see
Stein, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 10, slip op. at 4 (2020), reconsideration denied 2020 WL 1931433
(March 17, 2020) (respondent successor employer violated 8(a)(5) by discharging an employee
pursuant to a unilateral change in the initial employment terms it had previously established, even
though the General Counsel alleged a violation on the ground that the successor employer had
forfeited the right to set initial terms of employment, as the complaint allegation was broad
enough to include the alternative rationale and the relevant facts were fully litigated); Teamsters
Local 89 (Jack Cooper Transport Co.), 365 NLRB No. 115 (2017) (respondent union’s delay in
furnishing certain information to the company violated 8(b)(3) even though the complaint only
alleged that the union failed to furnish information to the company, as the issues were closely
connected and the respondent union itself elicited testimony to explain why it delayed furnishing
the information); Graymont PA, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 37, slip op. at 4–7 (2016) (respondent
employer’s failure to timely notify the union that the information it requested did not exist violated
8(a)(5) even though the complaint only alleged the failure to provide the information, as the
issues were closely related and the respondent asserted that the information did not exist as an
affirmative defense to the refusal-to-provide-information allegation); Space Needle, LLC, 362
NLRB No. 11, slip op. at 4 (2015) (supervisor’s statements to an employee violated 8(a)(1) on the
ground that they were coercive, regardless of whether they constituted an unlawful interrogation
as alleged in the complaint, as the coercive-statement theory involved the same facts and inquiry
as to whether the statement would reasonably tend to coerce employees, and was fully litigated),
enfd. 692 Fed. Appx. 462 (9th Cir. 2017); Intertape Polymer Corp., 360 NLRB 957, 958 n. 8
(2014) (employer’s confiscation of union literature from the employee breakroom violated 8(a)(1)
because the employer’s past policy or practice was to permit literature in that area, even though
the complaint alleged a violation on a disparate-enforcement theory), enfd. on point 801 F.3d 224,
232–233 (4th Cir. 2015); Parexel Int’l, LLC, 356 NLRB 516 (2011) (finding an 8(a)(1) discharge
violation based on a “preemptive strike” theory rather than the alleged “retaliation” theory); AKAL
Security, Inc., 354 NLRB 122, 125 (2009), reaffd. 355 NLRB 584 (2010) (holding that the judge’s
application of Burnup & Sims instead of Wright Line to find an 8(a)(1) discharge violation did not
24
deny respondent due process as respondent clearly anticipated that Burnup & Sims could apply
and litigated accordingly); and Facet Enterprises v. NLRB, 907 F.2d 963, 969–975 (10th Cir.
1990) (upholding the Board’s finding of an 8(a)(5) refusal-to-bargain violation based on a direct-
dealing theory even though the alleged refusal to bargain was based on a theory of attempted
unit splitting).
But compare Securitas Security Services USA, 369 NLRB No. 57, slip op. at 2 (2020)
(declining to address whether the employer’s investigative confidentiality policy was unlawful
because it applied to nonparticipants in the investigation or prohibited employees from discussing
the underlying incident, as the complaint only alleged that the employer unlawfully prohibited an
employee-witness to an incident from discussing the incident with anyone during the investigation
and did not allege that the employer’s policy was overbroad in any other respect, and no such
issues were litigated); Laborers Local 91 (Scrufari Construction Co.), 368 NLRB No. 40, slip
op. at 1 & n. 2 (2019) (declining to address whether the respondent union violated 8(b)(1)(A) by
disciplining a member for filing NLRB charges against it, as the complaint only alleged that the
union unlawfully disciplined the member because his brother criticized the union leadership, and
the additional theory was not raised or litigated before the ALJ), enfd. mem. 825 Fed. Appx. 51
(2d Cir. 2020); Springfield Day Nursery, 362 NLRB 261, 262–263 (2015) (holding that the judge
improperly found an 8(a)(5) violation based on a unilateral-change theory where only an 8(d)
contract-modification theory was alleged in the complaint, litigated at the hearing, and addressed
in the General Counsel’s posthearing brief); Baptist Hospital of East Tennessee, 351 NLRB 71
n. 5 (2007) (declining to address whether the employer violated 8(a)(5) under an 8(d) contract-
modification theory, as the General Counsel only pursued a unilateral-change theory); and Lamar
Advertising of Hartford, 343 NLRB 261, 265 (2004) (rejecting the General Counsel’s attempt,
on exceptions to the judge’s decision, to “expand” the theory underlying the alleged 8(a)(4)
violation, as the “necessary predicates” for finding a violation on the different theory were not
litigated).
See also Fry’s Food Stores, 366 NLRB No. 138, slip op. at 4 (2018); Buonadonna
ShopRite, 356 NLRB 857, 858 (2011); and Laborers Local 190 (VP Builders, Inc.), 355 NLRB
532, 534 (2010), where the General Counsel’s representations would reasonably have led the
respondent to believe that it would not have to defend itself on the basis of the unalleged theory.
Violations based on unalleged conduct,
For cases involving this situation, see Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC, 366 NLRB No.
173 (2018) (employer’s unalleged unilateral change in its attendance policy violated 8(a)(5), and
that its subsequent discharge of an employee pursuant thereto violated 8(a)(5) as well, where the
complaint alleged that a prior change in the attendance policy violated 8(a)(5), the later change
occurred during the same time period while the employer was challenging the union’s
certification, the General Counsel informed the employer’s counsel by email months before the
hearing that the later change was at issue, and the later change and its application to the
terminated employee were fully litigated at the hearing), enfd. 939 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2019); Irving
Ready-Mix, Inc., 357 NLRB 1272, 1285 n. 13 (2011) (certain unalleged but admitted statements
by a manager violated 8(a)(1) where the complaint alleged that other statements by the same
manager during the same phone conversation violated 8(a)(1)); Hi-Tech Cable Corp., 318 NLRB
280 (1995) unalleged statements by two managers violated 8(a)(1) where the complaint alleged
other 8(a)(1) violations, including an interrogation by one of the same managers in the same
conversation, and the respondent did not object to the testimony about the statements, cross-
examined the witnesses and presented its own witnesses to testify about them, and addressed
their legality in its posthearing brief), enfd. in part 128 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 1997); and Meisner
Electric, Inc., 316 NLRB 597 (1995) (unalleged statement by the respondent’s foreman violated
25
8(a)(1) where the complaint alleged other unlawful statements by the same foreman in the same
speech and the foreman raised the issue and admitted making the statement while testifying on
direct examination by the respondent’s counsel), affd. mem. 83 F.3d 436 (11th Cir. 1996).
But compare Dalton School, 364 NLRB No. 18 (2016) (8(a)(1) interrogation was not fully
litigated, notwithstanding that it was related to the alleged 8(a)(1) termination and respondent
relied on it as a defense to that allegation, as respondent was not put on notice that the pertinent
facts would be used to prove an interrogation violation); Piggly Wiggly Midwest, 357 NLRB
2344, 2345 (2012) (8(a)(5) refusal to provide certain information was not fully litigated, even
though respondent presented evidence on the issue, as the respondent had no reason, in the
absence of a complaint allegation or amendment, to attempt to substantiate its previous response
to the union that it was impossible to provide the information as requested); Dilling Mechanical
Contractors, 348 NLRB 98, 105 (2006) (8(a)(3) refusal to hire was not fully litigated, even though
the parties presented evidence regarding the underlying conduct, as that evidence was also
relevant to the 8(a)(1) complaint allegation that the respondent had breached an earlier
settlement agreement, the violations involved different burdens of proof, and none of the parties
argued that the conduct violated 8(a)(3) in their posthearing briefs); Desert Aggregates, 340
NLRB 289, 292–293 (2003) (manager’s unalleged statement during a captive-audience meeting
was not fully litigated where the manager’s testimony regarding his statement “emerged
incidentally” during the General Counsel’s cross-examination, and the GC’s failure to move to
amend the complaint during trial may have hindered the respondent in presenting exculpatory
evidence); and Champion International Corp., 339 NLRB 672 (2003) (litigation of the alleged
8(a)(5) unilateral-change violation did not establish that the parties also fully litigated the
unalleged 8(a)(5) direct-dealing violation).
See also Teamsters “General” Local 200, 357 NLRB 1844, 1845 (2011) (judge
improperly found an 8(b)(1)(A) violation as his statements in response to the General Counsel’s
motion on the first day of hearing to add the allegation led respondent to reasonably believe that it
would not have to defend against that allegation). Nor may the judge find a violation on a theory
that the GC has expressly disclaimed.
Unnamed discriminatees
Situations sometimes also arise where the judge must decide whether it is appropriate to
find a violation and/or grant a remedy with respect to an unnamed discriminatee. “Where the
General Counsel has alleged and proven discrimination against a defined and easily identified
class of employees, the Board, with court approval, has found it appropriate to extend remedial
relief to all members of that class, including individuals not named in the complaint,” leaving “the
question of precisely which individuals comprise the class [to be] considered at the compliance
stage of the case.” Iron Workers Local 433 (Reynolds Electrical), 298 NLRB 35, 35–36 (1990)
(citations omitted), enfd. mem. 931 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1991). See also Denholme & Mohr, Inc.,
292 NLRB 61 n. 1 (1988) (judge properly found that a previously unnamed discriminatee’s
discharge violated the Act—even though the complaint specifically named the other three
discriminatees and the General Counsel indicated that the unnamed, fourth discriminatee had
chosen not to participate—as the sole issue at hearing was whether the group of employees as a
whole, rather than individually, were discriminatorily discharged).
Compare *Merchants Bldg. Maintenance, 358 NLRB 578, 579–580 (2012) (rejecting the
General Counsel’s request, in a refusal to hire case, to grant a remedy to a previously unnamed
discriminatee where: (1) the complaint specifically named 22 other individual discriminatees and
did not include “with others unknown” or similar catch-all language; (2) the GC reasonably should
26
have known about the additional discriminatee; and (3) the GC did not request a remedy for the
additional discriminatee until the case reached the Board), and cases cited there.
Different violation date. It is not unusual for the evidence at the hearing to show that the
alleged violation occurred on a different date than the date alleged in the complaint. In such
circumstances, the General Counsel will typically move to amend the complaint allegation to
conform to the evidence. See, e.g., Carbonex Coal Co., 262 NLRB 1306, 1313 (1982).
However, the violation may be found even absent an amendment where the issue was the same
regardless of the date and was fully litigated. See Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 102, slip
op. at 2 n. 8 (2021) (finding 3–4 month date discrepancy regarding an 8(a)(1) threat of futility
inconsequential). Williams Enterprises, 301 NLRB 167, 168 (1991) (finding 5-month date
discrepancy regarding an 8(a)(3) refusal to hire immaterial), enfd. In relevant part 956 F.2d 1226
(D.C. Cir. 1992). See also FRCP 15(b)(2) (issues tried by express or implied consent).
§ 3–400 Consolidation and Severance
§ 3–410 General Principles
Before issuance of a complaint, the General Counsel or the Regional Director has
exclusive authority to consolidate or sever cases. The Regional Director also retains the authority
to consolidate or sever on his or her own motion after the complaint issues, but only until the
hearing has opened. NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.33(a)–(d).
After issuance of the complaint and before the hearing opens, the Chief Judge or Deputy
or Associate Chief Judge in the appropriate office may consolidate or sever cases on motion of
any party. After the hearing has opened, a motion for consolidation or severance is made to and
ruled on by the trial judge. Secs. 102.33(d), 102.24, 102.25, and 102.35(a)(8).
Whether to grant or deny the motion is within the judge’s discretion, “considering such
factors as the risk that matters litigated in [an earlier trial] will have to be relitigated in [a second
trial] and the likelihood of delay if consolidation, or severance, is granted.” Service Employees
Local 87 (Cresleigh Management), 324 NLRB 774, 775–776 (1997). See also Affinity Medical
Center, 364 NLRB No. 66 (2016) (judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the General
Counsel’s motion to consolidate three new complaints with the existing “highly complex 118-page
amended consolidated complaint” given that the old and new allegations were not sufficiently
intertwined to require consolidation and could be effectively litigated separately, and consolidation
would cause significant delay in the ongoing proceeding); and McDonald’s USA, LLC, 363
NLRB No. 91 (2016) (judge did not abuse her discretion in denying motion to sever consolidated
complaints against McDonald’s and numerous franchisees and to require separate complaints
and hearings for each where the General Counsel alleged that they were joint employers).
With respect to consolidating a complaint with a compliance specification or a related
representation case involving post-election challenges or objections, see §§ 14–110 and 14–200,
respectively, below.
§ 3–420 Consolidation
The Board generally disfavors piecemeal litigation. Thus, the General Counsel is expected
to consolidate all pending charges into one complaint and litigate all known issues in one case.
See Peyton Packing Co., 129 NLRB 1358, 1360 (1961) (where the General Counsel had
alleged and litigated certain conduct as an 8(a)(1) violation in an earlier proceeding, that same
27
conduct could not be alleged and litigated as an 8(a)(5) violation in a separate proceeding); and
Jefferson Chemical Co., Inc., 200 NLRB 992 n. 3 (1972) (where, notwithstanding a broad
8(a)(5) refusal-to-bargain charge, the General Counsel had alleged only a narrow unilateral
change violation in an earlier proceeding and disavowed any allegation of general bad-faith
bargaining, the GC could not subsequently allege and litigate in a separate proceeding a surface
bargaining violation based on events occurring before the hearing had opened in the earlier
proceeding).
However, this is not a “blanket rule” that requires consolidation into one proceeding of all
charges filed against the same respondent that arise during the pendency of that proceeding. As
the Board stated in Affinity Medical Center, above, “Jefferson Chemical and Peyton Packing
have been narrowly limited to their factual situations,” and “only apply to cases involving the
relitigation of the same conduct.” Slip op. at 2 (citations omitted). Thus, the Board in Affinity
found no bar to litigating the allegations in three new consolidated complaints separately as they
were “factually independent” of those in the ongoing consolidated proceeding. The Board also
noted that the judge had denied the General Counsel’s motion to consolidate the new complaints
with the consolidated complaint in the ongoing proceeding.
See also Napleton Cadillac of Libertyville, 369 NLRB No. 56, slip op. at 10 (2020)
(finding no bar to litigating allegations where the alleged unlawful conduct began 3 months after
the last alleged unlawful conduct in the earlier proceeding, the General Counsel did not issue the
consolidated complaint on the charges until over 9 months after the hearing in the earlier
proceeding, and the respective allegations were factually independent); Frontier Hotel and
Casino, 324 NLRB 1225 (1997) (finding no bar to litigating an allegation where it involved a
“discreet act” that did not occur until well after the lengthy hearing in the earlier proceeding
opened); Harrison Steel Castings Co., 255 NLRB 1426, 1426–1427 (1981) (finding no bar to
litigating an allegation where the underlying charge was not filed until after the hearing in the
earlier proceeding closed, the allegation was “not intertwined with” those in the earlier
proceeding, and there was no evidence that the General Counsel knew about or should have
discovered the alleged violation during the earlier proceeding); and Maremont Corp. World
Parts Division, 249 NLRB 216, 216–217 (1980) (finding no bar to litigating an allegation in a
separate proceeding where the General Counsel learned of the alleged violation just 6 days
before the hearing in the earlier proceeding and the judge in that proceeding denied the GC’s
motion on the first day of hearing to add the allegation to the complaint).
Indeed, in Cresleigh Management, above, the Board found no bar even where the
complaint was issued before the hearing on the complaint in the earlier proceeding. The Board
stated that, “even when the General Counsel fails to consolidate cases that normally should be
consolidated,” dismissal is improper “in the absence of a showing of prejudice to a party.” 324
NLRB at 776. Accord: U-Haul of Nevada, Inc., 345 NLRB 1301, 1302 (2005), enfd. 490 F.3d
957 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
§ 3–430 Severance or Bifurcation
As indicated above, a judge has the authority, after a trial opens, to sever cases
previously consolidated by the Regional Director. See, e.g., Adair Standish Corp., 283 NLRB
668, 669–671 (1987) (affirming judge’s order granting the charging party’s motion, over the
respondent’s objection, to sever the technical 8(a)(5) test-of-certification case from the 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) case), enfd. mem. 875 F.2d 866 (6th Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Storer Cable
TV of Texas, 292 NLRB 140 (1988). But see Quaker Tool & Die, Inc., 169 NLRB 1148 (1968)
(trial examiner erred in sua sponte issuing an order after the close of the hearing severing two
28
8(a)(5) allegations that related to the same alleged unilateral action and had been fully litigated at
the hearing).
Occasionally, a respondent may seek to sever and/or bifurcate litigation of particular
issues raised by the complaint. For example, if the respondent is challenging the Board’s
jurisdiction or asserting a Section 10(b) limitations defense, it may seek to have such issues
addressed before the unfair labor practice allegations are litigated. This likewise appears to be a
matter within the ALJ’s discretion. See Asociacion Hospital del Maestro, 317 NLRB 485, 490
(1995) (denying the respondent’s appeal of the judge’s denial of its motion to bifurcate the trial
and litigate respondent’s Sec. 10(b) statute of limitations defense before the merits); and
Gulfport Stevedoring Assn., 15-CA-096939, unpub. Board order issued Sept. 9, 2013 (2013
WL 4782797) (denying respondent’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewing its
jurisdictional arguments, and any request to bifurcate the hearing, before the ALJ). See also
NLRB v. Chapa De Indian Health Program, Inc., 316 F.3d 995, 1002 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that
the ALJ denied the respondent’s motion to sever); and Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of
Michigan v. NLRB, 838 F.Supp.2d 598, 606 (E.D. Mich. 2011), citing Myers v. Bethlehem
Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S.41, 51 (1938) (merely holding the unfair labor practice hearing is
not irreparable harm).
But see U.S. Gypsum, 284 NLRB 4, 8 (1987). In that case, the General Counsel set
aside a settlement agreement because of the respondent’s alleged postsettlement unfair labor
practices, and issued a complaint containing both the postsettlement allegations and the
presettlement allegations. The judge ruled that the postsettlement allegations would be litigated
and decided before litigating the presettlement allegations because there would be no basis to set
aside the settlement and litigate the presettlement allegations if the postsettlement allegations
were without merit. (See § 9–800, Setting Aside Settlement Agreements, below.) The Board,
however, granted the GC’s special appeal, and directed the judge to permit the introduction of all
evidence relating to all the consolidated cases for hearing.
Compare McDonald’s USA, LLC, 363 NLRB No. 92 (2016) (denying respondents’
special appeal and finding that the judge did not abuse her discretion by issuing a case
management order in the consolidated proceeding providing that the General Counsel and
charging parties would present evidence on the alleged joint employer status of the respondents
before presenting evidence on the merits of the alleged unfair labor practices).
Relevant factors to consider may include the anticipated length of the trial on the
jurisdictional, 10(b), or other threshold issue and the remaining issues; whether the same
witnesses will be testifying on all issues; and the possible adverse impact on the memory and
availability of witnesses if litigation of the remaining issues is delayed. Compare FRCP 42(b)
(authorizing federal courts to order a separate trial of one or more separate issues or claims “for
convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize”), discussed in Gensler, 1
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Rule 42 (Feb. 2021 Update); and
Hoyt v. Career Systems Development Corp., 2010 WL 2653368 (S.D. Cal. June 30, 2010)
(denying the defendant company’s motion, in an employment discrimination case, to bifurcate
and litigate the threshold issue of the plaintiff’s status as an independent contractor or an
employee, given that the motion was not filed until 6 business days before trial and 17 of plaintiff’s
20 witnesses would be testifying about both that issue and the substantive discrimination claims).
29
§ 3–500 Withdrawal or Dismissal
Withdrawal of complaint. Under Section 102.18 of the Board’s Rules, the Regional
Director retains discretion to withdraw all or a portion of the complaint sua sponte at any time
before the hearing, subject to review by the General Counsel but not by the Board or its ALJs.
NLRB v. UFCW, Local 23, 484 U.S. 112, 119 (1987). See also United Natural Foods, Inc.,
19–CA–249264, unpub. Board order issued May 11, 2021 (2021 WL 1937080) (Regional
Director’s prehearing order withdrawing complaint was not reviewable by the Board
notwithstanding that the respondent had filed a motion with the Board for summary judgment as
the case had not yet transferred to the Board). Indeed, the Regional Director retains such
discretion even after the hearing opens if the GC has not introduced any relevant evidence in
support of the allegations and there is no contention that the allegations are ripe for adjudication
on the pleadings alone. See Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 (American Elgen), 306 NLRB 981,
981–982 (1992).
The General Counsel’s introduction of the pleadings and other formal papers (GC Exh. 1),
which are considered procedural rather than substantive evidence (see § 16–801.3, below), does
not itself forfeit this discretion. See Boilermakers Local 6 v. NLRB, 872 F.2d 331, 333–34 (9th
Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Sheet Metal Workers Local 28, where the court upheld the
Board’s finding that the GC retained authority to withdraw a complaint even though the formal
papers had been introduced at the hearing.
Beyond that, the precise dividing line appears somewhat unclear. In Sheet Metal
Workers Local 28, the Board stated that it was not “purporting to decide where the line is to be
drawn in all circumstances” (306 NLRB at 982). However, it is clear that the Regional Director no
longer possesses unreviewable discretion to withdraw the complaint if the General Counsel has
presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. See General Maintenance
Engineers, Inc., 142 NLRB 295 (1963), which was likewise cited with approval in Sheet Metal
Workers Local 28.
If the Regional Director no longer retains authority to withdraw the complaint, the General
Counsel must file a motion to withdraw with the ALJ (or the Board, if the case is before it), who
has discretion to grant or deny the motion. See, e.g., Sheet Metal Workers Local 162 (Lang’s
Enterprises), 314 NLRB 923 n. 2 (1994) (Board exercised its discretion to deny the GC’s motion
to withdraw where the allegation had been submitted on a stipulated record and briefed). If the
judge grants the GC’s motion, the complaint allegation is withdrawn but the underlying charge
remains. See Verizon Wireless, 369 NLRB No. 108, slip op. at 3 n. 15 (2020) (judge’s order
approving the GC’s motion to withdraw certain complaint allegations following a change in Board
law improperly required the Regional Director to dismiss the allegations on remand), citing
Consumers Distributing, 274 NLRB 346 n. 1 (1985) (approval of a motion to withdraw the
complaint allegations does “not result in the case being closed because the underlying charge is
still alive.”).
Withdrawal of charge. Before the hearing opens, a charge may be withdrawn only with the
consent of the Regional Director. After the hearing opens and evidence is introduced, but before
the judge’s decision issues, the charge may be withdrawn only with the consent of the judge.
After the judge’s decision issues, the charge may be withdrawn only with the consent of the
Board. NLRB Statements of Procedure, Sec. 101.9.
Dismissal of charge. The dismissal of a charge by the Regional Director may be appealed
to the General Counsel’s Office of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Until the charge is finally
dismissed by the Office of Appeals, it continues to exist during the appeals period. It is not time
30
barred if it is reinstated during that period by the Regional Director, even though the
reinstatement comes more than 6 months after the occurrence of the unfair labor practice.
Children’s National Medical Center, 322 NLRB 205 (1996); and Sioux City Foundry Co., 323
NLRB 1071, 1074 (1997), enfd. 154 F.3d 832, 837–838 (8th Cir. 1998). Compare Smithfield
Packing Co., 344 NLRB 1, 10 (2004), enfd. 447 F.3d 821 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (where the General
Counsel has denied the charging party’s appeal of the Regional Director’s dismissal of the
charge, the charge cannot thereafter be reinstated pursuant to a motion for reconsideration after
the 10(b) period). See also §3–550, Revival of Withdrawn or Dismissed Charge, below, in the
context of Section 10(b) of the Act.
See also CHAPTER 9, Settlements, below.
§ 3–550 Revival of Withdrawn or Dismissed Charge
As a general rule, the General Counsel may not revive a withdrawn or finally dismissed
charge after the Section 10(b) period has run. Ducane Heating Corp., 273 NLRB 1389, 1390–
1391 (1985), enfd. mem. 785 F.2d 304 (4th Cir. 1986). There are, however, three exceptions to
the general rule:
1) Fraudulent Concealment. If material facts have been concealed from the General
Counsel, a dismissed or withdrawn charge may be revived. Kanakis Co., 293 NLRB 435, 435–
437 (1989) (affidavit submitted to and relied on by the General Counsel in dismissing the charge
was later discovered to have been perjured). Compare Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co., 321 NLRB
924, 924–925 (1996), rev. denied 130 F.3d 1083, 1087 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied 524 U.S.
926 (1998) (finding no fraudulent concealment of material facts regarding alleged bad-faith
bargaining because the General Counsel did not ask for or demand information about certain
issues); and Benfield Electric Co., 331 NLRB 590, 591–592 (2000) (finding no fraudulent
concealment where the attorney’s position statement was not forthcoming about his client’s true
motive but did not attempt to conceal material facts).
Three elements are required to establish fraudulent concealment: (1) deliberate
concealment, (2) of material facts, and (3) the injured party was ignorant of those facts without
any fault or want of due diligence on its part. Brown & Sharpe, above, 321 NLRB at 924. In
Morgan’s Holiday Markets, 333 NLRB 837, 840–841 (2001), the Board clarified that “material
facts” means concealed evidence that would, “as an objective matter, make the critical difference
in determining whether or not there was a reasonable cause to believe the Act was violated."
2) Noncompliance with Informal Settlement Agreement. If charges are withdrawn or
dismissed as a consequence of an informal settlement agreement approved by the Agency, and
the respondent does not comply with the terms of the settlement, Section 10(b) does not bar
revival of the charges. Settlements are subject to an implicit condition that they will be carried out
and that unfair labor practices will not be resumed. See Sterling Nursing Home, 316 NLRB 413,
416 (1995).
3) Closely Related to Current Complaint. If a viable and timely charge exists and the
General Counsel seeks to add allegations that were contained in a previously withdrawn or
dismissed charge, the closely related test applies. Redd-I, Inc., 290 NLRB 1115, 1115–1116
(1988); Sonicraft, Inc. v. NLRB, 905 F.2d 146, 148–149 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S.
1024 (1991); and Pioneer Hotel, Inc. v. NLRB, 182 F.3d 939, 944–945 (D.C. Cir. 1999), enfg. in
part 324 NLRB 918 n. 1 (1997). See also § 3–210, Complaint Closely Related to Timely Charge,
and § 3–330, Amendments and Section 10(b), above.
31
Finally, the general rule set forth in Ducane prohibiting revival of dismissed charges does
not apply to a charge that has not been finally dismissed and is pending before the General
Counsel on appeal. See § 3–500, Withdrawal or Dismissal, above.
§ 3–600 Answer to Complaint
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules sets forth the requirements for an answer. It states
that the respondent must file an answer “within 14 days from service of the complaint”; that the
respondent must “specifically admit, deny, or explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint,
unless the respondent is without knowledge, in which case the respondent shall so state, such
statement operating as a denial”; and that allegations not answered or denied or explained as
required “will be deemed to be admitted to be true and will be so found by the Board, unless good
cause to the contrary is shown.”
Although not identical, Section 102.20 is similar to FRCP 8. Thus, court decisions
construing FRCP 8 may provide useful guidance in applying Section 102.20 where the Board has
not specifically addressed the matter. See Gensler, above, Rules and Commentary Rule 8;
and State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 277–280 (N.D. Ill. 2001)
(discussing “common flaws” in responsive pleadings under Rule 8).
Sham responses. A response that the respondent is without knowledge may be stricken
as a sham where the allegation involves the respondent’s own conduct or is otherwise within its
knowledge. See Information Processing SVC, Inc., 330 NLRB No. 95 (2000) (striking the pro
se respondent’s responses to the service, jurisdictional, and supervisory allegations of the
complaint), citing DPM of Kansas, 261 NLRB 220 n. 2 (1982). See also § 6–620 below,
regarding the judge’s authority to admonish or reprimand counsel for denying allegations without
good cause and purely for delay.
Late Answer. Section 102.2(d) of the Board’s Rules states that, like various other
documents (motions, exceptions, and briefs), an answer to a complaint “may be filed within a
reasonable time after the time prescribed by these Rules only upon good cause shown based on
excusable neglect and when no undue prejudice would result.” A respondent’s unexplained
failure to file a request for an extension of time is a factor demonstrating lack of good cause. St.
Monica Center for Rehabilitation & Healthcare, 370 NLRB No. 122, slip op. at 1 (2021).
The rule further requires that the late answer be accompanied by “a motion that states the
grounds relied on for requesting permission to file untimely,” and that “the specific facts relied on
to support the motion . . . be set forth in affidavit form and sworn to by individuals with personal
knowledge of the facts.” The Board strictly adheres to this affidavit requirement. Elevator
Constructors Local 2 (Unitec Elevator Services Co.), 337 NLRB 426, 428 (2002).
Amended Answer. Under Section 102.23 of the Board’s Rules, a respondent may amend
its answer at any time before the hearing. If the complaint has been amended, a respondent may
also amend its answer after the hearing has opened “within such period as may be fixed by the
[ALJ] or the Board.” Whether to otherwise grant a motion to amend the answer after the hearing
has opened is “in the discretion of the [ALJ] or the Board.”
Motions to amend an answer, particularly when they come early in the hearing and there
is no prejudice to the General Counsel, should probably be viewed favorably. See FRCP 15(a)(2);
and Hylton v. John Deere Co., 802 F.2d 1011,1015 (8th Cir. 1986) (district court judge did not
abuse his discretion by granting the defendants in a products liability case leave to amend their
32
answer to respond to two allegations in the amended complaint that they had inadvertently failed
to respond to).
However, in St. George Warehouse, Inc., 349 NLRB 870 (2007), the Board held that the
judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the respondent’s motion, on the second day of trial,
to amend its answer to deny a supervisory-status allegation that it had previously admitted,
assertedly by mistake. See also § 16–801.3, Admission or Statement by Opposing Party, for a
discussion of the conclusive or evidentiary effect of admissions in pleadings.
Motions to amend an answer have also been held untimely when made at the end of the
respondent’s case in chief. Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc., 358 NLRB 328, 332 n. 2 (2012),
reaffd. 361 NLRB 884 (2014) (denying motion to allege an additional affirmative defense). See
also the additional cases cited in the sections below regarding affirmative defenses.
Withdrawn Answer. Sometimes, pursuant to a settlement or for other reasons, a
respondent may withdraw an answer. “The withdrawal of an answer has the same effect as a
failure to file an answer, i.e., the allegations in the consolidated complaint must be considered to
be true.” Rock Technologies, 346 NLRB No. 68, slip op. 1 (2006).
Motions for default or summary judgment. The failure to file a sufficient answer or to deny
the complaint allegations normally warrants issuance of a default or summary judgment. See,
e.g., Intersystems Design, 267 NLRB 1310, 1311 (1983) (respondent’s plea of “nolo
contendere” to certain allegations constituted an admission and warranted granting summary
judgment as to those allegations).
However, there are exceptions. For example, in GTS Ambulance Transportation, 367
NLRB No. 82 (2019), the Board declined to grant a default judgment with respect to several
8(a)(3) disciplinary warning allegations because the complaint failed to allege that the warnings
were issued because the employees joined or assisted the union or to discourage them from
engaging in those activities, and thus did “not allege sufficient facts to determine whether the
conduct violated the Act.”
For the same reason, in All Steel Iron Works, Inc., 13-CA-261682, unpub. Board order
issued July 13, 2021 (2021 WL 2961497), the Board declined to issue a default judgment
regarding an 8(a)(5) layoff allegation because the complaint failed to allege that the laid-off
employees were in the bargaining unit, that the layoffs were mandatory subjects of bargaining, or
that the respondent failed to provide the union with notice and an opportunity to bargain over the
layoff decision. The Board also declined to issue a default judgment to the extent the complaint
suggested that the employer also violated 8(a)(5) by refusing to notify and bargain with the union
over the closure of the facility, as “the bare assertions of the complaint do not support a cause of
action given the Supreme Court’s decision in First National Maintenance Corp., v. NLRB, 452
U.S. 666 (1981).”
See also Carl R. Bieber, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 24, slip op. at 1 (2020) (denying default
judgment with respect to an allegation that the employer unlawfully ceased remitting dues to the
union following contract expiration, as this was not “a cognizable claim” given the Board’s recent
decision overruling precedent and holding that dues checkoff provisions are enforceable under
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act only during the contract).
It is also “well established that the Board will not grant default judgment on an allegation
that was denied in a timely-filed answer to a complaint even though the respondent later fails to
timely answer an amended complaint repeating that allegation, provided that the repeated
33
allegation is substantively unchanged from the original.” Central Market of Indiana, Inc., 366
NLRB No. 167, slip op. at 2 (2018) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Note that the Board typically shows some leniency toward pro se respondents in
determining whether to grant a motion for default judgment for failing to file a sufficient answer.
See Prompt Medical Transportation, 366 NLRB No. 50 (2018) (denying the General Counsel’s
motion for default judgment, even though the pro se respondent’s letter did not respond to each
and every allegation in the complaint and was not in a form that comported with the Board’s rules,
as the letter “could reasonably be construed as a denial of the substance of the complaint’s
[unfair labor practice] allegation and as an affirmative identification of material facts in dispute”),
and cases cite therein. See also Central Market of Indiana, above.
But “pro se status alone does not establish a good cause explanation for failing to file an
answer.” Cobalt Coal Corp., 367 NLRB No. 45 (2018) (granting the General Counsel’s motion
for default judgment even though the respondent’s owner sent an email letter to the Region
stating that it was insolvent and unable to afford counsel or file an answer). See also
Mailhandlers Local 307 (U.S. Postal Service), 367 NLRB No. 144, slip op. at 1–2 and n. 3
(2019) (granting the General Counsel’s motion for a default judgment for respondent’s failure to
file an answer to the properly served complaint even though the respondent asserted that it did
not retain counsel until after the motion was filed, that it had not actually received the complaint
when it was issued, and that the Region’s subsequent reminder letter did not enclose another
copy of it).
For a discussion of the Board’s procedural rules for filing such motions, see § 10–300,
Motions for Summary and Default Judgment, below.
§ 3–610 Jurisdiction
The Board’s statutory jurisdiction must be established in every case, regardless of
whether any party has timely raised or contested jurisdiction. See, e.g., FiveCap, Inc., 331 NLRB
1165, 1176 (2000) (respondent did not waive the right to assert that it was an exempt “political
subdivision” under Sec. 2(2) of the Act by failing to raise the issue in the prior representation case
or admitting jurisdiction in its answer to the complaint in the unfair labor practice case), enfd. 294
F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2002).
However, “[w]hile a question concerning the Board’s statutory jurisdiction may be raised at
any time, it is well settled that the issue of jurisdiction under the Board’s discretionary standards
must be timely raised.” Anchortank, Inc., 233 NLRB 295 n. 1 (1977) (finding that the respondent
waived the right to challenge the propriety of the discretionary jurisdictional standard alleged in
the complaint because it did not raise the issue until after the hearing had closed), enfd. in part
618 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir. 1980). See also Paramedical Specialties Services, Inc., 322 NLRB 351
n. 1 (1996) (Board issued a default judgment against respondent notwithstanding that the
complaint did not clearly define the nature of respondent’s service contracts, as the respondent
had failed to timely contest the Board’s discretionary jurisdiction); Ryder Student
Transportation, 297 NLRB 371, 372 (1989) (respondent failed to contest discretionary
jurisdiction under the Board’s Res-Care “right of control” test in the underlying representation
proceeding); and Gateway Motor Lodge, 222 NLRB 851, 852 (1976) (respondent did not dispute
that it satisfied the Board’s discretionary jurisdictional commerce standards in the underlying
representation case).
But see Laborers Local 1177, 269 NLRB 746 (1984) (“It is of no consequence that the
complaint allegations were ultimately uncontested if they do not, in fact, establish discretionary
34
jurisdiction.”). In that case, the Board dismissed the 8(b)(4) secondary boycott complaint,
notwithstanding that no party disputed jurisdiction, because the complaint contained insufficient
allegations to establish that the alleged primary and secondary employers’ operations satisfied
the Board’s discretionary jurisdictional commerce standards and the General Counsel had not
supplemented the allegations with evidence at the hearing. In a footnote (n. 3), the Board
distinguished Anchortank because the issue there was whether the jurisdictional standard alleged
in the complaint was the appropriate standard, not whether the applicable jurisdictional standard
was met.
For a further discussion of the Board’s jurisdictional standards, see NLRB Outline of Law
and Procedure in Representation Cases § 1-100 et seq. (June 2017).
§ 3–620 Affirmative Defenses
Affirmative defenses must be pled in an answer or timely raised at the hearing.
Affirmative defenses raised for the first time after the hearing are untimely and may be considered
waived. See, e.g., EF International Language Schools, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 20, slip op. at 1 n.
2 (2015) (defense that allegation is barred by Sec. 10(b) limitations period), enfd. 673 Fed. Appx.
1 (D.C. Cir. 2017); and Springfield Manor, 295 NLRB 17 n. 2 (1989) (defense that alleged
discriminatee is a supervisor), and additional cases discussed in §§ 3–700 and 3–800 through
3–860, below.
Defenses may be stricken if they are not recognized affirmative defenses in law or are
irrelevant to the issues set for hearing. See, e.g., Harding Glass Co., 347 NLRB 1112, 1115
(2006) (granting the General Counsel’s motion to strike several of the respondent’s affirmative
defenses to the backpay specification as they were without merit as a matter of law), enfd. 500
F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007), cert. denied 128 S. Ct. 935 (2008); TNT Logistics, North America, 346
NLRB 1301 n. 1 (2006) (upholding judge’s pretrial order granting the General Counsel’s motion in
limine to strike seven of the respondent’s eight affirmative defenses as that they raised irrelevant
matters), enfd. 246 Fed. Appx. 220 (4th Cir. 2007); Tri-County Paving, Inc., 342 NLRB 1213,
1216 (2004) (striking defenses in a refusal-to-hire case that challenged the alleged
discriminatees’ status as bona fide applicants); Superior Industries International, 295 NLRB
320, 322 (1989) (striking, as frivolous and irrelevant, respondent’s affirmative defense that the
General Counsel was engaged in a “cover up” and that the Board’s election procedures were
under investigation by “at least forty [unnamed] U.S. Senators and Congressmen”); Electrical
Workers Local 1316 (Superior Contractors), 271 NLRB 338, 340 (1984) (striking, as irrelevant
and immaterial, respondent’s affirmative defense regarding the charging party’s motivation in
filing the charge); Sheet Metal Workers Local 3 (McCarthy Heating & Air Conditioning
Services, Inc.), 253 NLRB 330, JD. n. 2 (1980) (striking the respondent union’s affirmative
defense to the 8(b)(7)(C) picketing complaint that the charging party employer engaged in racial
discrimination); and additional cases discussed in § 3–700, Other Affirmative Defenses, below.
See also FRCP 12(f) (authorizing courts to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter,” either on its own or on motion by a
party).
A defense should also be stricken if it is interposed to engage in a “fishing expedition” to
discover evidence needed to support the defense. See Flaum Appetizing Corp., 357 NLRB
2006, 2010–2011 (2011) (striking the employer’s affirmative defenses in the backpay proceeding
asserting that the discriminatees were undocumented aliens, as the employer failed, in response
to a motion for particulars, to articulate any factual support, or reason to believe it could obtain
such factual support, for the defenses), and cases cited therein.
35
The General Counsel is not required to anticipate and negate an affirmative defense in the
complaint. See Flying Food Group, Inc. v. NLRB, 471 F.3d 178, 183 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and
cases cited there.
§ 3–700 Section 10(b) Affirmative Defense
Section 10(b) of the Act is a statute of limitations. It generally "extinguishes liability for
unfair labor practices committed more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge.” NLRB v.
Fant Milling Co., 360 U.S. 301, 309 n. 9 (1959). For a complete analysis, see Machinists Lodge
1424 (Bryan Mfg. Co.) v. NLRB, 362 U.S. 411, 414–429 (1960).
Section 10(b) is not jurisdictional. It is an affirmative defense and, if not timely raised by
the respondent in its answer or at the hearing, it is waived. EF International Language
Schools, above, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2015); Approved Electric Corp., 356 NLRB 238 n. 1 (2010);
and Dayton Newspapers, Inc., 339 NLRB 650, 653 n.8 (2003), enfd. in part 402 F.3d 651 (6th
Cir. 2005).
The defense must also be specifically raised, i.e., the respondent must specify the
allegation it asserts is untimely under Section 10(b); a mere boilerplate or catchall provision in the
answer is insufficient. See United Government Security Officers of America International,
367 NLRB No. 5, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2018). In that case, the complaint alleged that the respondent
International and local unions had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) of the Act in certain
respects. In their posthearing brief, the respondents asserted that one of the 8(b)(1)(A)
allegations was untimely under Section 10(b). However, the respondents had not previously
asserted the 10(b) defense to that allegation. Although their answer included a 10(b) affirmative
defense, it did not specify which of the allegations was untimely. Rather, it only generally stated:
“To the extent any allegations were not made and expressly included in an unfair labor practice
charge filed within six (6) months of the alleged violation, the allegations are time-barred by the
applicable six-month statute of limitations.” Nor had the respondents raised or litigated the 10(b)
defense to the 8(b)(1)(A) allegation at the hearing. Accordingly, the Board found that the
respondents had waived the defense.
§ 3–710 Computation of Section 10(b) Period
The Section 10(b) period commences only when a party has “clear and unequivocal
notice of a violation.” Leach Corp., 312 NLRB 990, 991–992 (1993), enfd. 54 F.3d 802 (D.C. Cir.
1995). The burden of showing notice is on the party raising the 10(b) affirmative defense. Ibid.
The requisite notice may be actual or constructive, i.e., sufficient notice may be found if
the party should have become aware of a violation in the exercise of reasonable diligence. See,
e.g., Castle Hill Health Care Center, 355 NLRB 1156, 1191 (2010); and Moeller Bros. Body
Shop, 306 NLRB 191, 192 (1992). However, constructive notice will not be found where a delay
in filing is a consequence of conflicting signals or otherwise ambiguous conduct. A & L
Underground, 302 NLRB 467, 469 (1991). See also New York Paving, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 44,
slip op. at 1 n. 8, 22 (2020), enfd. mem. per curiam 2021 WL 6102199 (D.C. Cir. 2021); Taylor
Ridge Paving and Construction Co., 365 NLRB No. 168, slip op. at 3–4 (2017); and Cab
Associates, 340 NLRB 1391, 1392 (2003).
In Postal Service Marina Center, 271 NLRB 397, 397–400 (1984), the Board held that
the Section 10(b) period is computed from the date of the alleged unlawful act, rather than the
date its consequences become effective. Thus, an employee who received notice that he would
be terminated but waited to file a charge until the termination became effective—more than 6
36
months from the date of the notice—was barred by Section 10(b) from filing the charge. This rule,
however, is restricted to discriminatory discharge cases. It does not apply in refusal to bargain
cases. See Howard Electrical, 293 NLRB 472, 475 (1989), enfd. mem. 931 F2d 63 (10th Cir.
1991); and Esmark, Inc. v. NLRB, 887 F.2d 739, 746 n. 6 (7th Cir. 1989). See also Leach Corp.,
above, 312 NLRB at 991 n. 7 (the Sec. 10(b) period for an 8(a)(5) charge involving a plant
transfer and withdrawal of recognition did not begin until a “substantial percentage” of employees
had been transferred).
In computing the time, the day on which the unfair labor practice occurred is excluded.
MacDonald's Industrial Products, 281 NLRB 577 (1986).
§ 3–720 Background Evidence
Evidence may be admitted concerning events outside the 10(b) period if the evidence is
used only as background and not to prove a time-barred unfair labor practice. See Machinists
Lodge 1424 (Bryan Mfg. Co.) v. NLRB, above, 362 U.S. at 416 (“earlier events may be utilized
to shed light on the true character of matters occurring within the limitations period”); and
Monongahela Power Co., 324 NLRB 214, 214–215 (1997) (evidence was admissible to shed
light on the respondent’s motivation). See also Mid-Atlantic Restaurant Group LLC v. NLRB,
722 Fed. Appx. 284, 288 (3rd Cir. Jan. 25, 2018) (ALJ did not abuse his discretion by considering
evidence not specifically pled in the complaint, such as references to individuals not mentioned in
the complaint and evidence beyond the complaint’s timeframe, as he did not find any unfair labor
practice other than that alleged in the complaint).
However, when the conduct within the 10(b) period can be found to be an unfair labor
practice only through reliance upon an earlier unfair labor practice, evidence of the earlier
conduct cannot be used because "it does not simply lay bare a putative current unfair labor
practice,” but "serves to cloak with illegality that which was otherwise lawful.” Machinists Lodge
1424 (Bryan Mfg.), above, 362 U.S. at 417–418 (allegation that the employer and the union
unlawfully maintained and enforced a facially lawful union security agreement outside the 10(b)
period was barred because the allegation required the General Counsel to prove that the union
lacked majority status, and that the agreement was therefore unlawful, at the time it was
executed). See also Teamsters Local 27 (Combined Containair Industries), 209 NLRB 883,
883–884 (1974).
§ 3–730 Continuing Violations
Violations that are continuing in nature are not barred by Section 10(b). Thus, an
allegation that an employer maintained an unlawful rule within the 10(b) period is timely, even if
the respondent promulgated the rule outside the period. See, e.g., Dynamic Nursing Services,
Inc., 369 NLRB No. 49, slip op. at 3 (2020); Charter Communications, LLC, 366 NLRB No. 46,
slip op. at 1 n. 4 (2018), enfd. 939 F.3d 798 (6th Cir. 2019); and Cellular Sales of Missouri,
LLC, 362 NLRB 241, 242 (2015), affd. in relevant part 824 F.3d 772, 779 (8th Cir.2016). There is
likewise no 10(b) bar to finding that a contractual provision was unlawfully maintained and
enforced more than 6 months after the contract was executed. Central Pennsylvania Regional
Council of Carpenters, 337 NLRB 1030 (2002), enfd. 352 F.3d 831 (3d Cir. 2003) (anti-dual
shop clause); and Teamsters Local 293 (R. L. Lipton Distributing), 311 NLRB 538, 539 (1993)
(shop steward superseniority clause). But see Machinists Lodge 1424 (Bryan Mfg.), above.
Similarly, if the employer fails to abide by certain contract provisions, without repudiating
the contract, each successive contract breach constitutes a separate unfair labor practice.
37
However, if the charging party had received clear and unequivocal notice of the respondent’s total
contract repudiation before the 10(b) cutoff date, it is time barred from subsequently alleging
contract violations within the 10(b) period. See Springfield Day Nursery, 362 NLRB 261, 263–
264 (2015); Vallow Floor Coverings, Inc., 335 NLRB 20 (2001); and A & L Underground, 302
NLRB 467, 468–469 (1991), and cases cited there. See also Chambersburg County Market,
293 NLRB 654, 655 (1989) (“a charge alleging an unlawful refusal to execute a bargaining
contract is cognizable only when filed within 6 months”).
§ 3–740 Backpay for Continuing Violations
Where a continuing violation is found, and the charging party did not know or have reason
to know of the original violation, the usual make-whole remedy from the date of the original
violation is normally appropriate, i.e., backpay may be ordered beyond the 10(b) period, even in
the absence of any fraudulent concealment. See Vallow Floor Coverings, above, 335 NLRB at
20–21 (ordering employer to pay backpay since 1991, even though the charge was not filed until
6 years later, in 1997).
§ 3–750 Fraud or Deception
Fraudulently concealing the facts of an unfair labor practice from a charging party tolls
Section 10(b) as to both the violation and the remedy, unless the charging party failed to exercise
due diligence. See Burgess Construction, 227 NLRB 765, 766 (1977) (respondent fraudulently
and deceitfully concealed its unlawful employment of nonunion carpenters from the union by
assuring the union that it would no longer employ carpenters), enfd. 596 F.2d 378 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied 444 U.S. 940 (1979), and cases cited there.
For fraudulent concealment of facts from the General Counsel, see the next section.
§ 3–800 Other Affirmative Defenses
§ 3–810 Charging Party’s Motive or Misconduct
The charging party’s motive for filing the underlying charge “is irrelevant to the disposition
of the allegations in the [General Counsel’s] complaint.” El Vocero de Puerto Rico, Inc., 357
NLRB 1585, 1586 (2011); and Dynabil Industries, Inc., 330 NLRB 360, 362 (1999).
Ordinarily, a charging party’s own alleged misconduct is likewise not a defense to a
respondent’s unfair labor practices. See Carpenters Local 621 (Consolidated Constructors),
169 NLRB 1002, 1003 (1968) (“‘[U]nclean hands’ estops neither a company from filing a charge
against one who violates the Act, nor the Board from vindicating and protecting the public rights
inherent in the Act, which have been infringed.”), enfd. 406 F.2d 1081 (1st Cir. 1969); and
Plumbers Local 457 (Bomat Plumbing and Heating), 131 NLRB 1243, 1245–1247 (1961)
(“One unfair labor practice does not excuse another. If a respondent believes that a charging
party is guilty of unfair labor practices, the proper procedure is for the respondent to file unfair
labor practice charges against the charging party and not to resort to unfair labor practices in
justification or excuse.”), enfd. 299 F.2d 497 (2d Cir. 1962).
However, if proof of the charging party’s misconduct could affect the unfair labor practice
findings, an affirmatively pleaded defense regarding the misconduct must be heard. This applies
even if no charge was filed regarding the misconduct, or a charge regarding the misconduct was
withdrawn or dismissed. See County Concrete Corp., 366 NLRB No. 64, slip op. at 1 n. 1
38
(2018) (union’s failure to advise employees of their Beck rights not to pay dues for non-
representational activities could be raised by the respondent employer as an affirmative defense
to the 8(a)(5) complaint allegation that it unlawfully failed to deduct dues, even though no charge
was filed asserting a Beck violation), enfd. 765 Fed. Appx. 712 (3d Cir. 2019); and Chicago
Tribune Co., 304 NLRB 259, 259–261 (1991) (respondent employer in 8(a)(5) bad-faith
bargaining case could raise the union’s bad faith bargaining as an affirmative defense, even
though the employer’s previous 8(b)(3) charges regarding the union’s conduct had been
dismissed by the General Counsel or withdrawn by the employer). See also American Bottling
Co. v. NLRB, 992 F.3d 1129, 1140 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (“When Regional Directors decline to bring
charges, they do so by exercising authority delegated from the General Counsel rather than the
Board. And when the General Counsel declines to issue a complaint ‘no proceeding before the
Board occurs at all[,]’ and the action has no precedential value whatsoever.”), citing and quoting
NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 138–139 (1975). Compare Greyhound Lines,
319 NLRB 554, 555–557 (1995) (affirmative defense based on alleged union misconduct was
stricken because no nexus was shown between the alleged misconduct and the respondent’s
refusal to bargain, which was the subject of the complaint).
Alleged charging party misconduct may also be relevant to the remedy. See Laura
Modes Co., 144 NLRB 1592, 1596 (1963); and Allou Distributors, 201 NLRB 47, 47–48 (1973)
(union violence warranted withholding the normal bargaining order and instead directing an
election). Compare Cascade Corp., 192 NLRB 533 n. 2 (1971) (distinguishing Laura Modes and
issuing a bargaining order where a valid election was conducted and a certification had issued
before any violence took place), enf. denied on other grounds 466 F.2d 748 (6th Cir. 1972); and
Maywood Plant of Grede Plastics, 235 NLRB 363, 365–366 (1978) (provocation must be
weighed), enfd. as modified 628 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
§ 3–820 Laches
Apart from the restrictions of Section 10(b) of the Act, the Board generally does not apply
the doctrine of laches to itself or the General Counsel. Newark Electric Corp., 366 NLRB No.
145, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2018), enfd. 14 F.4th 152 (2d Cir. 2021); and UPS Ground Freight, Inc.,
366 NLRB No. 100, slip op. at 2 (2018). See also Midwest Terminals of Toledo, 365 NLRB No.
157, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2017), reaffg. 362 NLRB 468 n. 1 (2015) (rejecting defense even though
the supervisor allegedly made the 8(a)(1) statement over 4 years before the hearing commenced
and he no longer worked for the company and was unavailable as a witness), enfd. 783 Fed.
Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019); Teamsters Local 75 (Schreiber Foods), 365 NLRB No. 48, slip op. at
5 n. 6 (2017) (rejecting defense even though the alleged unlawful events occurred in 1989 and
the Board did not issue its second supplemental decision on remand from the court of appeals
until 9 years after the court’s remand order); United Electrical Contractors Assn., 347 NLRB 1,
2–3 (2006) (denying motion to dismiss complaint against members of the employer association,
notwithstanding the General Counsel’s “inordinate and inexcusable” 5 ½ year delay in naming
them as respondents, given the absence of any showing of prejudice); Rogan Bros. Sanitation,
Inc., 369 NLRB No. 53, slip op. at 5 n. 6 (2020) (rejecting defense despite 7-year delay between
Board’s original decision granting summary judgment pursuant to the noncompliance provisions
of a bilateral informal settlement agreement and issuance of backpay specification); Human
Development Assn., 348 NLRB 677 (2006) (rejecting defense despite the 13-year delay
between enforcement of the Board’s remedial order and issuance of the compliance
specification), enfd. 275 Fed. Appx. 64 (2d Cir. 2008); and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 361 NLRB
892, 893 n. 5 (2014) (considerable delay by the Board in issuing the backpay specification did not
warrant a reduction in the backpay award even assuming the delay contravened the APA), affd.
in relevant part 810 F.3d 287, 298–299 (5th Cir. 2015).
39
With respect to considering passage of time and other changed circumstances in
evaluating the appropriateness of a Gissel bargaining order, see § 16–402.5, Evidence Affecting
Remedy, below.
§ 3–830 Inadequate Investigation/Compliance with Casehandling Manual
Due process claims are tested not by analysis of the investigation, but by analysis of the
complaint allegations. Thus, the adequacy of the General Counsel’s investigation may not be
litigated in the unfair labor practice hearing. Redway Carriers, 274 NLRB 1359, 1371 (1985).
See also Laborers Local 135 (Bechtel Power Corp.), 301 NLRB 1066, 1068 n. 19 (1991) (citing
the same rule in a compliance proceeding).
Respondents may also argue that the General Counsel failed to follow the NLRB
Casehandling Manual. However, the Casehandling Manual provides guidance only and is not
binding on the GC or the Board. See Hempstead Lincoln Mercury Motors Corp., 349 NLRB
552 n. 4 (2007); and Offshore Mariners United, 338 NLRB 745, 746 (2002), and cases cited
therein. See also Steel Workers (Cequent Towing Products), 357 NLRB 516, 518 (2011)
(rejecting the respondent union’s argument that it was justified in maintaining an alleged unlawful
annual renewal requirement for objectors because the requirement was consistent with guidelines
set forth in a prior General Counsel Memorandum).
But see § 6–230, “Skip Counsel” Violations, below.
§ 3–840 Deferral to Grievance Arbitration
It is well settled that deferral to the grievance and arbitration machinery of the collective-
bargaining agreement is an affirmative defense that must be timely raised in the answer to the
complaint or at the trial. Detroit Medical Center, 369 NLRB No. 41, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2020); and
Provident Nursing Home, 345 NLRB 581 n. 3 (2005). Therefore, the respondent’s assertion of
this defense after the trial closes is untimely. SEIU United Healthcare Workers–West, 350
NLRB 284 n. 1 (2007), enfd. 574 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2009); Milford Manor Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center, 346 NLRB 50, 51 (2005); and Master Mechanical Insulation, 320 NLRB
1134 n. 2 (1996). See also Wisconsin Bell Telephone, 346 NLRB 62, 64, n. 8 (2005) (although
the respondent raised deferral as an affirmative defense in its answer, it waived the argument by
failing to raise the issue subsequently at the hearing or in its brief to the judge).
Burden of proof. The burden is on the moving party to prove that prearbitral deferral is
warranted. See, e.g., King Soopers, 364 NLRB No. 93, slip op. at 22–23 (2016), enfd. in
relevant part 859 F.3d 23, 30 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Regency Heritage Nursing & Rehabilitation
Center, 360 NLRB 794, 806 (2014), enfd. 657 Fed. Appx. 129 (3d Cir. 2016), cert. denied 137
S.Ct. 1229 (2017); and Rickel Home Centers, 262 NLRB 731 (1982). The Board has found
prearbitral deferral appropriate when the dispute arises within the confines of a long and
productive bargaining relationship; there is no claim of animosity to the exercise of employee
statutory rights; the parties’ agreement provides for arbitration of a very broad range of disputes;
the arbitration clause clearly encompasses the dispute; the employer has asserted its willingness
to arbitrate the dispute; and the dispute is eminently well suited to resolution through arbitration.
See Wonder Bread, 343 NLRB 55 (2004), citing Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837, 839
(1971), and United Technologies Corp., 268 NLRB 557 (1984). See also United Parcel
Service, Inc., above, slip op.at 10 n. 31 (reaffirming these standards for prearbitral deferral to
grievance arbitration and overruling more recent decisions holding that in 8(a)(1) and (3)
discharge or discipline cases the parties must have explicitly authorized the arbitrator to decide
the unfair labor practice issue).
40
With respect to postarbitral deferral, the party opposing deferral has the burden of
demonstrating that the standards for deferral have not been met, i.e. the party opposing deferral
must show that the proceedings were not fair and regular; that the contractual issue is not
factually parallel to the unfair labor practice issue; that the arbitrator was not presented generally
with the facts relevant to resolving that issue; and/or that the award is “clearly repugnant” to the
Act. Olin Corp., 268 NLRB 573, 574 (1984). The Board also applies the same principles to
settlements arising from the parties’ contractual grievance/arbitration procedures. See
Bethenergy Mines, Inc., 308 NLRB 1242, 1244 n. 8 (1992), citing, e.g., Alpha Beta Co., 273
NLRB 1546 (1985), rev. denied sub nom. Mahon v. NLRB, 808 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1987). See
also United Parcel Service, above (reaffirming these standards for postarbitral deferral and
overruling more recent decisions holding to the contrary with respect to 8(a)(1) and (3) discharge
and discipline cases).
Procedure. The judge should evaluate whether deferral is warranted before evaluating
the merits of the complaint allegations. Detroit Medical Center, above, slip op. at 1 (“Deferral is
a threshold issue which must be decided prior to addressing the merits of the allegations at
issue.”). See also Olin Corp., 268 NLRB at 574. The judge appears to retain the discretion,
however, whether or not to bifurcate litigation of the deferral and unfair labor practice issues. See
*Sheet Metal Workers Local 18 (Everbrite, LLC), 359 NLRB No. 121, slip op. at 3 (2013) (“The
Board has long held that . . . a deferral defense and the merits may be addressed in the same
hearing . . .”); Cargill, Inc.,17-CA-088608, unpub. Board order issued Jan. 3, 2014 (2014 WL
31718) (judge did not abuse her discretion in ruling that the scheduled unfair labor practice
hearing, which was anticipated to last only about 1–2 days, would proceed, and that evidence
should be presented with respect to both the deferral issue raised by the respondent and the
merits of the complaint); and Bunge Milling, Inc., 33-CA-15997, unpub. Board order issued Dec.
30, 2011 (2011 WL 6886279) (judge did not abuse his discretion by requiring the parties to
submit prehearing briefs on whether the Board should defer to an arbitrator’s decision and
award).
If the facts relevant to the deferral issue are undisputed, it may be appropriate to address
the issue without a hearing, either on a stipulation of facts or a motion to defer/dismiss. See, e.g.,
*IAP World Services, 358 NLRB 33 (2012) (Board affirmed judge’s decision deferring/
dismissing the case pursuant to the parties’ stipulation of facts); Wonder Bread, 343 NLRB 55
(2004) (Board granted respondent’s prehearing motion to defer/dismiss); Southern California
Edison Co, 310 NLRB 1229 (1993) (same), rev. denied 39 F.3d 1210 (D.C. Cir. 1994); and
Specialized Distribution Management, Inc., 318 NLRB 158 (1995) (Board found that the judge
properly deferred/dismissed the complaint pursuant to the respondent’s pretrial motion). See also
§ 10–400, Motions to Dismiss, below. But see BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los
Angeles, 361 NLRB 839 (2014) (judge should have held evidentiary hearing to determine
whether grievance settlement was repugnant to the Act).
As indicated in the cases cited above, if the motion for pre or postarbitral deferral is
granted, the complaint should be dismissed. However, if the motion is for prearbitral deferral, the
decision should note that the Board retains jurisdiction for the limited purpose of entertaining an
appropriate and timely motion for further consideration on a proper showing that either (a) the
dispute has not, with reasonable promptness after the issuance of the Board’s decision, been
either resolved by amicable settlement in the grievance procedure or submitted promptly to
arbitration, or (b) deferral to the arbitration award is unwarranted.
41
§ 3–850 Prior Settlement
A settlement agreement generally disposes of all issues unless the prior violations were
unknown to the General Counsel, not readily discoverable by investigation, or specifically
reserved from the settlement by the mutual understanding of the parties. Hollywood Roosevelt
Hotel, 235 NLRB 1397 (1978). This so-called “settlement bar” rule is likewise an affirmative
defense and is waived if not timely raised in the pleadings or at the hearing. See Richard Mellow
Electrical Contractors Corp., 327 NLRB 1112, 1112–1113 (1999).
See also § 9–620, Reservation Clauses: Settlement Bar Rule; §13–400, Reliance on
Settlements; and § 16–402.4, Evidence of Presettlement Conduct, below.
§ 3–860 Section 8(g) Notice
A respondent’s assertion that the union failed to give notice under Section 8(g) of the Act
is an affirmative defense. Therefore, raising the issue for the first time in a posthearing brief to the
judge is untimely. Vencare Ancillary Services, 334 NLRB 965, 968–969 (2001), enf. denied on
other grounds, 352 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2003).
42
CHAPTER 4. FILING AND SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS
§ 4–100 Filing of Documents
Under the Board’s Rules, all post-charge unfair labor practice case documents filed with
the Agency, including the Division of Judges, must be e-filed utilizing the Agency’s website
(www.nlrb.gov). If a party files such documents in paper format, it must explain why it could not
e-file them or why doing so would be unduly burdensome. Documents may not be filed with the
Agency via email without the prior approval of the receiving office. See Sec. 102.5(c).
The time requirements for filing are set forth in Section 102.2. In computing the time
prescribed, the day the time period begins to run is not included; however, the last day is included
unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. When the time period is less than 7 days,
intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays are excluded. See Sec. 102.2(a).
E-filed documents must be received by 11:59 p.m. of the time zone of the receiving office.
Non-e-filed documents must be received before the official closing time of the receiving office.
However, with certain exceptions (charges, EAJA applications, petitions to revoke subpoenas,
and requests for extension of time to file a document), the Board will accept as timely filed
documents which are deposited with a delivery service at least one day before the due date, as
shown by the postmark or other record provided by the delivery service. Sec. 102.2(b).
As discussed in § 3-600, above, with respect to filing of answers, Section 102.2(d) of the
Board’s Rules states that motions, exceptions, answers to a complaint or backpay specification,
and briefs may be filed “within a reasonable time after the time prescribed by these Rules only
upon good cause shown based on excusable neglect and when no undue prejudice would result.”
For an example of how this rule is applied, see M&M Affordable Plumbing, Inc., 13–CA–
121459, unpub. Board order issued May 3, 2018 (2018 WL 2086092). In that case, the
respondent requested leave to file its exceptions and supporting brief with the Board in
Washington D.C. after the deadline (April 6) because of (1) an unexpected emergency that arose
on another legal matter on April 6 that diverted counsel’s attention for most of the business day,
(2) a previous family commitment that prevented counsel from remaining at the office after
business hours on April 6 to complete the filing, and (3) intermittent difficulties establishing an
internet connection from counsel’s home computer on the evening of April 6, which prevented
counsel from completing the filing from home until 12:23 a.m. (Chicago time) on April 7. The
General Counsel opposed the request and the Board denied it stating:
The asserted reasons for the late filing—that counsel was busy with other legal
matters, and experienced technological problems—do not rise to the level of
excusable neglect. See NLRB Rules and Regulations, Section 102.2(d),
102.24(b). Thus, the Board has rejected claims that filing attorneys were busy,
finding they do not rise to the level of excusable neglect. See, e.g., V. Garofalo
Carting, Inc., 362 NLRB [1369, 1369–1370] (2015). The Board has similarly
held that a user’s technological problems when attempting to e-file do not
constitute excusable neglect. Rather, parties who choose to file on the final day
for doing so assume the risk that something can go wrong, particularly if, as here,
the attempted filing takes place on the evening of the final day. As specifically
stated in the Board's e-filing instructions [see the Board’s website at
https://apps.nlrb.gov/eservice/efileterm.aspx], "a user who waits until after close
of business on the due date to attempt to E-File does so at his/her own peril.”
43
Note, however, that the Board has accepted documents that were not timely filed with the
appropriate office of the Agency where they were timely filed with another office of the Agency.
See Eldeco, Inc., 336 NLRB No. 82 (2001) (respondent’s response to the Board’s notice to show
cause was misfiled with the Agency’s regional office rather than the Board in Washington, D.C.,
assertedly because of a miscommunication between counsel); and Central Apex
Reproductions, 330 NLRB 1163 (2000) (respondent’s response to the Board’s notice to show
cause was misfiled with the Division of Judges in Washington, D.C. rather than the Board).
§ 4–200 Service of Documents
Service of documents on parties in Board proceedings is governed by the NLRA and the
Board’s Rules rather than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Control Services, 303 NLRB
481, 481–482 (1991), enfd. 961 F.2d 1568 (3d Cir. 1992). See Section 11(4) of the Act and the
following sections of the Board’s Rules: 102.3 (date of service), 102.4 (service of process and
papers by the Agency), 102.5 (service of papers by parties), and 102.14 (service of charges).
Pursuant to the foregoing provisions, depending on the type of document, service may be
made by:
Personal service (charges, complaints, compliance specifications, ALJ decisions, Board
orders, subpoenas, other Agency-issued documents, and documents served by a party on other
parties).
Registered or certified mail (charges, complaints, compliance specifications, ALJ
decisions, Board orders, subpoenas, other Agency-issued documents, and documents served by
a party on other parties).
Private delivery service (charges, subpoenas, and documents served by a party on other
parties).
Leaving a copy at the principal office or place of business of the person required to be
served (complaints, compliance specifications, ALJ decisions, Board orders, subpoenas, other
Agency-issued documents, and documents served by a party on other parties).
Email (charges with the permission of the person receiving the charge, complaints,
compliance specifications, ALJ decisions, Board orders, other Agency-issued documents, and
documents served by a party on other parties unless otherwise provided in the Rules).
Regular mail (charges, and documents served by a party on other parties).
Fax (charges, and documents under 25 pages in length served by a party on other
parties).
Any other means with the consent of the party being served (charges and documents
served by a party on other parties).
Any other method authorized by law (complaints, compliance specifications, ALJ
decisions, Board orders, subpoenas, and other Agency-issued documents).
Service of process on an authorized agent constitutes effective service on the agent’s
principal. See Spectrum Mechanical Services, LLC, 368 NLRB No. 85, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2019)
(General Counsel’s service of the complaint and reminder letters by certified and regular mail on
44
the designated individual listed with the state division of corporations to receive service was
sufficient service on the respondent company), and cases cited there.
Section 102.4(e) requires that pleadings or other papers served by the Agency must also
be served on any attorney or other representative of a party. The attorney or representative may
be served by any means permitted by the Rules, including regular mail. For cases addressing the
failure to serve a party’s attorney with a copy of a subpoena, see § 8-120, below.
Note also that Section 102.5, which addresses service of documents by parties, states
that, “unless otherwise specified elsewhere in these Rules, service on all parties must be made in
the same manner as that used in filing the document with the Board, or in a more expeditious
manner.” See 102.5(f).
§ 4–300 Determining Date of Service
The date of service is specified in Section 102.3 of the Board’s Rules as follows:
Personal service or fax: “the date on which the document is received.” See also Hardesty
Co., 336 NLRB 258, 259 (2001) (presumption of employer’s receipt of union’s faxed information
request was supported by fax confirmation report, which was not rebutted by testimonial denial of
employer’s lawyer at trial), enfd. 308 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2002).
Private delivery service: “the day when the document . . . is deposited with a private
delivery service that will provide a record showing the date the document was tendered to the
delivery service.”
Mail: “the day when the document served is deposited in the United States mail.” See
also Electrical Workers IUE (Spartus Corp.), 271 NLRB 607 (1984).
Email: “the day when the document . . . is sent by email.”
§ 4–400 Proof of Service
Section 11(4) of the Act and Sections 102.4(d) and 102.5(g) of the Board’s Rules specify
certain methods of proof of service:
Personal service or delivery to a principal office or place of business: “the verified return
by the serving individual, setting forth the manner of such service.”
Registered or certified mail: “the return post office receipt.”
Private delivery service: “the receipt from [the] service showing delivery.”
However, the same sections of the Board’s Rules state that the foregoing methods of
service “are not exclusive; any sufficient proof may be relied upon to establish service.” See also
Mailhandlers Local 307 (U.S. Postal Service), 367 NLRB No. 144, slip op. at 1 (2019) (service
of the complaint by certified mail may also be established by the Postal Service’s online tracking
system or by the Board agent’s affidavit), and cases cited there.
Where service of documents is permitted by regular mail, the failure of the postal service
to return the documents is sufficient to establish actual receipt. See, e.g., Spectrum Mechanical
45
Services, LLC, 368 NLRB No. 85, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2019); citing Lite Flight, Inc., 285 NLRB
649, 650 (1987), enfd. 843 F.2d 1392 (6th Cir. 1988). See also Joy Luck Palace Restaurant,
368 NLRB No. 108, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2019) (same; also noting that the Region additionally sent
copies of the complaint and amended complaint to the respondent’s president/owner and its
manager by electronic mail via the same email addresses that they had previously used to
correspond with the Region, and there was “no indication that the Region’s emails to the
Respondent’s officials were undeliverable”).
Whether service is made by the Agency or by a private party, the person making service
“shall submit a written statement of service . . . stating the names of the parties served and the
date and manner of service”; however, “failure to make proof of service does not affect the validity
of service.” NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.114(e). Thus, the absence of such a
statement will not invalidate service, nor preclude other methods of proof of service. The Board
has long held that procedural requirements regarding proof of service should be liberally
construed. See Control Services, 303 NLRB 481, 481–482 (1991), enfd. 961 F.2d 1568 (3d Cir.
1992). For example, in G. W. Truck, 240 NLRB 333, 334–335 (1979), proof of a charge’s service
was based upon testimony by a Board agent, supported by her written description “almost
contemporaneous with service,” of what had occurred when she served the charge.
§ 4–500 Failure of Service
A party’s failure to make timely service on other parties is a basis for either “rejecting the
document,” or “[w]ithholding or reconsidering any ruling on the subject matter raised by the
document until after service has been made and the served party has had reasonable opportunity
to respond.” NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.5(i).
Ordinarily, the Board has been reluctant to reject a document due to lack of timely service.
See Cameron Iron Works, 235 NLRB 287, 287–288 (1978), enf. denied on other grounds 591
F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1979); Our Way, Inc., 244 NLRB 236 n. 1 (1979) (General Counsel’s failure to
serve timely filed exceptions); and Terpening Trucking Co., 271 NLRB 96 n. 1 (1984)
(respondent’s failure to serve exceptions on the charging party).
The Board has been particularly reluctant to do so if a party is unrepresented and if filing
of that document otherwise complies with the Rules. See Tri-Way Security, 310 NLRB 1222,
1223 n. 5 (1993); and Acme Building Maintenance, 307 NLRB 358, 359 n. 6 (1992) (answer to
complaint). However, in Active Metal Mfg., 316 NLRB 974, 974–975 (1995), a self-represented
respondent’s timely-filed answer was rejected for failure to serve the charging party because
there had been “repeated efforts” by the Region to apprise the respondent of its obligations but
service was never made.
§ 4–600 Efforts to Frustrate Service
“It is well settled that a respondent’s failure or refusal to accept certified mail or to provide
for appropriate service cannot serve to defeat the purposes of the Act.” Frontline Security
Services, 367 NLRB No. 131, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2019) (issuing a default judgment in the absence
of good cause for failing to file an answer to complaint). See also Apex Electrical Services, 356
NLRB No. 172, slip op. at 1 n. 3 (2011) (compliance specification).
46
§ 4–700 Special Aspects of Service of Particular Documents
§ 4–710 Charges and Amended Charges
As discussed in § 3–120, above, under the proviso to Section 10(b) of the Act, a charge
must be both filed with the Agency and served on the charged party within the 6-month limitations
period. Where service is made by regular mail, service is timely if the charge was deposited in
the mail during the 10(b) period. See § 4–300 above, and Laborers Local 264 (D & G
Construction Co.), 216 NLRB 40 n. 1, 43 (1975), affd. in relevant part 529 F.2d 778, 781–785
(8th Cir. 1976).
The charging party, not the Regional Office, is responsible for assuring timely service of a
charge on the charged party. Dun & Bradstreet Software Services, 317 NLRB 84, 85 (1995),
affd. 79 F.3d 1238, 1250 (1st Cir. 1996). Although the Regional Office will normally serve a copy
of the charge on the charged party, this is merely a courtesy and does not relieve the charging
party of its service obligation. NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.14(a) and (b), and
Statements of Procedure, Sec. 101.4.
Technical defects in the manner of service will not necessarily invalidate the service. See
Control Services, above, 303 NLRB at 481–482 (“when charges have in fact been received,
technical defects in the form of service do not affect the validity of the service”). For example,
service of an unsigned copy of a charge was held adequate in Freightway Corp., 299 NLRB 531
(1990).
Further, the “failure to make timely service of a charge on a respondent will be cured by
timely service within the 10(b) period of a complaint on the respondent, absent a showing that the
respondent is prejudiced by [the] circumstances.” Buckeye Plastic Molding, 299 NLRB 1053
(1990).
Where there are multiple charged parties, service on only one of them is sufficient if they
are:
Alter egos. BMD Sportswear Corp., 283 NLRB 142 n. 1 (1987), enfd. mem. 847 F.2d 835
(2d Cir. 1988); and NLRB v. O’Neill, 965 F.2d 1522, 1528–1529 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied 509
U.S. 904 (1993).
Single employers. Il Progresso Italo Americano Publishing Co., 299 NLRB 270 n. 4,
289 (1990).
Joint employers. Whitewood Maintenance Co., 292 NLRB 1159, 1169 n. 29 (1989),
enfd. 928 F.2d 1426 (5th Cir. 1991).
Joint bargaining representatives. Electrical Workers IUE (Spartus Corp.), 271 NLRB
607 (1984). See also United Electrical Contractors Assn., 347 NLRB 1, 1–2 (2006) (service of
a charge on a multi-employer association constitutes, under agency principles, service on each of
its members).
Only charged parties must be served. Thus, a copy of a charge need not be served upon
the labor organization that is asserted to be a party to an allegedly unlawful collective-bargaining
contract, or which is asserted to be unlawfully dominated, assisted, or supported, if no remedial
order is sought against the labor organization. Meyers Bros. of Missouri, Inc., 151 NLRB 889,
47
893 n. 1 (1965) (“the limitations clause of Section 10(b) relates only to the Board’s power to issue
complaints and thus limits the Board in proceeding against ‘Respondents’ as distinguished from
‘parties’”). See also General Molds & Plastics Corp., 122 NLRB 182, 186 (1958).
§ 4–720 Complaint and Notice of Hearing
Complaints must be “served on all other parties.” NLRB Rules and Regulations, Secs.
102.4(a) and 102.15. With respect to necessary parties and parties in interest, see §§ 6–510 and
6–520, below. See also Postal Service, 5–CA–122166, unpub. Board order issued June 25,
2015 (2015 WL 3932157) (attorney for a trade association failed to establish any interest in the
case that might even arguably have entitled it to notification of the charge or complaint).
§ 4–730 Compliance Specifications
“[T]he Regional Director may issue and serve on all parties a compliance specification in
the name of the Board.” NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.54(a).
Service of a compliance specification upon the respondent’s attorney of record is sufficient
service on the respondent. Star Grocery Co., 245 NLRB 196, 197 (1979); and Cera
International Corp., 272 NLRB 1360 n. 2 (1984). This is so, even if the attorney no longer
represents the respondent, unless notice has been given to the Regional Director that the
representation has been discontinued. Hopkins Hardware, 280 NLRB 1296, 1297 (1986).
§ 4–740 Answers to Complaints and to Compliance Specifications
Answers to complaints. Section 102.21 of the Board’s Rules provides that, “immediately
upon the filing” of its answer, the respondent shall serve a copy on the other parties. As set forth
in §4–500, Failure of Service, above, although the Board is reluctant to reject an answer for
failure to make service on other parties, particularly if filed by an unrepresented respondent, it will
do so if the respondent has ignored repeated efforts to encourage it to make proper service.
Answers to compliance specifications. Section 102.56(a) of the Board’s Rules provides
that “each respondent alleged in the specification to have compliance obligations must” file an
answer and “immediately serve a copy” on the other parties.
§ 4–750 Subpoenas
“The date of service for purposes of computing the time for filing a petition to revoke is the
date the subpoena is received.” Sec. 102.31(b). See also § 8–120, Service of Subpoena, below.
48
CHAPTER 5. TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING
§ 5–100 Before Hearing Opens
Section 102.15 of the Board’s Rules requires that a complaint contain “a Notice of Hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge at a fixed date and at a time not less than 14 days after the
service of the complaint.” “Except in extraordinary situations the hearing is . . . usually conducted
in the Region where the charge originated.” NLRB Statements of Procedure, Sec. 101.10(a).
Generally, before hearing, the Regional Director issuing a complaint may extend the date
of the hearing or change the hearing location. But when there are less than 21 days before the
scheduled hearing date and a party objects to a postponement, motions to reschedule should be
filed with the Division of Judges, which rules only on whether to grant the motion to extend the
hearing date. NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.16(a). See also Carriage Inn of
Steubenville, 309 NLRB 383 (1992). The “Regional Director issuing the complaint shall retain the
authority to order a new date for hearing and retains the responsibility to make the necessary
arrangements for conducting such hearing, including its location and the transcription of the
proceedings.” NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.16(b).
§ 5–200 After Hearing Opens
A notice of hearing accompanying a complaint typically provides that the hearing will
commence on the date set by the Regional Director and continue “on consecutive days
thereafter.” However, as discussed in § 2–300 (Duties of Trial Judge), above, after a hearing
opens the designated administrative law judge possesses authority to “regulate the course of the
hearing.” NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.35(a)(6). This includes the “discretion” to
continue the trial “from day to day, or adjourn [it] to a later date or to a different place, by
announcement . . . at the hearing . . . or by other appropriate notice.” Sec. 102.43. See also
Abrahamson Chrysler-Plymouth, 225 NLRB 923 n. 1 (1976) (ALJ did not abuse her discretion
in denying respondent’s several motions for continuances at the beginning of the first and second
days of hearing and at the close of the General Counsel’s case), enfd. mem. 559 F.2d 1226 (7th
Cir. 1977), and cases cited below.
§ 5–300 Requests for Continuance to Obtain Counsel
Typically, two situations are presented: (1) an unrepresented party seeks a continuance to
obtain counsel or other representative; and (2) the party’s counsel or representative is
unavailable on the trial date.
To Obtain Counsel. When a party seeks a continuance to obtain counsel, a balance must
be struck between the right of parties to be represented, NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec.
102.38, and the principle that “proceedings must proceed with the utmost dispatch,” NLRB v.
American Potash & Chemical Corp., 98 F.2d 488, 492 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 306 U.S. 643
(1939). In striking that balance, several relevant considerations have been identified:
1) The length of time since the complaint issued, during which the party had an
opportunity to obtain counsel. See K & L Fire Protection Systems, 306 NLRB 988 n. 1 (1992)
(judge reasonably denied the pro se respondent’s request at the hearing for a 2-week
continuance to obtain approval from the bankruptcy court to retain counsel, as the complaint had
been outstanding for more than 6 months).
49
2) Whether a continuance has already been granted to allow the party to obtain counsel.
See Peter Vitalie Co., 310 NLRB 865 n. 1 (1993) (judge reasonably denied motion where the
respondent had already requested and been granted a prior 6-week postponement); and
Crusader-Lancer Corp., 144 NLRB 1309 n. 1 (1963) (trial examiner did not commit prejudicial
error by denying respondents’ motion where a request for a 1-week continuance for the same
purpose had previously been granted).
3) Efforts shown by the moving party to obtain counsel. See K & L Fire Protection
Systems, above (noting that the respondent’s application to the bankruptcy court for
authorization to appoint an attorney was not made until 3 days before the hearing); and Peter
Vitalie Co., above, (noting that, after receiving the prior continuance, the respondent “elected to
do nothing except seek ‘another eleventh hour postponement’”).
Unavailability of chosen counsel on trial date. In striking a balance in this area, the
following relevant considerations have been identified:
1) Reason for unavailability. See Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Co. v. NLRB, 145
F.2d 664, 665–667 (8th Cir. 1944) (trial examiner should have granted respondent’s request for a
postponement at the start of the hearing due to illness of counsel who was the only attorney
conversant with case). But see Quicken Loans, Inc., 28-CA-146517, unpub. Board order issued
August 14, 2015 (2015 WL 4910611) (judge did not abuse his discretion by denying counsel’s
second postponement request due to medical problems where judge had informed counsel when
granting the first postponement that, if he could not proceed on the new hearing date, he should
prepare alternative counsel).
2) When the conflicting commitment was made. See Hijos de Ricardo Vela, Inc., 194
NLRB 377 n. 1 (1971) (trial examiner justifiably denied postponement request where counsel for
respondent’s conflicting commitment—to bargain on behalf of another client—was made “long
after the notice of hearing” and “indeed only shortly before the scheduled hearing date”), enfd.
475 F.2d 58 (1st Cir. 1973); and Michalik, Joseph J., 96 NLRB 10, 16 (1951) (the conflicting
criminal trial was scheduled well after the notice of hearing in the unfair labor practice case, and
respondent’s counsel failed to advise the court of the conflicting hearing date when the court
asked him to suggest a trial date).
3) Length of continuance contemplated. Marine Engineers District 1 (Dutra
Construction), 312 NLRB 55 (1993) (finding that the judge’s denial of respondent counsel’s
motion for a postponement was not an abuse of discretion in part because of “the indefinite length
of the requested postponement”).
4) Complexity of facts and issues. See Franks Flower Express, 219 NLRB 149, 149–
150 (1975) (judge did not abuse his discretion by denying second postponement request where
the case was “neither a complicated nor lengthy proceeding” and respondent was represented at
the hearing by a member of the same firm who presumably had knowledge of the issues as
framed by the pleadings), enfd. mem. 529 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1976).
5) Whether it is the first request for a continuance. See Quicken Loans, above; and
Franks Flower Express, above.
6) Availability of substitute counsel. Compare Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Co.
v. NLRB, above, with Franks Flower Express, above; Wittek Industries, 313 NLRB 579 (1993)
(judge properly denied respondent’s request for a postponement due to unavailability of its
counsel of record, inasmuch as corporate counsel, who had some familiarity with the
50
circumstances leading to the discharge of the alleged discriminatees, was available to try case);
and NLRB v. Glacier Packing Co., 507 F.2d 415, 416 (9th Cir. 1974) (judge did not abuse his
discretion by denying respondent’s request for a postponement due to counsel’s conflicting legal
engagements where other attorneys in the firm were qualified to handle the case). See also
IATSE Local 720, 369 NLRB No. 34, slip op. at 1 n. 2, and 6 (2020) (associate chief ALJ did not
abuse his discretion by denying respondent’s prehearing motion for a continuance due to
counsel’s scheduling conflict where, inter alia, another attorney with the same firm was involved
in the proceeding and available).
§ 5–310 Length of Continuance to Obtain Counsel or Substitute Counsel
In the following cases, the Board found that the time granted to obtain counsel or
substitute counsel was reasonable in length: Peter Vitalie Co., above (40 days to secure
counsel); Franks Flower Express, above (5 days to secure substitute counsel); Wittek
Industries, above (1 day for counsel to be available); and NLRB v. Glacier Packing Co., above
(4 hours to secure substitute counsel from the same firm after pretrial denials of requests for
further continuances).
§ 5–320 When Counsel or Party Leaves After Request Is Denied
When a continuance has been properly denied, it is not improper to go forward with the
hearing without the presence of counsel. NLRB v. Glacier Packing Co., above; and NLRB v.
Hijos de Ricardo Vela, Inc., 475 F.2d 58, 61 (1st Cir. 1973). See also Ethan Enterprises, Inc.,
342 NLRB 129 n. 2 (2004) (judge properly proceeded with the hearing where the respondent’s
attorney left in the middle of the hearing after an objection to one of his cross-examination
questions was sustained, and the attorney agreed to notify respondent that the hearing would
proceed in his absence), enfd. 154 Fed. Appx. 23 (9th Cir. 2005). And see § 6–300, Failure of
Party to Appear at Hearing, below.
§ 5–400 Motions for Continuance to Prepare a Defense
The judge has discretion to grant or deny respondent a continuance to prepare its
defense. Spiegel Trucking Co., 225 NLRB 178, 179 n. 9 (1976) (judge did not abuse his
discretion in denying respondent’s request for a postponement to investigate the allegations
described in the General Counsel’s opening statement and to procure witnesses, as the
complaint had adequately apprised respondent of the alleged violations), enfd. mem. 559 F.2d
188 (D.C. Cir. 1977). See also East Bronx Health Center, 271 NLRB 898 n. 1 (1984) (judge
properly denied respondent’s motion for a 10-day adjournment at the close of the General
Counsel’s case, as the hearing had previously been postponed at respondent’s request, which
afforded respondent an additional 2 months to prepare its case, and respondent failed to
adequately explain why another postponement was necessary).
§ 5–500 Motions for Continuance Because of Unavailable Witness
Obviously, there will be circumstances where a continuance may be appropriate due to
the temporary unavailability of an important witness. However, the following are circumstances
where a judge’s denial of a continuance has been upheld:
1) Existence of prior notice that witness would be necessary. Quebecor Group, Inc.,
258 NLRB 961 n. 1 (1981) (witness was named as supervisor in complaint); and Don’t Stop, 298
51
NLRB 961, 962 (1990) (complaint named witness as sole actor who committed unfair labor
practices).
2) Failure to show steps taken to ensure presence of witness. Batchelor Electric Co.,
254 NLRB 1145 n. 1 (1981), enfd. mem. 716 F.2d 903 (6th Cir. 1983).
3) Failure to show that the whereabouts of witness is unknown or that witness is
otherwise unavailable. Quebecor Group, Inc., above.
4) Failure to provide supporting details to explain absence of witness. Skyline Builders,
Inc., 340 NLRB 109 (2003); Riverdale Nursing Home, 317 NLRB 881 (1995); and Florida
Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 321 NLRB 21 n. 2 (1996).
5) Witness simply chose to do something other than attend the hearing. Greenpark Care
Center, 236 NLRB 683 n. 3 (1978) (witness chose to leave the country on vacation despite
issuance of the notice of hearing almost 2 months before the hearing date); and Don’t Stop,
above (witness “chose not to be present at the hearing because it was his considered business
judgment that his presence at the hearing was less important than a meeting with a major
customer”).
6) Failure to assert that witness was needed to present the respondent’s defense.
Stevens Ford, 272 NLRB 907 (1984), enfd. in part 773 F.2d 468, 476–477 (2d Cir. 1985).
7) Failure to indicate when witness would become available. Sarkes Tarzian, Inc., 157
NLRB 1193, 1194 n. 3 (1966).
8) Failure to take advantage of reasonable alternative arrangements to avoid
continuance. Somerville Cream Co., 95 NLRB 1144, 1146 (1951) (General Counsel offered to
move trial temporarily to the home of the assertedly incapacitated respondent witness), enfd. 199
F.2d 257 (1st Cir. 1952).
§ 5–600 Motions to Change Location of Hearing
“Decisions regarding where to prosecute a complaint are primarily an administrative
function within the GC’s discretion . . . “ FDRLST Media, LLC, 2–CA–243109, unpub. Board
order issued Feb. 7, 2020 (2020 WL 1182438), at 2. However, the General Counsel’s decision is
not unreviewable. See Flame of Miami, Inc., 159 NLRB 1103, 1105 (1966) (holding that it was
“clearly reasonable” and not “an abuse of discretion” for the trial examiner to deny respondents’
motion at the opening of the hearing to transfer the hearing from Miami to New York, where some
of the respondents were located, as the unlawful conduct took place in Miami and respondents
did not contend that holding the hearing in Miami was unreasonable or burdensome); and
Altemose Construction Co. v. NLRB, 514 F.2d 8, 12 (3d Cir. 1975) (ALJ committed reversible
error by denying the respondent employer’s motion to move to another location because of the
“mob atmosphere” outside the federal building where the hearing was being held). See also
§ 12–500, Holding Remote Hearings by Videoconference, below. Thus, if a motion is filed to
move all or part of the hearing to another location, the ALJ should consider and rule on it
pursuant to the general authority granted in Section 102.35(6) and (8) to regulate the course of
the hearing and dispose of motions.
Guidance in ruling on a motion to relocate all or part of a hearing may be found in court
decisions applying 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a) (“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division
52
where it might have been brought . . .”). The decisions indicate that the trial judge has “broad
discretion” in ruling on such motions. SEC v. Savoy Industries, Inc., 587 F.2d 1149, 1154 (D.C.
Cir. 1978), cert. denied 99 S.Ct. 1227 (1979). Relevant factors include the plaintiff’s choice of
location; the availability and convenience of witnesses, parties, and counsel; the location of the
documentary evidence; the place or situs where the material events occurred; and the possibility
of delay and prejudice if transfer is granted. “The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate
that the balance of factors weighs heavily in favor of transfer and that transfer would not merely
shift inconvenience from one party to another.” Graham v. United Parcel Service, 519
F.Supp.2d 801, 809 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (denying employer’s motion to transfer employee’s ADA and
ERISA action from the Eastern to the Western Division of the Northern District of Illinois), citing,
e.g., In re National Presto Industries, Inc., 347 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2003) (upholding trial judge’s
denial of employer’s motion to transfer SEC enforcement action from the Northern District of
Illinois to the Western District of Wisconsin, even though the only factor favoring the former venue
was the convenience of the SEC and its staff). See also Carlile v. Continental Airlines, Inc.,
953 F.Supp. 169 (S.D. Tex. 1997) (denying employer’s motion to transfer employee’s
discrimination action from Galveston to Houston, Texas).
53
CHAPTER 6. APPEARANCES AT HEARING
§ 6–100 Representation at Hearing
“Any party has the right to appear at the hearing in person, by counsel, or by other
representative, to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce into the record
documentary or other evidence.” NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.38. See also NLRB
Statements of Procedure, Sec. 101.10(a). There is no requirement that the representative be a
lawyer.
§ 6–110 Respondent Not Represented by Counsel
There is no constitutional or statutory right for the respondent to have an attorney
appointed to represent it at government expense. Betra Mfg. Co., 233 NLRB 1126 n. 2 (1977),
enfd. mem. 624 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied 450 U.S. 996 (1981); and Golden Hours
Convalescent Hospitals, 200 NLRB 279, 280 n. 5 (1972). It is sufficient that the self-
represented respondent is accorded a full and fair opportunity to present its case and cross-
examine witnesses. American Cleaning Co., 291 NLRB 399 n. 1 (1988). See also Father &
Sons Lumber v. NLRB, 931 F.2d 1093, 1096–1097 (6th Cir. 1991) (there is no constitutional or
statutory basis to overturn a Board decision on the ground that the respondent was denied the
effective assistance of counsel), enfg. 297 NLRB 437 (1989).
An unrepresented respondent also has no right to receive personal instruction from the
judge. Indeed, the Board has stated that the judge should not “act as advocate of those who
appear” without representation, because to do so “would seriously erode [the judge’s] neutral
position at the hearing”. Air Transport Equipment, 190 NLRB 377 n. 2 (1971), enfd. mem. 486
F.2d 1394 (2d Cir. 1972) See also McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183–184 (1984) (pro se
defendant has no “constitutional right to receive personal instruction from the trial judge on
courtroom procedure” and judge is not required to “take over the chores . . . that would normally
be attended to by trained counsel”), citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n. 46 (1975).
However, as long as the judge remains impartial, he or she may answer procedural
questions or explain basic rights. See Air Transport, above; Dickens, Inc., 355 NLRB 255, 257
(2010) (judge instructed unrepresented respondent regarding which areas of testimony would be
relevant); and Quality Asbestos Removal, 310 NLRB 1214, 1215 (1993) (judge informed the
respondent's nonlawyer representative, its owner, that she could ask to see any statements of the
Government's witnesses when they had completed their direct examination).
§ 6–200 Ethical Issues Involving Representation
§ 6–210 Attorney as Witness
The Board will not police the canons of ethics of the various bar associations. For
example, if a party’s trial lawyer takes the stand as a witness, any objection that the attorney’s
testimony should be stricken as a violation of the canons of ethics should be overruled.
Operating Engineers Local 9 (Fountain Sand Co.), 210 NLRB 129 n. 1 (1974). Accord: Wells
Fargo Armored Service Corp., 290 NLRB 872, 873 n. 3 (1988). See also Page Litho, Inc., 311
NLRB 881 n. 1 (1993) (citing Wells Fargo and disavowing judge’s statement that counsel was
precluded ethically from appearing as a witness), enf. denied in part on other grounds mem. 65
F.3d 169 (6th Cir. 1995). But compare §§ 6-202 and 6-203, below. See also § 11–400,
discussing who is subject to a witness sequestration order.
54
§ 6–220 Conflicts of Interest
Courts clearly have the authority, derived from their “inherent power to preserve the
integrity of the adversary process,” to disqualify counsel due to a conflict of interest under the
canons of ethics. See Hempstead Video, Inc. v. Village of Valley Stream, 409 F.3d 127, 132–
133 (2d Cir. 2005). See also Paul E. Iacono Structural Engineer, Inc. v. Humphrey, 722 F.2d
435 (9th Cir. 1983). The Board has the similar authority to protect its own processes. See
Supreme Airport Shuttle LLC, 365 NLRB No. 27, slip op. at 1 (2017) (“The Board’s decisions
make clear that, in an unfair labor practice proceeding, an [ALJ], subject to the Board’s review,
has the authority to disqualify a party’s counsel based on an impermissible conflict of interest.”),
citing Mack Trucks, 277 NLRB 711 n. 1 and 715–723 (1985). See also *Stericycle, Inc., 32-CA-
24230, unpub. Board order issued Jan. 28, 2010 (Board permitted the respondent employer to
present evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing regarding whether counsel for the union
should be disqualified due to a conflict of interest). But cf. § 6–210, Attorney as Witness, above.
For situations where a party’s attorney is a former Board lawyer, and is therefore subject
to the post-employment restrictions currently set forth in Section 102.120 of the Board Rules, see
Hillview Convalescent Center, 266 NLRB 758 (1983) (Board stated that it would order former
Board attorney to terminate his participation if he was still doing so, as it would violate the Board’s
post-employment rules, but reversed the judge’s conclusion that the entire law firm should also be
disqualified under the circumstances presented).
With respect to alleged conflicts involving counsel for the General Counsel, see AM
Property Holding Corp., 350 NLRB 998, 1008 (2007) (counsel for the General Counsel, whose
prior law firm had represented the charging party union, had no conflict under applicable Federal
statutes and regulations because she did not do any work on behalf of the union while employed
at the law firm and had not served as an attorney or consultant for the law firm in the last year);
and Terrace Gardens Plaza, Inc., 315 NLRB 749 n. 1 (1994) (rejecting respondent’s contention,
in a test-of-certification refusal-to-bargain proceeding, that counsel for the General Counsel
should be disqualified because she served as the hearing officer in the underlying representation
case and investigated contemporaneous charges brought by the employer against the union that
had previously represented the employees), enfd. 91 F.3d 222 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
In consolidated “C & R” cases (where a complaint in an unfair labor practice case is
consolidated for hearing with election objections or challenged ballots in a representation case),
established Board and court precedent permits counsel for the General Counsel to also serve as
the Regional Director’s neutral representative for the objections/ballots portion of the case. See,
e.g., Barrus Construction Co. v. NLRB, 483 F.2d 191, 194–195 (4th Cir. 1973), and cases cited
there. See also § 14–200, Consolidated Representation Cases, below.
§ 6–230 “Skip Counsel” Violations
Rule 4.2 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, sometimes referred to as the
“skip counsel” rule, states:
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the
representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another
lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is
authorized to do so by law or court order.
55
This rule and similar state bar and federal court ethics rules generally prohibit an attorney
from communicating directly with a represented person about the subject of the representation
without prior consent from that person’s attorney or legal authorization to do so. For a detailed
discussion of issues that may arise under such skip counsel rules with respect to both current and
former supervisors/agents and the evidentiary sanctions issued by courts for violations, see ABA,
Ann. Mod. Rules Prof. Cond. § 4.2 (9th Ed. 2019).
The General Counsel’s policies with respect to unfair labor practice investigations are set
forth in the NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 1), Sec. 10058, and periodically in GC Memoranda.
See also Lori Ketcham, Skip Counsel Issues in NLRB ULP Investigations, 16 No. 1 Prof. Law. 18,
20 (2005).
For Board cases addressing alleged skip counsel violations, see Operating Engineers,
Local 17 (Hertz Equipment Rental Corp.), 335 NLRB 578 (2001) (finding that the Region’s
investigator properly took an affidavit of the respondent union’s organizer and agent without the
presence of respondent’s counsel given that the investigator initiated contact and scheduled the
interview before a notice of appearance had been filed, the union organizer voluntarily agreed to
go forward with the interview after the notice of appearance was filed, and the investigator
promptly left a phone message with the respondent’s attorney advising him of the scheduled
interview); and Success Village Apartments, Inc., 347 NLRB 1065 (2006) (rejecting the
respondent employer’s contention that a former manager’s affidavit was improperly admitted into
evidence, as the respondent failed to establish that the former manager’s affidavit was improperly
obtained under the GC’s then-existing investigatory policy in Sec. 10058 of the NLRB
Casehandling Manual as the applicable state rule of professional responsibility permitted ex parte
contacts between a government agency and a former employee of a represented adverse party
unless the former employee had become a trial consultant for his/her former employer in
preparing for the litigation).
§ 6–300 Failure of Party to Appear at Hearing
When the respondent has filed an answer, but its lawyer or representative fails to appear
at the hearing, the judge should hear the General Counsel's evidence and issue a decision. Beta
Steel Corp., 326 NLRB 1267 n. 3, 1268 (1998); Quality Hotel, 326 NLRB 83 n. 4 (1998); and
Bristol Manor Health Care Center, 295 NLRB 1106 n. 1 (1989), enfd. mem. 915 F.2d 1561 (3d
Cir. 1990).
Of course, if the answer previously filed by the respondent is found insufficient, a default
or summary judgment may be appropriate. See §§ 3–500, and 10–400.
§ 6–400 Rights of Charging Parties and Alleged Discriminatees
Charging Parties. Section 102.38 of the Board’s Rules provides that
Any party has the right to appear at the hearing in person, by counsel, or by other
representative, to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
into the record documentary or other evidence, except that the Administrative
Law Judge may limit participation of any party as appropriate.
Normally, the judge should specifically offer the charging party an opportunity to question
each witness called by the other parties. See Cowin & Co., 322 NLRB 1091 n. 1 (1997) (the
“better practice” is for the judge to “specifically offer” the charging party the opportunity to
56
question each witness, although the failure of the judge to do so does not constitute a denial of
due process absent a showing of prejudice).
As discussed in § 16–613.1, Jencks Statements, below, the charging party also has the
right on request, for purposes of cross-examination, to review the pretrial Board affidavit of a
respondent agent after being called and examined by the respondent or by the General Counsel
(as an adverse witness).
However, as discussed in §§ 3–200 and 3–310, above, the General Counsel has
exclusive authority over the issuance and prosecution of unfair labor practice complaints under
Section 3(d) of the Act. The charging party therefore has no right to introduce evidence in
support of an allegation or theory not asserted by the GC.
With respect to remedies, the responsibility for fashioning an appropriate remedy rests
with the Board under Section 10(a) and (c) of the Act. See Aryzta, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 55, slip
op. at 4 and n. 6 (2020) (holding, for this reason, that the Board in a stipulated-record case
“retains discretion to order remedies it deems necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act even
if those remedies do not comport with the parties’ stipulated remedies”). Thus, the charging party
may introduce, and the judge may consider, evidence supporting a remedy not sought by the
General Counsel. See Kaumagraph Corp., 313 NLRB 624, 624–625 (1994) (judge erred by
refusing to allow the charging party to introduce evidence to support a restoration and
reinstatement remedy for the respondent’s alleged unlawful transfer of operations). However, the
requested remedies must be consistent with the General Counsel’s complaint and theory of the
case. ATS Acquisition Corp., 321 NLRB 712 n. 3 (1996) (judge erred in awarding backpay at
the request of the charging party as the complaint did not allege unlawful unilateral changes in
terms and conditions of employment).
Alleged Discriminatees. An alleged discriminatee has no right to participate as a party
unless he/she has filed an unfair labor practice charge or has moved to intervene and thereby
become a party in the proceeding. See Lincoln Technical Institute, Inc., 256 NLRB 176 (1981)
(alleged discriminate who failed to file either a charge or a motion to intervene had no right to file
exceptions to the ALJ’s decision), rev. denied 682 F.2d 427 (3d Cir. 1982).
As discussed in § 16–611.5, below, the failure of an alleged discriminatee to appear and
testify at the hearing in support of the complaint allegations does not warrant an adverse
inference where the testimony is unnecessary.
See also § 11–400, below, regarding exclusion of charging parties and alleged
discriminatees from portions of the hearing pursuant to a sequestration order.
§ 6–500 Intervention at Hearing
Section 102.29 of the Board’s Rules permits “any person” to file a motion with the judge
during the hearing to intervene. The motion must be in writing or made orally on the record at the
hearing and “stat[e] the grounds upon which [the] person claims an interest.”
For useful guidance in evaluating the timeliness of such motions, see Wright & Miller et
al., 7C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1916 (3d ed. April 2021 Update) (discussing timeliness of
motions to intervene in federal court actions under FRCP 24). See also DirectSat USA, LLC,
366 NLRB No. 141, slip op. at 2 (2018) (denying as untimely non-party DirecTV’s motion to
intervene to seek reconsideration of the Board’s decision, as DirecTV was aware months before
57
the case was submitted to the judge that a proceeding was underway that could affect its
interests), enfd. 925 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 2019); Boeing Co., 366 NLRB No. 128, slip op. at 2
and n. 3 (2018) (denying a non-party union’s motion to intervene to seek reconsideration of the
Board’s decision, in part because, although the Board has permitted posthearing intervention in
“rare instances,” Section 102.29 does not provide for intervention after the close of the hearing);
Postal Service, 5–CA–122166, unpub. Board order issued June 25, 2015 (2015 WL 3932157)
(denying as untimely a motion to intervene filed by a law firm representing a member of a trade
association after the Board had adopted the judge’s decision in the absence of exceptions); and
Hilton Hotels Corp., 287 NLRB 562 n. 3 (1987) (denying an alleged discriminatee’s motion to
intervene as a party to join the charging party union’s statement of position on remand from the
court of appeals).
Whether to grant a motion to intervene is within the discretion of the judge or Board. See
Section 10(b) of the Act (any person may be allowed to intervene and present testimony “in the
discretion” of the judge or Board); and Section 102.29 of the Board’s Rules (the judge “may, by
order, permit intervention in person, or by counsel or other representative, to such extent and
upon such terms as may be deemed proper”). See also DirectSat USA, above (intervention in
unfair labor practice proceedings is discretionary and not a matter of right). Accordingly, the
ruling of the judge or Board will not be disturbed absent abuse or prejudice. Auto Workers v.
NLRB, 392 F.2d 801, 809 (D.C. Cir. 1967), cert. denied 392 U.S. 906 (1968); and Semi-Steel
Casting v. NLRB, 160 F.2d 388, 393 (8th Cir. 1947).
The Board has addressed motions to intervene in a variety of situations.
Benefit fund trustees. The Board has held that benefit fund trustees should be permitted
to intervene where the complaint alleges that the employer violated 8(a)(5) by failing to make
benefit fund payments. See Camay Drilling Co., 239 NLRB 997, 998 (1978). In that case, the
judge concluded that the trustees would have no interest in the matter until a backpay proceeding
was held. The Board disagreed, finding that because of the fiduciary obligations imposed on the
trustees by ERISA, they are “interested parties” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
and are entitled to intervene to safeguard assets of the trust fund. See also Operating
Engineers Local 12 (Griffith Co.), 212 NLRB 343, 345 (1974), revd. on other grounds 545 F.2d
1194 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 854 (1977), where the judge permitted fund trustees
to appear in an 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and 8(e) case alleging that the respondent union unlawfully
maintained a clause in its master labor agreement prohibiting subcontracting to employers who
were delinquent in making payments to the funds.
Employer associations. The Board has likewise held that an employer association is
properly permitted to intervene under Section 10(b) where it is party to the collective-bargaining
agreement with the union, and the complaint allegations against the employer-member of the
association turn in part on the contract. See Sterling Furniture Co., 94 NLRB 32 n. 1 (1951).
Subcontractors. See Postal Service, 5–CA–140963, unpub. Board order issued Nov. 4,
2015 (2015 WL 6750316). In that case, the complaint alleged that the Postal Service had
violated 8(a)(5) by unilaterally contracting out bargaining unit work to Staples and requested that
the Postal Service be required to restore the unit work as a remedy. The Board held that the
judge erred in granting Staples’ motion to intervene as a party in the proceeding, as the complaint
did not allege that Staples engaged in any unlawful conduct or that the contract between the
Postal Service and Staples was invalid, or seek relief against Staples; rather, Staples’ only
interest appeared to be the potential impact of the remedy on its contract with the Postal Service.
The Board therefore vacated the judge’s order and directed the judge to “consider how best to
afford Staples an opportunity, short of full-party status, to address its interest in remedial matters.”
58
Parties in other pending cases. See Boeing Co., above (denying a non-party union’s
motion to intervene to seek reconsideration of the Board’s decision, in part because the union
was a party in another case pending before the Board where it would have the opportunity to
make the same arguments).
Alleged discriminatees. As discussed in § 6–400 above, the Board in Lincoln Technical
Institute, Inc., 256 NLRB 176 (1981), rev. denied 682 F.2d 427 (3d Cir. 1982), held that alleged
discriminatees who are not charging parties must timely move to intervene before the judge in
order to have a right to file exceptions to the judge’s decision. Nevertheless, alleged
discriminatees rarely seek to intervene at the hearing, but instead rely on the General Counsel
and the charging party to advocate and protect their interests. For a case where a judge granted
a motion to intervene filed by the two alleged discriminatees, see Murray American Energy,
6-CA-148388, JD–26–16 (2016 WL 1359359) at 1 n. 1, adopted in the absence of exceptions by
unpub. Board order dated May 17, 2006 (2016 WL 2894515).
Decertification petitioners. See Chino Valley Medical Center, 363 NLRB No. 108, slip
op. at 1 n. 1 (2016) (judge did not abuse his discretion by denying the decertification petitioner’s
motion to participate as an intervenor in the 8(a)(5) case alleging that the employer unlawfully
withdrew recognition from the union), enfd. 895 F.3d. 69 (D.C. Cir. 2018); Latino Express, Inc.,
360 NLRB 911 n. 2 (2014), reaffg. unpub. Board order issued Nov. 27, 2012 (2012 WL 5942293)
(same); and Leggett & Platt, Inc., 9–CA–194057, unpub. Board order issued Jan. 23, 2018
(2018 WL 549552) (same). See also Wyman Gordon Pennsylvania, LLC, 4–CA–182126,
unpub. Board order issued March 19, 2018 (2018 WL 1407026) (judge in 8(a)(5) withdrawal-of-
recognition case did not abuse his discretion by granting the decertification petitioner only limited
intervention to file a posthearing brief rather than full intervention).
Antiunion employees. See Hotel Del Coronado, 345 NLRB 306 n. 1, JD. at 308 n. 1
(2005) (judge denied an antiunion employee’s motion to intervene in the 8(a)(5) case to urge that
a neutrality agreement between respondent’s predecessor and the union was improper; but both
the judge and the Board, on later exceptions, permitted the employee to file an amicus brief);
Aztec Bus Lines, 289 NLRB 1021, 1033 n. 3 (1988) (Board reversed the judge and ruled that a
nonstriker lacked standing to intervene on behalf of himself and other nonstrikers in the 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) case alleging various violations by the employer before, during, and after the strike);
and McKinney v. Southern Bakeries, LLC, 2014 WL 2812257 (W. D. Ark. June 23, 2014) (court
denied antiunion employee’s motion to intervene in the 10(j) injunction proceeding to oppose the
Board’s request for an interim bargaining order against the employer, as the employer would
adequately represent his interests in the proceeding and his proffered defenses to the complaint
were not legally relevant).
See also *Affinity Medical Center, 8-CA-90083, unpub. Board order issued April 30,
2013 (2013 WL 1809351), final decision and order issued 362 NLRB 654 (2015). There, the
Board held that the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a motion filed by two employees
to intervene in a post-certification refusal-to-bargain proceeding. The Board had previously
denied the same employees’ motion to intervene in the postelection objections proceeding on the
ground that individual employees do not have standing to file objections. See *unpub. Board
order issued Jan. 11, 2013 (2013 WL 143371). The judge cited the Board’s previous order, as
well as the lack of factual or legal support for the employees’ objections to the election, in denying
the motion to intervene. On appeal, the Board additionally noted that, under Section 102.9 of the
Board’s Rules, the employees were free at any time during the applicable limitations period to file
an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the conduct at issue violated the Act.
59
But see Washington Gas Light Co., 302 NLRB 425 n. 1 (1991) (Board affirmed judge’s
ruling permitting an employee to intervene to represent his own interests in the 8(a)(5) dues-
checkoff case, but not the interests of other employees absent evidence that they requested or
authorized him to do so); Taylor Bros., Inc., 230 NLRB 861 n. 1 (1977) (judge granted motion,
over General Counsel’s objection, to permit 10 employees to intervene in the 8(a)(5) case for the
limited purpose of any remedy that might issue regarding the bargaining status of the union); J. P.
Stevens & Co., 179 NLRB 254, 255 (1969) (judge granted motion, over General Counsel’s
objection, and permitted 114 employees to intervene in the 8(a)(5) case to challenge the validity
of their authorization cards), enfd. 441 F.2d 514 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 404 U.S. 830 (1971); and
Spruce Pine Mfg., 153 NLRB 309 n. 1 (1965) (judge granted motion by 64 antiunion employees,
who were represented by counsel, to intervene in the 8(a)(5) case, and many testified regarding
the manner in which the union procured authorization cards), enfd. in part 365 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir.
1966). See also Novelis Corp., 3–CA–12193, unpub. Board order issued Sept. 12, 2014 (2014
WL 4545621) (judge did not abuse his discretion in granting limited intervention to four antiunion
employees with respect to the 8(a)(5) Gissel bargaining order remedy requested in the complaint;
the judge’s order permitted the employees to cross-examine witnesses called by the other parties
and to file a posthearing brief, but not to call witnesses absent a showing that the respondent
company had not adequately addressed a relevant issue).
Whether and to what extent employees should be permitted to intervene to contest the
allegations and remedial order in other circumstances (such as an 8(a)(3) discrimination case) is
unclear. The full Board addressed this issue, albeit by unpublished order, in Boeing Co., 19-CA-
32431, unpub. order dated June 20, 2011 (2011 WL 2451725). In that case, the General
Counsel alleged that Boeing had discriminatorily transferred work from its facilities in the Pacific
Northwest to a new facility in South Carolina, and requested as a remedy that the work be
returned. Three employees at the South Carolina plant filed a motion with the judge to intervene.
The employees sought either unlimited intervention, or, alternatively, the right to file a posthearing
brief. The judge denied the motion in its entirety. However, on special appeal, the full Board
reversed the judge in part. Noting that the judge had subsequently granted 16 state attorneys
general the right to file a posthearing amicus brief, the Board held that the employees had
articulated a sufficient interest to grant them limited intervention to likewise file a posthearing brief
in the matter.
For court cases addressing this issue in arguably analogous circumstances under
FRCP 24, compare Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 1998) (cited by the judge in
Boeing), which held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion by male
employees to intervene in the female employees’ class action discrimination suit, as “the
proposed intervenors have no protectable interest in positions that they may have obtained due to
specific discriminatory employment decisions,” with Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. Delmonte,
602 F.3d 469 (2d Cir. 2010), and Brennan v. New York City Bd. of Education, 260 F.3d 123,
130 (2d Cir. 2001), which reversed district court orders and granted intervention to white
employees to challenge any proposed order or settlement remedying alleged race discrimination.
§ 6–510 Necessary Parties
For a discussion of the application of FRCP 19 (required joinder of parties) to Board
proceedings, see Expert Electric, Inc., 347 NLRB 18, 19 (2006) (holding that, even assuming
FRCP 19 applies to Board proceedings, which is questionable, individual members of a multi-
employer association were not necessary and indispensable parties to the 8(a)(5) refusal-to-
bargain case against the association itself because the Board could accord full relief to the parties
without the joinder of each individual member). Compare UPMC, 362 NLRB 1704 n. 2, and 1729
(2015) (holding UPMC, the parent entity of the respondent companies, liable for certain of the
60
Board-ordered remedies, even though the complaint did not allege that UPMC, as a separate
entity, committed unfair labor practices, as UPMC had stipulated and consented to be bound by
those portions of the Board’s remedial order).
§ 6–520 Parties in Interest
A “party in interest” named in the complaint normally has the same rights as other named
parties under Section 102.38 of the Board’s Rules to notice and an opportunity to be heard,
including presenting evidence and examining witnesses. See, e.g., Midwestern Personnel
Services, Inc., 331 NLRB 348, 350 (2000); and U.S. Steel Corp., 280 NLRB 837 (1986). Thus,
its position must also be considered in approving a settlement agreement, but only to the extent
of its interest. See Haven Manor Health Related Facility, 243 NLRB 39 (1979) (where union
was party in interest only to the 8(a)(2) allegations, its joining or becoming a party to the
settlement of the 8(a)(1) and (3) allegations was unnecessary).
Note, however, that the Region may name a decertification petitioner as a “party in
interest” in a related unfair labor practice complaint solely for the purpose of receiving a copy of
the order or other document that finally disposes of the proceeding. See NLRB Casehandling
Manual (Part 1), Sec. 11733.2(b); and BOC Group, Inc., 323 NLRB 1100 (1997). See also § 6–
500, above, regarding intervention by decertification petitioners.
§ 6–600 Misconduct by Attorney or Representative
The judge has no authority to hold attorneys in contempt for engaging in misconduct
during the trial such as interrupting other counsel, witnesses, or the judge, making derogatory
comments to or about them, refusing to obey the judge’s rulings, or engaging in other conduct
that the judge believes is intended to unreasonably delay the trial.
However, the Board’s Rules and precedents provide the judge various other methods to
deal with such misconduct. Obviously, the judge should first point out to the offending party that
the conduct is improper and will not be tolerated. A brief recess may also help in certain
circumstances. See Estate of Diaz v. City of Anaheim, 840 F.3d 592, 604 (9th Cir. 2016)
(“After all, lawyers and witnesses, like misbehaving children or rattled basketball players,
sometimes need a timeout.”), cert. denied 137 S.Ct. 2098 (2017).
If the conduct nevertheless persists, Section 102.177 of the Board’s Rules (“Misconduct
by Attorneys or Party Representatives”) provides that the judge may: (1) exclude counsel from
the hearing, (2) issue, after due notice, an admonishment or reprimand, and/or (3) refer the
matter to the General Counsel for investigation and appropriate action.
§ 6–610 Exclusion of Counsel
Section 102.177(b) of the Board’s Rules provides that “misconduct by any person . . . may
be grounds for summary exclusion from the hearing.”
Although this option is within the judge’s discretion, it should be used cautiously because
it involves an interference with the respondent’s right to counsel. See Great Lakes Screw Corp.
v. NLRB, 409 F.2d 375, 380–381 (7th Cir. 1969). There, the court reversed the Board’s
affirmance of the judge’s decision to exclude counsel, both because the judge and the Board did
not provide detailed and specific references to the attorney’s conduct that allegedly warranted
61
exclusion, and because, in the court’s view, counsel’s conduct “f[e]ll short of being
contemptuous.”
Thus, the judge should clearly specify the conduct that the judge considers inappropriate
and warn the individual on the record that he or she will be excluded if the conduct continues.
See, for example, the judge’s warnings to counsel in Earthgrains Company, 351 NLRB 733, 736
n. 14 (2007); and Baddour, Inc., 281 NLRB 546 n. 2 (1986), enfd. mem. 848 F.2d 193 (6th Cir.),
cert. denied 488 U.S. 944 (1988).
If the person being excluded represents the respondent, it is appropriate, if not necessarily
required, to adjourn the trial to permit the respondent to obtain new counsel or to appeal the
judge’s exclusionary ruling. See Great Lakes Screw Corp., 164 NLRB 149 n. 2 (1967), revd.
and remanded 409 F.2d 375 (7th Cir. 1969).
For a good example of how to proceed both before and after excluding a respondent’s
representative from participating in the trial, see the judge’s decision in USA Remediation
Services, Inc., 5–CA–31524, JD–20–06 (March 15, 2006) (2006 WL 691192), slip op. at 15–20,
adopted in the absence of exceptions May 16, 2006. See also the subsequent related
disciplinary proceeding, In re David M. Kelsey, 349 NLRB 327 (2007) (issuing a default
judgment imposing a 6-month suspension for the same conduct).
For cases where the judge has excluded the charging party’s representative, see
Advance Waste Systems, 306 NLRB 1020, 1032–1033 (1992) (representative excluded over
the objection of the General Counsel and with assistance of Federal Protective Service); and
State Bank of India, 283 NLRB 266, 277–278 (1987). It is not clear whether an adjournment
was requested or granted in either of these cases to permit the charging party to obtain a new
representative. However, if an attorney for the charging party is excluded and the charging party
requests an adjournment of the trial to obtain new counsel to appeal the exclusion ruling, the
request should probably be granted. See Great Lakes Screw, above.
A possible middle ground, which could avoid the postponement problem, is available
when the offending party has co-counsel. In Baddour, Inc., above, the Board affirmed the
judge’s ruling that an attorney, who constantly interrupted witnesses, objected to questions the
judge had previously ruled proper, and argued after his evidentiary rulings, should be precluded
from speaking or examining witnesses, but could remain in the room to assist co-counsel. The
Board concluded that judge’s ruling limiting the participation of the attorney was not improper.
§ 6–620 Authority to Admonish or Reprimand Counsel
Section 102.177(b) of the Board’s Rules also authorizes judges and the Board to
“admonish or reprimand, after due notice, any person who engages in misconduct at a hearing.”
See also 675 West End Owners Corp., 345 NLRB 324, 325 (2005), enfd. 304 Fed. Appx. 911
(2d Cir. 2008). A formal admonition or reprimand declares the conduct improper and cautions or
warns the offender that repeating the offense will result in more severe discipline. Sargent
Karch, 314 NLRB 482, 486 and n. 14 (1994) (citing ABA Standards and Black’s Law Dictionary).
See also Mail Contractors of America, 347 NLRB 1158 (2006) (holding that judge’s issuance in
his decision of a “notice of potential admonishment, reprimand, or summary exclusion” stating
that counsel’s hearing conduct was unprofessional and, if repeated, could result in an
admonishment, reprimand, or exclusion, was itself an admonishment or reprimand under Sec.
102.177), enf. denied on other grounds, 514 F.3d 27 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
62
The exclusion and formal-admonition remedies are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, in
most cases, exclusion will also be accompanied by a formal admonition. See Advance Waste
Systems, above, and State Bank of India, above.
Due notice required. The rule specifically requires “due notice” before an admonishment
or reprimand is issued. Thus, the judge should be careful to give both advance notice and an
opportunity to respond before issuing such discipline. See Mail Contractors of America, above.
One option would be to provide the representative notice during the hearing and an opportunity to
respond in a posthearing brief before issuing the admonishment or reprimand.
As indicated above, Section 102.177(b) also authorizes the Board to issue an
admonishment or reprimand after due notice. In light of this, some judges have simply
recommended in the decision that the lawyer or representative be admonished or reprimanded by
the Board. This procedure allowed the representative to address the issue on exceptions before
such discipline was administered. However, the Board has not been receptive to this procedure.
See 675 West End Owners, above (holding that the judge should have either exercised her
authority under 102.177(b) to issue the warning and reprimand herself or referred the matter to
the General Counsel for investigation under Section 102.177(e) [discussed below]).
Conduct warranting reprimand. Some examples of conduct found to warrant a formal
reprimand, admonishment, or warning include: interrupting counsel, witnesses, and the judge and
failing to follow the judge’s instructions, Advance Waste Systems, above; inappropriate or
unprofessional comments about the judge, Maietta Contracting, 265 NLRB 1279, 1279–1280
(1982), enfd. mem. 729 F.2d 1448 (3d Cir. 1984); profanity directed towards counsel and the
judge, refusal to obey the judge’s instructions, and accusing the judge of “taking money,” State
Bank of India, above; repeatedly misidentifying an opposing party’s representative in an
unprofessional manner, National Assn. of Broadcast Employees and Technicians Local 51
(ABC), 371 NLRB No. 15, slip op. at 1 n. 4 (2021); violating the judge’s witness sequestration
order, Seattle Seahawks, 292 NLRB 899, 908 (1989), enfd. mem. 888 F.2d 125 (2d Cir. 1989);
and willfully taking frivolous positions at the trial to delay and abuse the Board’s processes,
Nursing Center at Vineland, 318 NLRB 337, 344 (1995). Other examples include talking loudly,
interrupting while witnesses are testifying, interposing baseless objections, and evading or
disregarding the judge’s rulings. 675 West End Owners, above. See also Government
Employees (IBPO), 327 NLRB 676 (1999); and Alan Short Center, 267 NLRB 886 n.1 (1983).
Frivolous answers. Note that a separate Board rule, Section 102.21, specifically provides
for disciplinary action against an attorney or representative for willfully filing an answer that is not
supported by good grounds and is interposed for delay. This section has frequently been cited by
the Board in cautioning and warning attorneys against engaging in misconduct. See, e.g.,
Nursing Center at Vineland, above, 318 NLRB at 338 n.7; Graham-Windham Services, 312
NLRB 1199 n. 2 (1993); Worldwide Detective Bureau, 296 NLRB 148 n. 2 (1989); and M. J.
Santulli Mail Services, 281 NLRB 1288 n. 1 (1986). See also *Uzi Einy, 352 NLRB 1178
(2008) (imposing 6-month suspension on the respondent’s nonattorney representative for his
misconduct in 675 West End Owners Corp, above, including filing frivolous answers that denied
allegations he knew to be true and had been established in previous Board proceedings).
It is a useful tool for judges to cite these cases when encountering obviously frivolous
answers to complaint allegations. This should be done in conference calls, especially because
very often these answers engender subpoenas and needless litigation. It is not uncommon for
attorneys to suddenly amend their answers when confronted with the possibility of disciplinary
action for needlessly litigating issues that are not really in dispute.
63
§ 6–630 Suspension of Counsel
The final and most severe remedy for misconduct is set forth in Section 102.177(d) of the
Board’s Rules, which states that misconduct “at any stage of any Agency proceeding, including
but not limited to misconduct at the hearing,” which is “of an aggravated character may be
grounds for suspension and/or disbarment from practice before the Agency and/or other
sanctions.”
Procedure for referral of allegations. Under Section 102.177(e), any person, including the
Board and its ALJs, can file an allegation of misconduct with the Investigating Officer—the
Associate General Counsel, Division of Operations Management—who has final, unreviewable
authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an attorney or other representative. See,
e.g., Roemer Industries, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 133, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2019) (Board referred to the
Investigating Officer allegations regarding a persistent pattern of misrepresentation by the
respondent employer’s attorney in briefs and other documents filed with the Board or its ALJs);
and Imperial Sales, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 95, slip op. at 3 (2017) (Board referred allegations of
hearing misconduct by the respondent employer’s attorney to the Investigating Officer for
investigation and appropriate disciplinary action).
The explanatory material that accompanied Section 102.177 when it was published in the
Federal Register in 1996 indicated that the judge could recommend disciplinary action in his or
her decision, which might then be referred by the Board to the Investigating Officer. 61 Fed. Reg.
65323, 65329, n. 12 (Dec. 12, 1996). However, the Board has expressed a preference in
subsequent cases that the judge separately submit a recommendation for discipline directly to the
Investigating Officer. See Earthgrains Co., 351 NLRB 733 n. 3 (2007); 675 West End Owners
Corp., 345 NLRB 324, 325–326 (2005), enfd. 304 Fed. Appx. 911 (2d Cir. 2008); and McAllister
Towing & Transportation, 341 NLRB 394, 398 n.7 (2004), enfd. 156 Fed. Appx. 386 (2d Cir.
2005). See also Smithfield Packing Company, Inc., 344 NLRB 1, 19 n. 59 (2004) (agreeing
with the judge’s recommendation to refer perjury and subornation of perjury allegations to the
General Counsel but noting that the judge had the authority to do so as well), enfd. 447 F.3d 821
(D.C. Cir. 2006).
Thus, disciplinary allegations and recommendations should normally be sent to the
Investigating Officer by separate letter, not to the Board. See, e.g., David M. Kelsey, 349 NLRB
327 (2007) (judge excluded respondent’s representative from the hearing due to his misconduct,
and thereafter, on the same day as his decision in the underlying case, sent a separate letter
referring misconduct allegations to the General Counsel pursuant to Sec. 102.177, which
ultimately resulted in the representative’s 6-month suspension).
Definition of “aggravated” misconduct. The Board’s Rules do not define the term
“aggravated” misconduct. But Section 102.177(a) states that attorneys and representatives “must
conform to the standards of ethical and professional conduct required of practitioners before the
courts, and the Agency will be guided by those standards in interpreting and applying the
provisions of this section.” See also the supplementary information accompanying the final rule
published in the Federal Register, 61 Fed. Reg. 65323, 65327 (Dec. 12, 1996) (stating that such
standards “may include the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (and/or any other
standards adopted by the ABA in the future), applicable state bar rules, and court decisions
applying such rules”).
The Board emphasized when it adopted Section 102.177 in 1996 that it was not changing
the standard for “aggravated misconduct.” Thus, it is instructive to examine case precedent
before as well as after that date to determine the meaning of the term.
64
One of the most important factors appears to be the presence of prior disciplinary
offenses. See Sargent Karch, 314 NLRB 482, 486 n. 10 (1994), where the Board suspended an
attorney from practice for 6 months for violating the judge’s sequestration order. The Board noted
that the attorney had been “formally admonished” for identical misconduct in a prior case, and
cited Section 6.23 of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, which states that prior
disciplinary offenses constitute an “aggravating” factor justifying increased discipline.
However, the Board made clear in Sargent Karch that it did not mean to imply that
suspension would never be appropriate in the absence of a prior formal admonition or reprimand.
The Board cited Matter of an Attorney, 307 NLRB 913 (1992), where it approved a settlement
that imposed a 6-month suspension on an attorney for using profanity and verbally addressing
opposing counsel in a rude, vulgar, and profane manner, even in the absence of prior disciplinary
proceedings against him. See also David M. Kelsey, 349 NLRB 327 (2007) (despite lack of prior
discipline, Board issued a default judgment and imposed a 6-month suspension on the
respondent employer’s nonattorney representative for his misconduct during the trial in USA
Remediation Services, Inc., 5–CA–31524, JD–20–06 (March 15, 2006) (2006 WL 691192),
adopted in the absence of exceptions May 16, 2006); and *Uzi Einy, 352 NLRB 1178 (2008)
(imposing a 6-month suspension on the respondent’s nonattorney representative for his
misconduct in 675 West End Owners Corp, above).
Length of suspension. Although 6 months appears to be a common sanction, longer
suspensions have been ordered. See Stuart Bochner, 322 NLRB 1096 (1997) (Board issued a
2-1/2 year suspension to an attorney who had lied to the judge in one proceeding, purposely
delayed other proceedings by engaging in frivolous delaying tactics, including failing to produce
subpoenaed documents without filing a motion to revoke in three separate proceedings, and filing
answers that he knew or should have known were false in three proceedings, and had been
previously admonished by the Board in Advance Waste Systems, 306 NLRB 1020, 1032–1033
(1992) for interrupting counsel, witnesses, and the judge and for failing to follow the judge’s
instructions). See also Joel I. Keiler, 316 NLRB 763, 766–770 (1995) (Board issued a 1-year
suspension to an attorney who engaged in ad hominem comments and scurrilous
characterizations of the General Counsel, as well as other conduct designed to obstruct and
delay the Board’s exercise of subpoena authority, despite the Board’s previous expressions of
disapproval with respect to his similar conduct in two prior cases), vacated by unpub. district court
order dated February 3, 1998.
Although rare, the Board has also disbarred an attorney. See Kings Harbor Health Care,
239 NLRB 679 (1978) (attorney had pleaded guilty in a criminal proceeding to subornation of
perjury in a prior Board proceeding). See also Application and Motion of Horowitz, 266 NLRB
755 (1983) (denying the same attorney’s subsequent request for reinstatement of his right to
appear before the Board).
§ 6–640 Awarding Litigation Costs
The Board has also upheld the award of litigation costs against a party whose counsel has
engaged in conduct deliberately designed to cause delay and draw out the litigation. See
Teamsters Local 122 (August A. Busch & Co. of Massachusetts), 334 NLRB 1190, 1193,
1255 (2001). See also Chino Valley Medical Center, 363 NLRB No. 108, slip op. at 1 n. 5
(2016); and Pacific Beach Hotel, 361 NLRB 709, 711–712 (2014); and cases cited there.
But see HTH Corp. v. NLRB, 823 F.3d 668, 678–679 (D.C. Cir. 2016), denying
enforcement in relevant part of Pacific Beach Hotel, above, where the court held that the Board
65
has neither inherent authority nor implicit authority under Sec. 10(c) of the Act to order a
respondent to pay the litigation expenses of the General Counsel and the union. See also
Veritas Health Services v. NLRB, 895 F.3d 69, 86 (D.C. Cir. 2018), denying enforcement in
relevant part of Chino Valley, above, where “the Board agree[d] that its award of litigation costs
and expenses was incorrect” and did not seek enforcement of those portions of its order, citing
HTH Corp. v. NLRB.
§ 6–650 Counsel Misconduct as Unfair Labor Practice
In certain circumstances, a respondent counsel’s questions or statements to or in the
presence of witnesses at the hearing may constitute an unfair labor practice. See AM Property
Holding Corp., 350 NLRB 998 n. 4 (2007) (granting the General Counsel’s motion to amend the
complaint during the hearing and finding that the respondent’s counsel violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (4) of the Act by stating on the record, in the presence of the witness, that he would “have to
get an investigator” and “find out whether [the witness] is here in this country illegally”); and
Imperial Sales, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 95, slip op. at 3 nn. 13–15, and 20 (2017) (granting the
General Counsel’s motion to amend the complaint during the hearing and finding that the
respondent’s counsel violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling the alleged discriminatees in the hearing
room that he would report them to the immigration authorities and that they would “not get a
penny”), enfd. mem. 740 Fed. Appx. 216 (2d Cir. 2018).
But compare Wendt Corp., 3–CA–21225, unpub. Board order issued Nov. 13, 2018
(2018 WL 5964286). In that case, the respondent’s counsel asked a witness on cross-
examination whether he had taken certain notes during his work time. The General Counsel
objected and moved to amend the complaint to allege that counsel’s question threatened the
witness with potential discipline in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The judge granted the
motion to amend. However, he reserved ruling on the merits of the amendment. Nevertheless,
the respondent filed an immediate request for special permission to appeal, and the Board
reversed, finding that the judge abused his discretion in permitting the amendment during the
hearing. The Board reasoned that, although counsel’s line of questioning was “inartfully
expressed,” it was “relevant to determining whether the notes taken by the witness had been
recorded at the time the events occurred or sometime later,” which counsel “immediately
emphasized” in response to the GC’s objection. The Board distinguished AM Property and
Imperial Sales because they involved “very exceptional circumstances” where the “threatening
questions or statements by counsel” were “unrelated to the unfair labor practices at issue.”
Accordingly, the Board directed the judge to “reject the complaint amendment, without prejudice
to the General Counsel’s right to litigate this issue in a separate proceeding.”
66
CHAPTER 7. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE
§ 7–100 Conference Calls
Pretrial conference calls typically address a variety of non-substantive procedural matters,
including the parties’ and the judge’s expectations regarding the conduct of the trial (e.g. the
number and scheduling of witnesses, the submission of exhibits, and the length of the trial), as
well as the potential for reaching a settlement or stipulation of facts (see § 9–220, below).
Accordingly, because the judge typically does not issue any final rulings on disputed
issues during the calls, the calls are normally not transcribed by a court reporter. See Lewis
Foods of 42nd Street, LLC, 2–CA–093893 et al., unpub. Board order dated April 21, 2015 (2015
WL 1815276) (judge did not abuse her discretion in denying respondent’s request to create an
official record of a pretrial conference call where the judge did not intend to make any rulings on
pending motions during the call). If issues arise shortly before or during the calls, the judge may
defer making any final rulings until later, either in a written order or at the hearing.
Occasionally, a conference call may be held after the hearing has officially opened, such
as during a lengthy continuance or where the hearing had previously been opened only briefly by
telephone or mail to address a pretrial issue (see § 12-200, below). If the conference call is held
to hear an oral motion or to rule on a motion, the call should be transcribed by a court reporter.
However, as with pretrial conference calls, the judge retains the discretion not to have the call
transcribed in other circumstances. See Lewis Foods of 42nd Street, LLC, 362 NLRB 1084
(June 26, 2015) (although the hearing had previously been formally opened, the judge did not
abuse her discretion in denying respondent’s request to transcribe scheduled conference calls
regarding the manner and timeframe for producing subpoenaed documents, where the judge’s
letter to the parties scheduling the calls could not reasonably be read as contemplating the
submission of oral motions during the calls).
§ 7–200 Pretrial Discovery
It is well established that pretrial discovery does not apply in Board proceedings. The
Board, with court approval, has historically followed this rule to protect employees and other
potential witnesses from reprisal or harassment and to avoid the delay and collateral disputes that
often accompany discovery. See Offshore Mariners United, 338 NLRB 745, 746 (2002); and
David R. Webb Co., 311 NLRB 1135 (1993), and authorities cited there. See also Kenrich
Petrochems, Inc. v. NLRB, 893 F.2d 1468, 1484 (3rd Cir. 1990) (“[N]either the [C]onstitution nor
the Administrative Procedure Act confer[s] a right to discovery in federal administrative
proceedings.”), vacated and remanded on other grounds 907 F.2d 400 (3d Cir. 1990) (en banc).
Thus, the judge may not order the General Counsel to provide the respondent with a
witness list. See Beta Steel Corp., 326 NLRB 1267, 1267–1268 (1998), enfd. mem. 210 F.3d
374 (2000). See also § 3–230, Bill of Particulars or More Definite Statement, above.
Nevertheless, the GC in some instances may voluntarily provide the respondent with advance
notice of current employees or managers who may be subpoenaed to testify, in order to reduce
the impact on the respondent’s business and/or for other appropriate reasons. See *Bashas’,
Inc., 352 NLRB 661 (2008) (noting that the General Counsel had done so and that, “[w]here
appropriate, voluntary agreements of this character can aid the efficient administration of the
Act”). In addition, the judge may rule on requests that the testimony of such witnesses be
scheduled to minimize the burden on the respondent or the witnesses pursuant to the judge’s
67
general authority to regulate the course of the hearing under Section 102.35(a)(6) of the Board’s
Rules. See § 2–300, Duties and Powers of Trial Judge, above.
Note that the policy against pretrial discovery does not mean that a party cannot be
compelled to produce subpoenaed documents before the first witness is scheduled to testify.
See, e.g., Quickway Transportation, 09-CA-251857, unpub. Board order issued October 19,
2021 (2021 WL 4893957), at 2. In that case, the hearing was scheduled to open on August 16
solely for the ALJ to rule on petitions to revoke the respondent’s subpoenas duces tecum and to
resume a month later, on September 13, to begin taking witness testimony. With respect to the
GC’s subpoena, however, the judge, ruled before the hearing opened that the respondent would
be required to produce the subpoenaed documents on a rolling basis beginning August 16. The
respondent thereafter filed a special appeal to the Board, arguing that the ALJ’s ruling requiring it
to produce the documents before the hearing resumed on September 13 to begin testimony
violated the policy against pretrial discovery. The Board, however, denied the appeal, stating that
the respondent had failed to establish that the judge abused his discretion.
§ 7–300 Depositions
Under Section 102.30 of the Board’s Rules, the judge has “discretion” to grant an
application to take testimony by deposition, including by videoconference, but only upon a
showing of “good cause” See December 12, Inc., 282 NLRB 475 n. 1 (1986) (“The Board does
not allow the taking of depositions to provide discovery in ordinary circumstances.”); and David
R. Webb Co., 311 NLRB 1135, 1136 (1993) (same rule generally applies in compliance
proceedings). See also Kenrich Petrochemicals v. NLRB, above (ALJ properly denied
respondent’s request to depose the General Counsel’s witnesses, as the Board’s rules normally
do not permit prehearing discovery and the “good cause” exception is limited to instances where
discovery is needed for the preservation of evidence, usually because the witnesses will not be
available to testify at the hearing).
A respondent’s failure to request permission to take a deposition of a nontestifying witness
was cited as grounds for rejecting the witness’s prior state court deposition in Goya Foods of
Florida, 347 NLRB 1118, 1119–1120 (2006), enfd. 525 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2008). The ALJ in
that case denied the respondent’s request to admit the witness’s prior state court deposition
because the respondent failed to seek enforcement of its subpoena to have the witness testify in
the Board proceeding. In affirming the judge’s ruling, the Board noted, among other things, that
the General Counsel had no opportunity to examine the witness in the state court proceeding,
and that the respondent did not apply to the judge to permit deposing the witness with all parties
in the Board proceeding present pursuant to Section 102.30 of the Board’s Rules.
See also § 12–400, Testimony by Videoconference, below.
68
CHAPTER 8. SUBPOENAS
§ 8–100 Issuance of Subpoenas
§ 8–110 Application for Subpoena
Applications for subpoenas must be in writing. See Sec. 102.31(a) of the Board’s Rules.
Before the hearing, the application must be filed with the Regional Director; during the hearing, it
must be filed with the judge. Ibid. As discussed in § 2–220, above, the application may be made
ex parte.
Upon receipt of the application, the subpoena(s) must be issued; there is no discretion.
See Sec. 11(1) of the Act; and Sec. 102.31 of the Board’s Rules. See also Lewis v. NLRB, 357
U.S. 10, 14 (1958) (“The Act makes clear that issuance of subpoenas is mandatory. . . .The only
function remaining is ministerial. Consequently, the Board supplies blank subpoenas bearing its
seal and the facsimile signature of a Board member to its regional offices and [administrative law
judges] . . . . Upon application of a proper party the [regional office or ALJ] automatically issues
the subpoena to the applicant.”). Indeed, for this reason, it is not inappropriate for the regional
director to issue a requested subpoena after the hearing has opened if the judge is not available.
See Free-Flow Packaging Corp., 219 NLRB 925, 926 (1975) (regional director issued subpoena
over the weekend), enfd. in part 566 F.2d 1124 (9th Cir. 1978).
Thus, if requested to do so, the judge should issue the subpoena and await a petition to
revoke, even if it is clear at the outset that a petition to revoke would be granted. See Canova v.
NLRB, 708 F.2d 1498, 1503 (9th Cir. 1983).
§ 8–120 Service of Subpoena
As discussed in Chapter 4, above, service of subpoenas may be made personally, by
registered or certified mail, by leaving a copy at the principal office or place of business of the
person required to be served, by private delivery service, or by any other method of service
authorized by law. See Sec. 102.4(b) of the Board’s Rules.
Thus, service may be made by Federal Express or similar carrier. Offshore Mariners
United, 338 NLRB 745 (2002). Further, it is not required that the subpoena be left with a person
specifically authorized to accept service of subpoenas. See Control Services, 303 NLRB 481,
483 n. 13 (1991) (leaving a copy of the subpoena with the receptionist at the respondent’s
principal place of business was effective service on the respondent’s officer under Sec.
102.113(c), even if the respondent had not authorized the receptionist to accept such service),
enfd. mem. 961 F.2d 1568 (3d Cir. 1992).
A verified return by the serving individual, a return post office receipt, or any other
sufficient proof may be relied upon to establish that service was made. NLRB Rules and
Regulations, Sec. 102.4(d). See also Best Western City View Motor Inn, 327 NLRB 468, 468–
469 (1999) (the attorney’s affirmation of service is sufficient; it is not essential to provide a postal
return-receipt card signed by the person subpoenaed).
Pursuant to Section 102.4(e) of the Board’s Rules, a copy of the subpoena must also be
served on any attorney or representative who has entered an appearance for a party. If served
by the Board or its agents, service on the attorney or representative may be made by any means
69
of service permitted by the Rules, including regular mail. See also NLRB v. Vista Del Sol Health
Services, Inc., 40 F. Supp.3d 1238, 1258 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
However, absent a showing of prejudice, the failure to serve counsel does not constitute
grounds for revoking a subpoena or invalidate it ab initio. See Arizona 811, 28–CA–182241,
unpub. Board order issued Feb. 2, 2017 (2017 WL 971635), at 1 n. 3, and court cases cited there
(finding no prejudice where a timely petition to revoke was filed). Further, a lawyer with actual
notice of a subpoena must file a petition to revoke to raise a credible claim of prejudice, even if
over 5 days have passed since service on the client. NLRB v. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood
Market, 805 F.3d 1155, 1161–1162 (9th Cir. 2015).
§ 8–125 Timing of Service of Subpoena
The General Counsel’s casehandling manual states that subpoenas “should, where
circumstances allow, normally be served at least 2 weeks prior to trial” to allow sufficient time to
arrange for production of the witness or documents and for ruling on a petition to revoke before
trial. NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 1), Sec. 10340.
In McAllister Towing, 341 NLRB 394 (2004), enfd. 156 Fed. Appx. 386 (2d Cir. 2005),
the Board rejected the respondent’s contention that 2 weeks was insufficient. In that case, 12
days before the hearing, the General Counsel properly served each of the two entities allegedly
constituting a single employer with a subpoena duces tecum requesting approximately 30
categories of documents. The Respondent timely petitioned to revoke the subpoenas, arguing
that they would require production of “hundreds of thousands of pages of documents stored in
numerous locations throughout the world,” that most of the documents were irrelevant, and that
the GC timed the subpoenas “solely to interfere with [its] preparation for the hearing.” At a
conference call the morning before the hearing opened, the judge advised counsel that she would
rule on the petition to revoke the following morning, but instructed that the respondent should be
ready to “substantially comply” with the subpoenas at that time. She rejected the respondent’s
argument that it was not obliged to gather and produce the documents until she ruled on the
petition.
When the hearing opened the next day, the judge revoked the subpoenas in part and
ordered the respondent to comply with the remaining parts. The respondent, however, failed to
produce any significant records, repeating its position that 2 weeks prior to trial was too short and
that it was entitled to a reasonable time to comply after the ruling on the petition to revoke. At the
GC’s request, the judge therefore imposed certain evidentiary sanctions.
The Respondent excepted to the judge’s ruling following issuance of her decision.
However, the Board found that the ruling was not an abuse of discretion, stating, “We agree with
the General Counsel that the Respondent at the very least had an obligation to begin a good faith
effort to gather responsive documents upon service of the subpoenas.” 341 NLRB at 397.
See also *Voith Industrial Services, Inc., 9-CA-75496, unpub. Board order issued
August 27, 2012 (2012 WL 3679872) (granting the General Counsel’s special appeal and
reversing the judge’s order partially quashing a subpoena served 2 weeks before the hearing, as
the respondent had “not submitted any evidence supporting its assertion that the time required to
locate and review the documents would exceed 2 weeks”).
70
§ 8–130 Geographic Reach of Subpoena
Section 11(1) of the Act states that the Board may require the attendance of witnesses
and production of evidence “from any place in the U.S. or any Territory or possession thereof, at
any designated place of hearing.”
§ 8–140 Fees and Mileage Required to be Paid
Witnesses subpoenaed for a hearing must be paid the same fees and mileage that are
paid witnesses in the federal courts by the party who issued the subpoena. See Sec. 11(4) of the
Act; Sec. 102.32 of the Board’s Rules; and Zurn/NEPCO, 329 NLRB 484, 486–487 (1999). See
also 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1821; and FRCP 45(b).
The failure of a respondent or charging party to provide fees and mileage with subpoenas
at the time of service renders them “defective on their face” and the recipient may refuse to
comply with them. Rolligon Corp., 254 NLRB 22, 23 (1981). See also Champ Corp., 291 NLRB
803, 817 (1988), enfd. 933 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 957 (1991); and O.K.
Machine & Tool Corp., 279 NLRB 474, 479 (1986).
In contrast, the General Counsel need not advance the standard fees upon service of a
subpoena. See Zurn/NEPCO, above, citing 28 U.S.C. 1825(c). See also Valentine Painting
and Wallcovering, Inc., 331 NLRB 883, 884 (2000) (rejecting respondent’s objection that
witness and mileage fees were not tendered with the General Counsel’s subpoena, noting that
the subpoena stated on its face that such fees would be paid upon the presentation of a voucher),
enfd. 3 Fed. Appx. 116 (2d Cir. 2001).
However, the distance to be traveled may justify requiring that travel expenses be
included with service of the subpoena by the GC. See Zurn/NEPCO, above (judge concluded
that it was an “undue burden” under FRCP 45 to require an expert witness to advance his own
costs for the 550-mile round trip).
Note that a respondent’s failure to pay the witness fee and mileage to employees who
appear at the hearing as required by the subpoena may also constitute a violation of the Act. See
Howard Mfg. Co., 231 NLRB 731, 732 (1977) (respondent’s failure to tender fees to seven
subpoenaed striker-discriminatees who had not been subpoenaed or called to testify by the
General Counsel violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act).
§ 8–150 Expert Witnesses, Required Fees and Mileage
The standard fee for witnesses does not constitute sufficient payment of the fee charged
by an expert, and a subpoena may be quashed when the appropriate expert witness fee has not
been included with service of the subpoena. Zurn/NEPCO, above, 329 NLRB at 486–487.
§ 8–200 Revocation of Subpoenas
§ 8–205 Petition to Revoke “In Writing”
Section 102.31(b) of the Board’s Rules provides that petitions to revoke “must” be filed “in
writing.” However, oral motions may be permitted to avoid delay. See G.W. Truck, 240 NLRB
333 n. 1 (1979) (ALJ did not commit prejudicial error by granting the respondent’s petition to
revoke the General Counsel’s subpoena duces tecum, notwithstanding that it was made orally
71
rather than in writing); and Harvey Aluminum, Inc., 147 NLRB 1287 n. 1 (1964) (trial examiner
did not commit prejudicial error by granting the General Counsel’s oral motion to revoke the
respondent’s subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum). See also Earthgrains Co., 336
NLRB 1119, 1122 (2001), enfd. per curiam 61 Fed. Appx. 1 (4th Cir. 2003).
§ 8–210 “Within 5 Business Days” Requirement
A petition to revoke must be filed “within 5 business days after the date of service of the
subpoena.” NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.31(b). “The date of service for purposes of
computing the time for filing a petition to revoke is the date the subpoena is received.” Ibid. The
date of service and intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays are not counted. Sec.
102.2(a).
The petition to revoke must be received on or before the last day for filing, i.e., the
postmark rule does not apply. Sec. 102.2(b). If the petition to revoke is filed prior to the hearing, it
must be filed with the Regional Director, who will refer it to the administrative law judge or the
Board for ruling. If the petition is filed during the hearing, it must be filed with the judge. Sec.
102.31(b).
Note that the 5-day rule may not be strictly applied if the subpoenaed material is subject to
a privilege. See M. J. Mechanical Services, 324 NLRB 812, 832 (1997) (quashing the
respondent’s subpoena duces tecum because the requested information was protected by the
“reporter’s privilege,” notwithstanding that the reporter filed his petition to revoke more than 5
days after service), enfd. mem. 172 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 1998). See also the following court cases
holding that a party did not waive its right to challenge subpoena enforcement by failing to
exhaust administrative remedies by timely filing a petition to revoke: NLRB v. Midland Daily
News, 151 F.3d 472, 474–475 (6th Cir. 1998) (a Board subpoena that “constituted a
constitutional infringement of [the respondent newspaper’s] right to exercise commercial free
speech”); and EEOC v. Lutheran Social Services, 186 F.3d 959, 960 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (an
EEOC document protected by the attorney-client privilege), discussed at length in NLRB v.
Coughlin, 2005 WL 850964 (S.D. Ill. March 4, 2005) (following Lutheran Social Services with
respect to documents protected by the attorney client privilege and work product doctrine). See
also §8–220, below, regarding a judge’s authority to revoke or modify a subpoena sua sponte.
But see Detroit Newspapers Agency, 326 NLRB 700, 751 n. 25 (1998), enf. denied on
other grounds 216 F.3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2000), where the Board, in an unpublished order, granted
a special appeal during the trial and reversed a judge who refused to apply the 5-day rule
because, inter alia, the subpoenaed material was covered by the attorney-client privilege. The
Board held that the judge “abused his discretion . . . because the Respondent did not file a proper
motion or petition to revoke within 5 days.” See also FTC v. GlaxoSmithKline, 202 F.R.D. 8
(D.D.C. 2001) (distinguishing Lutheran Social Services, above, on the ground that the FTC
subpoena specifically stated that a petition to revoke or privilege log must be filed within 5 days);
and NLRB v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 216 F.Supp.3d 1004, 1008 (N.D. Calif. 2016) (likewise
distinguishing Lutheran Social Services in part because the NLRB investigative subpoena
specifically stated that a petition to revoke must be filed in writing within 5 days).
§ 8–215 Standing to File Petition to Revoke
Parties generally have limited standing under FRCP 45 to petition to revoke subpoenas
served on third parties or nonparties. See Wright & Miller et al., 9A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. §
2459 (3d ed. April 2021 Update) (“Ordinarily a party has no standing to seek to quash a
subpoena issued to someone who is not a party to the action, unless the objecting party claims
72
some personal right or privilege with regard to the documents sought.”). However, the Board
appears to distinguish between private parties and the General Counsel in applying this general
rule.
Private parties. Consistent with the federal practice, the Board has held that an employer
lacks standing to petition to revoke subpoenas addressed to employees and other third parties
unless it has a personal right or privilege with respect to the subpoenaed documents. Red Apple
180 Myrtle Avenue Development, 29–CA–184816, unpub. Board order issued April 20, 2017
(2017 WL 1434208) (denying the employer’s petition to revoke subpoenas ad testificandum
addressed to employees as the employer failed to establish that it possessed any personal
privacy rights to the information sought from them); and Jones & Carter, Inc., 16-CA-27969,
unpub. Board order denying petition to revoke issued October 20, 2011 (2011 WL 4994786), and
unpub. Board order denying motion for reconsideration issued December 30, 2011 (2011 WL
6936398) (holding that the employer’s assertion of a contractual property interest in the services
of its employees was not a legally sufficient basis to establish standing to petition to revoke
subpoenas ad testificandum addressed to them).
See also Elite Ambulance, Inc., 31–CA–122353, unpub. Board order issued July 25,
2017 (2017 WL 3229278). In that case, Respondent Elite Ambulance petitioned to revoke
investigative subpoenas duces tecum issued by the Region to Bank of America, N.A. The
subpoenas sought bank records of the Respondent’s owner and her husband to investigate
whether they or other related business entities should be held personally or otherwise derivatively
liable as alter egos to remedy the Respondent’s backpay obligations. The Board held that the
Respondent lacked standing to file the petition to revoke, as it had “failed to substantiate its
assertion that it has any personal right or privilege with respect to the bank records sought, which
are the personal bank records of individuals who are not parties to this proceeding and not the
corporate records of Elite Ambulance, Inc.”
With respect to a union’s standing to assert the rights of employee-members in opposition
to a subpoena, see NLRB v. Raley’s Drug Center, 87 F.3d 1321 (9th Cir. 1996) (unpub. mem.
opinion) (union had standing to assert the first amendment associational rights of its employee-
members in opposition to enforcement of an NLRB investigative subpoena issued to the
employer).
General Counsel. Consistent with the general federal rule, the Board has held that the
General Counsel may petition to revoke a subpoena issued to a third party or nonparty where the
subpoena improperly calls for production of confidential NLRB affidavits or statements. See
Santa Barbara News-Press, 357 NLRB 452, 502 (2011), enf. denied on other grounds 702 F.3d
51 (D.C. Cir. 2012); and H.B. Zachry Co., 310 NLRB 1037 (1993).
The Board has also granted GC petitions to revoke third-party or nonparty subpoenas on
the ground that the subpoenas seek irrelevant information or would otherwise undermine the
integrity or efficacy of the Agency’s proceedings. See King Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93,
slip op. at 8, 22 (2016) (granting the General Counsel’s petition to revoke the respondent
employer’s subpoena duces tecum to the individual charging party seeking documentation of her
search for work efforts and expenses, as the subpoenaed information was irrelevant at the merits
stage of the proceeding), vacated in part on other grounds 859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017);
Hoschton Garment Co., 279 NLRB 565 n. 4 (1986) (granting the General Counsel’s petition to
revoke the respondent employer’s subpoena duces tecum to the alleged discriminatee seeking
evidence whether she had obtained a leave of absence under false pretenses, as such evidence
was immaterial to the issues in the case); and Modern Plastics Corp., 155 NLRB 1126, 1136 n.
17 (1965) (granting the General Counsel’s petition to revoke the respondent employer’s
73
subpoena duces tecum to the charging party union’s business agent seeking the collective-
bargaining agreements between the union and other employers, as the subpoenaed documents
were irrelevant to the issues in the case), set aside on other grounds 379 F.2d 201 (6th Cir.
1967). See also Imperial Sales, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 95, slip op. at 7 n. 2 (2017) (granting the
General Counsel’s motion to quash subpoenas ad testificandum served by the respondent
employer on a number of employees to examine them about certain complaint amendments),
enfd. mem. 740 Fed. Appx. 216 (2d Cir. 2018).
Although these cited decisions do not specifically discuss standing, they are consistent
with the General Counsel’s broader public interests and responsibilities with respect to Agency
proceedings. See Alberici-Fruin-Colnon, 226 NLRB 1315, 1316 (1976) (“Once a charge is filed,
the General Counsel proceeds, not in vindication of private rights, but as the representative of an
agency entrusted with the power and duty of enforcing the Act in which the public has an interest
. . . .”), enfd. 567 F.2d 833 (8th Cir. 1977); NLRB v. Laborers Local 282, 567 F.2d 833, 835–836
(8th Cir. 1977) (“Once an unfair labor practice charge is filed, the General Counsel proceeds in
the public interest, not just in vindication of private rights.”); and Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. NLRB,
331 F.2d 720, 734 (6th Cir. 1964) (“The General Counsel, like the Board, is charged with the
responsibility of representing the public interest, not that of private litigants.”), cert. denied 379
U.S. 888 (1964).
Judge’s responsibility and ruling. As standing is jurisdictional in nature, it should be raised
sua sponte by the judge even if no party has raised the issue. See Jones & Carter, above. See
also TMP Worldwide Advertising & Communications, LLC v. LATCareers, LLC, 2008 WL
5348180 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 16, 2008). If standing is found lacking, the judge may deny the
petition to revoke without considering the merits of the petition. See Jones & Carter, above.
Note, however, that there is court authority for construing and considering an invalid
FRCP 45 petition to revoke as a motion for a protective order under FRCP 26(c) if the subpoena
seeks irrelevant information. See Washington v. Thurgood Marshall Academy, 230 F.R.D. 18,
22 (D.D.C. 2005); and Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 231
F.R.D. 426, 429 (M.D. Fla. 2005). See also Danzy v. IATSE Local 22, 2020 WL 6887651, *6
(D.D.C. Nov. 23, 2020); Agilysys, Inc. v. Hall, 2018 WL 1229990, *4 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2018);
Eric v. Van Cleave, 2017 WL 553276, *6 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2017); Clair v. Schlachter, 2016
WL 2984107, *5 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2016); and Sirpal v. Fengrong Wang, 2012 WL 2880565, *4
(D. Md. July 12, 2012). For a discussion of protective orders, see §8–600, below.
There is also authority indicating that judges may revoke a subpoena sua sponte in some
circumstances. See §8–220, below.
§ 8–220 Judge’s Authority to Revoke Sua Sponte
Under FRCP 26(b)(2)(C), a court has authority, and in fact is required, to limit discovery
on its own motion where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can
be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive”; the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by
discovery in the action”; or the proposed discovery is “outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1),” i.e., the
discovery is not limited to a “nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case . . .” See also Jiangmen Kinwai Furniture Decoration Co.
Ltd. V. IHFC Properties, LLC, 2015 WL 5098791, *7 (M.D. N.C. Aug. 31, 2015); Charvat v.
Travel Services, 2015 WL 76901, *1–2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 2015); and Elite Lighting v. DMF, Inc.,
2013 WL 12142840, *3 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2013), and cases cited there.
74
In Brink’s Inc., 281 NLRB 468, 470 n.7 1986), the Board cited FRCP 26(b) as support for
revoking an employer’s subpoena request notwithstanding that the union failed to file a written
petition to revoke that particular request as required by the Board’s rules. Although the Board
primarily relied on the lack of prejudice to the employer—the union orally requested to amend its
petition to revoke at the hearing to include the request and the employer had an opportunity to
argue against the amendment—the Board also noted that “FRCP 26(b)(1) permits a court to limit
discovery ‘upon its own initiative’.”
For another Board case addressing the issue, see Electrical Energy Services, 288
NLRB 925, 931 (1988). In that case, the General Counsel served a subpoena on the respondent
seeking every document that the 8(a)(5) complaint alleged the respondent had unlawfully failed to
provide to the union. The respondent petitioned to revoke the subpoena, and the judge granted it
on the ground that the GC was attempting to use the subpoena duces tecum as a substitute for
the Board order sought by the complaint. Although the GC argued that the respondent’s petition
to revoke was untimely filed, the judge found it unnecessary to consider the argument, stating,
“Even if the petition was not timely filed, I would, on motion of the administrative law judge,
revoke the subpoena duces tecum because of the manifest improper purpose it seeks to
achieve.” The GC subsequently filed exceptions to the judge’s decision, but the Board affirmed
the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions.
See also Powerback Rehabilitation, 365 NLRB No. 119, slip op. at 1 n. 2, and 15
(2017), a post-election objections proceeding, where, notwithstanding the absence of a petition to
revoke, the Board majority found that the acting regional director did not abuse his discretion by
refusing to file a petition for court enforcement of the employer’s subpoena duces tecum on the
ground that it was “at best, a fishing expedition.”
§ 8–225 Grounds for Revoking Subpoena
Section 102.31(b) of the Board’s Rules states that a subpoena “will” be revoked if the
evidence requested “does not relate to any matter under investigation or in question in the
proceedings,” the subpoena “does not describe with sufficient particularity the evidence whose
production is required,” or “if for any other reason sufficient in law the subpoena is otherwise
invalid.” This rule applies to subpoenas ad testificandum as well as subpoenas duces tecum.
See, e.g., Elevator Constructors No. 1 (Otis Elevator), 29–CB–084077, unpub. Board order
issued August 29, 2014 (2014 WL 4302555), and cases cited there.
Although not binding on the Agency, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also provide
“useful guidance” and “should be consulted.” Brink’s, Inc., 281 NLRB 468 (1986) (citing FRCP
26 and 45 in quashing the employer’s subpoenas in a representation case). See also Clinton
Food 4 Less, 288 NLRB 597 n. 1, 618–619 (1988) (applying Brink’s analysis in quashing the
respondent employer’s subpoena in an unfair labor practice case).
The asserted nonexistence of requested records is not grounds for revoking a subpoena.
See Ironworkers Local 433, 21–CB–129959, unpub. Board order issued Feb. 4, 2015 (2015 WL
471558) (“If no evidence responsive to any portion of the subpoena exists, the custodian of
records must provide sworn testimony to that effect, including a description of the [Respondent’s]
efforts to identify and locate such evidence.”). See also § 8-350, Possession or Control, below.
A respondent’s assertion that the Board lacks jurisdiction or that the allegations are barred
by the section 10(b) statute of limitations are also not grounds for revoking a hearing subpoena,
at least where Board jurisdiction is not plainly lacking or the limitations period has not clearly run.
75
Like other defenses to a complaint, such assertions are not properly evaluated in ruling on
whether to revoke or enforce a subpoena. See NLRB v. Chapa De Indian Health Program,
Inc., 316 F.3d 995, 1002 (9th Cir. 2003). See also, with respect to investigative subpoenas,
EEOC v. Kloster Cruise, Ltd., 939 F.2d 920, 924 (11th Cir. 1991) (jurisdiction); NLRB v.
Fortune Bay Resort Casino, 688 F.Supp.2d 858 (D. Minn. 2010) (jurisdiction); Eulen America,
12-CA-26948, unpub. Board order issued July 16, 2011 (2011 WL 3098547) (jurisdiction); NLRB
v. Bakersfield Californian, 128 F.3d 1339, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997) (10(b)); and Pasha Automotive
Services, 20–CA–195343, unpub. Board order issued June 22, 2018 (2018 WL 3109947)
(10(b)).
Ordinarily, the judge should not revoke a subpoena on grounds not asserted in the petition
to revoke. See Postal Workers Local 64, 340 NLRB 912 (2003). In that case, the Region had
issued investigative subpoenas ad testificandum to the charged union’s president and vice-
president, and the union had petitioned to revoke the subpoenas for certain reasons. The Board
majority found that those reasons were without merit. However, the dissenting Board member
argued that the testimonial subpoenas should be revoked because the Region failed to make a
more specific showing that the testimony was relevant and to describe with more particularity the
testimony being sought. The Board majority rejected the argument, finding, contrary to the
dissent, that the petition to revoke did not sufficiently raise those issues. The majority stated that,
for “both legal (procedural due process) and practical (administrative economy and efficiency)
reasons,” the Board should “generally limit[] [its] review” of subpoenas “to the issues and
arguments raised by the parties.” But see §8–220, above.
§ 8–230 Ruling on Petition to Revoke
Section 102.31(b) of the Board’s Rules states that “[t]he Administrative Law Judge or the
Board, as the case may be, will make a simple statement of procedural or other grounds for the
ruling on the petition to revoke.” In ruling on a petition to revoke, the judge may evaluate the
subpoena in light of any modifications or limitations that the subpoenaing party offers or agrees to
in its opposition to the petition. See, e.g., Bannum Place of Saginaw, 7–CA–211090, unpub.
Board order issued Dec. 17, 2018 (2018 WL 6628927), at 1 n. 2; and FCA US LLC, 8–CA–
185825, unpub. Board order issued Oct. 31, 2017 (2017 WL 5000838), at 1 n. 3.
The ALJ’s prompt ruling on the petition to revoke may assist the parties in preparing for
trial and avoid subsequent delays. However, a judge’s failure to rule prior to the scheduled
hearing does not excuse a party from making a good faith effort to begin gathering the
subpoenaed documents upon service of the subpoena and bring them to the hearing. See
McAllister Towing & Transportation, 341 NLRB 394 (2004), discussed in § 8–125, above. See
also San Luis Trucking, 352 NLRB 211, 212 (2008), reaffd. 356 NLRB 168 (2010), enfd. 479
Fed. Appx. 743 (9th Cir. 2012).
In cases where a large number of documents has been subpoenaed, judges sometimes
open the hearing solely to rule on pending subpoena disputes, and schedule the hearing to
resume at some later date to begin receiving testimony. As indicated in §7–200, above, it is
generally within the judge’s discretion to require that the subpoenaed documents be produced
before the resumption date in such circumstances, i.e., such an order does not violate the policy
against pretrial discovery in Board proceedings. See Quickway Transportation, 09-CA-251857,
unpub. Board order issued October 19, 2021 (2021 WL 4893957), at 2.
76
§ 8–235 Admitting Subpoena Ruling and Related Pleadings Into the Record
Section 102.31(b) of the Board’s Rules provides that the ruling on the petition to revoke,
as well as the petition, opposition, and response, “will not become part of the official record
except upon the request of the party aggrieved by the ruling . . .”
The Board’s Rules do not specifically address or limit when the subpoena itself may
properly be made part of the record. However, the subpoena is usually an attachment to the
petition to revoke and will be admitted along with the ruling and related pleadings when the
aggrieved party offers them.
The subpoena is also typically offered and admitted (along with any related pleadings and
rulings, notwithstanding the restrictive language in 102.31(b)) when the party serving the
subpoena contends it was not fully complied with, so the record on appellate review will include
the underlying information considered by the ALJ in determining whether to issue evidentiary
sanctions for the alleged noncompliance. See, e.g., Cascades Containerboard Packaging–
Niagara, 370 NLRB No. 76, slip op. at 12–13 (2021); Queen of the Valley Medical Center, 368
NLRB No. 116, slip op. at 8 n. 4, 38–40 (2019); and Shamrock Foods Co., 366 NLRB No. 117,
slip op. at 15 n. 29 (2018), enfd. 779 Fed. Appx. 752 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
The subpoena is also sometimes offered by the subpoenaing party and admitted, along
with related testimony or stipulations, to establish that no responsive documents were received
and do not exist. See, e.g., Roemer Industries, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 133, slip op. at 8 (2019)
(employer’s failure to produce any documents in response to General Counsel subpoena seeking
all communications with the union regarding its information request supported a finding that the
union never received the information), enfd. 824 Fed. Appx. 396 (6th Cir. 2020); and Advanced
Architectural Metals, 351 NLRB 1208, 1211–1212 (2007) (employer’s failure to produce any
documents in response to GC’s subpoena seeking documents reflecting the purported sale or
other transfer of the company supported a finding that employer never sold part of the company).
§ 8–300 Scope of Subpoenas
§ 8–310 Material Must Be “Reasonably Relevant”
Generally, subpoenaed information should be produced if it relates to any matter in
question, or if it can provide background information or lead to other evidence potentially relevant
to an allegation in the complaint. See NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.31(b);
McDonald’s USA, LLC, 363 NLRB No. 144, slip op. at 15 (2016); and Perdue Farms v. NLRB,
144 F.3d 830, 833–834 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (information must be “reasonably relevant”). Thus, the
requesting party need not show that the subpoenaed information would itself be admissible at the
hearing. NLRB v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 611 F. Supp. 760, 764–766 (N.D. Ind.
1985).
If the subpoenaed information is not reasonably relevant, the subpoena should be
revoked. See UPMC, 366 NLRB No. 185, slip op. at 1 n. 3 (2018) (trial judge did not abuse his
discretion in revoking respondent’s subpoenas to the extent they sought information regarding the
unions’ motives for their campaign, as such information was not relevant to whether respondent
violated the Act as alleged); Hoschton Garment Co., 279 NLRB 565 n. 4 (1986) (ALJ properly
granted the General Counsel’s petition to revoke the respondent employer’s subpoena duces
tecum to the alleged discriminatee seeking evidence whether she had obtained a leave of
absence under false pretenses, as she was assertedly disciplined for violating the leave of
77
absence by returning to the plant, not for obtaining it under false pretenses, and thus the
subpoenaed evidence was immaterial to the issues in the case); *Hispanics United of Buffalo,
359 NLRB No. 37 (2012) (respondent’s subpoena seeking various information from the alleged
discriminatees, including communications among themselves, applications for and receipt of
unemployment benefits, and any complaints to State or Federal agencies, was properly revoked
by the judge as an unwarranted “fishing expedition” as the respondent failed to show that such
information was relevant to any issue in dispute); and NLRB v. Jackson Hospital Corp., 557
F.3d 301, 305–306 (6th Cir. 2009) (ALJ did not violate respondent’s due process rights in the
compliance proceeding by quashing its subpoena to the extent it sought the discriminatees’
personal banking and other records relating to their private financial obligations, as the employer
failed to establish a reasonable suspicion to believe that the discriminatees were hiding income),
enfg. 352 NLRB 194 (2008).
See also Allied Waste Services of Fall River, 01–CA–123082, unpub. Board order
issued Dec. 31, 2014 (2014 WL 7429200). In that case, the Board denied the company’s petition
to revoke the Region’s investigative subpoena duces tecum seeking the company’s employee
handbook as the document was “potentially relevant” to the alleged discriminatory discharge
allegation. However, the Board noted that “if the record revealed that the Region invoked
our subpoena power to obtain employee handbooks or policy statements for the purpose of
initiating or expanding charges or investigations, this would be an ‘improper purpose’ that would
warrant revocation of the subpoena,” citing SEC v. Brigadoon Scotch Distributors, 480 F.2d
1047, 1056 (2d Cir. 1973).
With respect to employer subpoenas seeking information regarding after-acquired
evidence, the immigration status of an alleged discriminatee or a witness, and collateral matters
relevant to impeachment, see §§ 16.402.5, and 16.608.1, below.
For cases involving testimonial subpoenas, compare NP Red Rock, LLC, 28–CA–
244484, unpub. Board order issued Dec. 2, 2020 (2020 WL 7075063), with Red Rock Resorts,
Inc, 28-CA-228052, unpub. Board order issued Oct. 13, 2021 (2021 WL 4786766).
In NP Red Rock, the General Counsel served subpoenas ad testificandum on the
respondent’s top two corporate executives requiring them to appear and testify as 611(c)
witnesses at the outset of the GC’s case-in-chief regarding an alleged 8(a)(1) preelection grant of
benefits violation. The ALJ granted the respondent’s petition to revoke the subpoenas as the
executives’ testimony was not needed to establish a prima facie case and its relevance and
probative value to rebutting the employer’s defenses was speculative at that point. The judge
noted that the GC could seek reconsideration of his ruling if and when the GC could show that
their testimony would be relevant to any of the disputed allegations or issues and that its
probative value would not be “substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . undue delay, wasting
time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence” under FRE 403. The GC subsequently filed a
special appeal, but the Board found that the judge’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion.
However, in Red Rock Resorts, a different ALJ denied the respondents’ petition to revoke
the General Counsel’s subpoenas ad testifcandum on the same two top corporate executives
requiring them to appear and testify as 611(c) witnesses in the General Counsel’s case-in-chief
regarding various allegations, including the respondents’ alleged single-employer status. The
respondents subsequently filed a special appeal, arguing, as they had to the judge, that requiring
the top executives to testify was contrary to the “apex doctrine,” which requires a showing that
such high-level executives have unique personal knowledge that cannot be obtained by less
intrusive means. The Board, however, rejected the argument. The Board noted that, although
some federal courts apply the apex doctrine in pretrial depositions, the Board has never applied it
78
to revoke a subpoena for trial testimony or otherwise. The Board also emphasized that the
respondents did not demonstrate that the subpoenas were issued to harass or were unduly
burdensome. The Board therefore “decline[d] to second guess the judge’s significant discretion
to regulate the course of the hearing and direct the creation of the record.”
§ 8–320 Request Must Not Be Vague or Overbroad
Vague requests. Several courts have held that subpoenas requesting all documents
“relating to,” “pertaining to,” or “regarding” a general category of documents are generally too
vague and do not describe with reasonable particularity what is being sought. See, e.g., Perez v.
Tequila LLC, 2014 WL 5341766, *1 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 20, 2014), and cases cited there. See also
Sack v. CIA, 53 F.Supp.3d 154, 164 (D.D.C. 2014), and cases cited there (same with respect to
Freedom of Information Act requests).
For cases rejecting the argument that a subpoena duces tecum was too vague, see
NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507, 513 (4th Cir. 1996) (General Counsel’s
investigative subpoena in a post-election unfair labor practice case requesting payroll
documents, W-4s, and I-9s for “all bargaining unit employees” was not too vague as the unit was
sufficiently identified in the parties’ stipulated election agreement and the union’s preelection
request for recognition); NLRB v. Vista Del Sol Health Services, Inc., 40 F.Supp.3d 1238, 1265
(C.D. Cal. 2014) (General Counsel’s investigative subpoena requests for (1) the company’s
articles and certificate of incorporation, and (2) its directors, officers, and shareholders, were not
too vague as to time as the company only had one set of articles and one certificate of
incorporation, and the second request was written in the present tense, indicating that only the
current directors, officers, and shareholders were being requested); and SEIU United Healthcare
Workers–West, 20–CG–65, unpub. Board order issued October 24, 2006 (General Counsel’s
subpoena duces tecum was not impermissibly vague where it asked for information in language
borrowed from Board cases dealing with concerted refusals to volunteer for overtime in the
healthcare industry). See also Perez v. Lasership, Inc., 2015 WL 11109330, *6 (D. Conn. Sept.
18, 2015) (rejecting the respondent’s argument that DOL’s subpoena was too vague and
ambiguous, as respondent had identified “with precision” the specific documents that DOL was
requesting numerous times in its other objections to the subpoena).
For cases addressing testimonial subpoenas, see, e.g., Postal Workers Local 64, 340
NLRB 912, 913 (2003) (subpoena ad testificandum was sufficiently specific where it identified the
unfair labor practice case that the witness would testify about); and Offshore Mariners United,
338 NLRB 745 (2002) (same). Accord: Welded Construction L.P., 8–CA–190649, unpub.
Board order issued June 28, 2017 (2017 WL 2830801); and Christus St. Vincent Regional
Medical Center, 28-CA-149798, unpub. Board order issued Aug. 24, 2015 (2015 WL 5025387).
Overbroad requests. A subpoena may also be quashed to the extent it is overbroad. See
Brink’s, Inc., 281 NLRB 468, 469 (1986) (granting petitions to partially revoke employer’s
subpoenas where most of the challenged portions “generally were drafted without regard for the
usual standards applicable to subpoenas or discovery” set forth in the Board’s Rules and FRCP
26 and 45).
For example, in NLRB v. Fuyao Glass AM., Inc., 2018 WL 1166628 (S.D. Ohio March 5,
2018), the court narrowed an NLRB investigative subpoena in a discriminatory discharge case
that required the employer to produce the employment records for all 800 employees working in
the same department. The court held that the subpoena was overbroad because, for purposes of
the NLRB’s disparate treatment theory, only those employees supervised by the alleged
79
discriminatee’s supervisor, who made the discharge decision on his own without consulting HR or
other managers, were “similarly situated” to the alleged discriminatee.
A subpoena may also be quashed as overbroad to the extent the subpoena on its face
requests privileged or otherwise protected information. See Cherokee Marine Terminal, 287
NLRB 1080, 1097 (1988); Harvey Aluminum, 156 NLRB 1353, 1365 (1966); and J. H. Rutter
Rex Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 473 F.2d 223 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 414 U.S. 822 (1973) (quashing
respondent subpoenas seeking the General Counsel’s entire investigative file), and the
discussion of Board agent testimony and files in § 8–440, below. See also In re Horn, 976 F.2d
1314, 1318–1319 (9th Cir. 1992) (quashing a grand jury subpoena that, “on its face . . .clearly
encompass[ed]” privileged information and placed an “unreasonable and undue burden upon the
subpoenaed witness” to justify withholding documents “which the government [knew] in advance
[were] beyond its reach”).
Note, however, that in Brink’s, Inc., above, the Board stated that the hearing officer
should not have revoked the employer’s subpoena requests for all communications between the
union and its law firm, even though “the possibility that some of this requested information would
be privileged is clear and the subpoenas should have been drafted to minimize that possibility.”
The Board stated that the hearing officer “should have conducted an in camera inspection of the
documents to determine whether any of them were subject to the attorney-client privilege.”
Accordingly, although the Board itself ultimately granted the petitions to partially revoke in their
entirety because the challenged subpoena requests were clearly overbroad in other respects as
well, the Board did so without prejudice to the employer obtaining “new subpoenas for documents
that may have been excluded improperly” because of the hearing officer’s ruling. See also the
discussion of the procedures for handling privilege claims in § 8–500, below.
Compare also NLRB v. Interstate Builders, Inc., 351 F.3d 1020, 1031 (10th Cir. 2003)
(ALJ abused his discretion in summarily revoking the bulk of a subpoena respondent served on
the union, as the subpoena was not “so overbroad so as to constitute a wholesale ‘fishing
expedition’ meriting revocation in almost every particular”).
Over-inclusive search terms. “Search terms are an important tool parties may use to
identify potentially responsive documents in cases involving substantial amounts of [electronically
stored information].” Youngevity International Corp. v. Smith, 2017 WL 6541106, *10 (S.D.
Cal. Dec. 21, 2017). However, where search terms are proposed, they should not be so common
that they will return too many records to review or digest. See, e.g., S.E.C. v. Waymack, 358
F.Supp.3d 56 (D.D.C. 2019) (court found that the SEC’s proposed search terms were over-
inclusive because they were present in every email’s signature line and ordered the SEC to “craft
search terms that are targeted to identify relevant documents”). The problem may be resolved by
“using more sophisticated search techniques, including additional filtering keywords or Boolean
operators and connectors, to winnow the results to a manageable level.” Government
Accountability Project v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 335 F.Supp.3d 7, 13 n.3 (D.D.C.
2018) (addressing issue in the context of a FOIA request). See also § 8–340, below, regarding
electronically stored information.
§ 8–330 Burdensomeness of Production
FRCP 45(d)(3)(A)(iv) provides that, on timely motion, a court “must” quash or modify a
subpoena that “subjects a person to undue burden.” The party asserting burdensomeness under
this provision must meet a high standard or burden of proof. A subpoena is not “unduly
burdensome” simply because it requires the production of a large number of documents; rather,
the party must show that production of the subpoenaed information “would seriously disrupt its
80
normal business operations.” NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, 81 F.3d 507, 513–514 (4th
Cir. 1996), cited with approval in McAllister Towing & Transportation Co., 341 NLRB 394, 397
(2004), enfd. 156 Fed. Appx. 386 (2d Cir. 2005).
Bare or general assertions that production would be seriously disruptive are insufficient.
See NLRB v. AJD, Inc., a McDonald’s Franchisee, 2015 WL 7018351 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2015)
(whether a subpoena poses an undue burden “is typically a fact-intensive inquiry [requiring] a
respondent to show that the actual costs of discovery are unreasonable in light of the particular
size of the respondent’s operations”; thus, the respondent franchisees’ general allegations that
the burden of production would be “astronomical,” that they have “virtually no” human resources
to assist in production, and that production would require “countless hours” were insufficient); and
NLRB v. Kava Holdings, Inc., 2017 WL 3841780, *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2017) (Mag. J.)
(employer’s assertion that its records were archived and that many of the people who created
them were gone, without any actual evidence of the difficulty it would face in locating and
producing responsive documents, was insufficient to establish that the records were not
reasonably available or that compliance with the Board’s subpoena would disrupt or hinder its
normal business operations), adopted 2017 WL 3841797 (C. D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017). Compare
NLRB v. Fuyao Glass America, Inc., 2017 WL 1276728, *2 (S.D. Ohio April 6, 2017) (Mag. J.)
(finding that the “knowledgeable and convincing” testimony of the employer’s HR vice president
regarding the burden of complying with the Board’s subpoena warranted narrowing the
subpoena “at least at the present time.”), adopted 2018 WL 1166628 (S.D. Ohio March 5, 2018).
The burdensomeness of production may also be grounds for revoking or limiting a
subpoena under the following balancing test set forth in FRCP 26(b)(1):
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
The following are examples of common issues that arise relating to the burden of
production. See also § 8–340, below, regarding electronically stored information.
Marginally relevant information. Where subpoenaed information is only marginally
relevant, other factors may weigh in favor of quashing the subpoena. See, e.g., Aladdin
Gaming, LLC, 345 NLRB 585, 588 (2005) (judge did not abuse his discretion in quashing the
charging party union’s subpoena given that the “marginal relevance” of the subpoenaed employer
customer-contact information did not outweigh “the substantial privacy and business interests
involved”), rev. denied 515 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008). See also NLRB v. Detroit Newspapers,
185 F.3d 602, 605 (6th Cir. 1999) (“’this court’s task is to weigh the likely relevance of the
requested material to the investigation against the burden . . . of producing the material’”) (citation
omitted).
Documents previously provided. The General Counsel may sometimes subpoena
documents for hearing, even though they were already received from the respondent during the
investigation, for purposes of authentication. See § 16–901.5, Documents Obtained From
Opposing Party, below. A stipulation as to authenticity may resolve the matter. Cf. FCA US
LLC, 8–CA–185825, unpub. Board order issued Oct. 31, 2017 (2017 WL 5000838), at 1 n. 4; and
Island Architectural Woodwork, Inc., 29–CA–124027, unpub. Board order issued August 6,
2014 (2014 WL 3867966), at 1 n. 2 (holding, with respect to investigatory subpoenas, that the
81
respondent is not required to produce the same documents it already voluntarily provided to the
General Counsel, but it must accurately describe the documents that were previously provided
and state whether those documents constitute all the documents being subpoenaed).
With respect to subpoena requests for records that are similar but not identical to those
previously provided, see NLRB v. Midwest Terminals of Toledo Intl., 2019 WL 950104,*2 (N.D.
Ohio Feb. 27, 2019) (the respondent company could not avoid the Agency’s investigative
subpoena by claiming it previously produced documents that were “nearly identical,” “functionally
equivalent,” or “substantially the same.”)
Cumulative or duplicative requests. FRCP 26(b)(2)(C)(i) states that a court “must” limit
the frequency or extent of discovery if it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be
obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.”
In McDonald’s USA, LLC, 363 NLRB No. 144, slip op. at 2 n. 2, 15–16 (2016), the Board found
that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in applying this provision, along with FRCP
45(d)(3)(A)(iv), to quash subpoenas duces tecum McDonald’s had served on several nonparties
seeking information that was materially identical to information sought in its subpoenas served on
parties.
Similarly, in Nissan North America, 15–CA–171184, unpub. Board order issued Nov. 2,
2016 (2016 WL 6562347), the Board granted a nonparty’s petition to revoke the Regional
Director’s investigative subpoena duces tecum, as the same information had been subpoenaed
from the charged parties, which did not face the potential burden described by the nonparty. The
Board did so, however, without prejudice to issuance of another subpoena to the nonparty in the
event the Regional Director determined that the information is not available from the parties. See
also *Duncan & Son Lines, 28–CA–079700, unpub. Board order issued Sept. 5, 2012 (2012 WL
3862635), at 1 n. 2 (employer was not required to produce “all” documents where the additional
documents would be cumulative or duplicative).
The mere possibility that the requested information may be available from other sources,
however, is not a basis to quash a subpoena. Bakery Workers, 21–CA–171340, unpub. Board
order issued Aug. 3, 2016 (2016 WL 4141212). In that case, the Region’s investigative subpoena
requested commerce information, and the employer argued that the Region could and should get
the information from other sources. The Board rejected the argument, stating, “[T]he possibility
that the requested information may be available from other sources is not a basis to quash a
subpoena, as the requested documents may be necessary to corroborate or supplement the
investigative file.”
Requests to compile evidence. A subpoena may require a party to search for requested
information in its possession and compile that information into document form for submission.
Bruner Corp., 9–CA–148668, unpub. Board order issued Nov. 12, 2015 (2015 WL 7074669).
For example, courts have held that, subject to the provisions of FRCP 26(b)(2) (discussed in
§ 8–340, below), a party may be required to query an existing electronic database to produce
reports in document form. See, e.g., North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Systems, Inc. v.
MultiPlan, Inc., 325 F.R.D. 36, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (“Courts regularly require parties to produce
reports from dynamic databases, holding that the technical burden of creating a new dataset for
litigation does not excuse production.”) (internal quotations omitted), and cases cited there.
Courts have also held that an employer may be required to compile requested information by
examining files or other tangible items or by interviewing supervisors and other employees. See
EEOC v. Maryland Cup Corp., 785 F.2d 471, 478–479 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 479 U.S. 815
(1986) (EEOC, like the NLRB, has authority to subpoena “any evidence” and thus could require
the company to inspect photo identification badges and interview supervisors and other
82
employees to ascertain the race of former employees); and EEOC v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc.,
985 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir. 1993) (EEOC had authority to require company to compile summaries
regarding its promotion policies by examining personnel files or interviewing employees), and
additional cases cited there.
Information regarding methodology of document search. A subpoena may require the
subpoenaed party to provide information regarding the manner or methodology of its search for
requested documents. See Starbucks Coffee Co., 1–CA–177856, unpub. Board order issued
May 19, 2017 (2017 WL 2241023), at 1 n. 1 (denying the employer’s petition to revoke the
Region’s request, in its cover letter to the subpoena, that the employer “should be prepared” to
provide information regarding the methodology of its electronic search for subpoenaed emails,
including whose email was searched, what mailboxes, folders, archives, and document
management systems were searched, and what search software and/or terms were used).
§ 8–340 Electronically Stored Information (ESI)
FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) states:
A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from
sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue
burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the
party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not
reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is
made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
26(b)(2)(C).
Rule 26(b)(2)(C) states that, on a party’s motion or on its own, a court “must” limit the frequency
or extent of discovery if: (i) the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or
can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive,” . . . or (iii) “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)”
[which, as discussed above, sets forth a balancing test]. See also FRCP 45(e)(1)(D) (containing
same provisions as 26(b)(2)(B)).
In UPMC, 366 NLRB No. 185, slip op. at 1 n. 3 (2018), the Board held that the judge did
not abuse his discretion by revoking, as unduly burdensome, the respondent’s subpoenas duces
tecum issued to the charging party union and certain current and former employees and union
organizers to the extent the subpoenas asked for all electronically stored information. The Board
held that the judge properly relied on the factors set forth in the Sedona Principles: Best
Practices, Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production,
Second Edition (June 2007). Consistent with the most recent amendments to FRCP 26, the
current, third edition of the Sedona Principles states as follows:
When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information,
courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and its state equivalents, which requires consideration of the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
83
19 Sedona Conf. J. 1, 32, 35–36, 65 (2018).
With respect to requests for production of emails, see, Healthbridge Management, LLC,
34–CA–12715, unpub. Board order issued Oct. 18, 2011 (2011 WL 4955613). In that case, the
respondent contended that the judge improperly denied its petition to revoke in part a General
Counsel subpoena seeking various communications, including emails. The respondent
contended that compliance with the subpoena would require thousands of dollars and several
months to retrieve and search email backup tapes for previously deleted emails. Granting the
appeal in part, the Board directed the respondents
to provide all responsive documents and communications available without resort
to analysis of the email backup tapes, subject to the . . . General Counsel having
the opportunity to persuade the judge that an additional search is necessary and
the Respondent having the opportunity to demonstrate that it would be unduly
burdensome.
The Board has issued similar orders in several other cases. See, e.g., Somerset Valley, 22–
CA–29599, unpub. Board order issued June 23, 2011 (2011 WL 2515543).
§ 8–350 Possession or Control
Section 102.31(a) of the Board’s Rules provides that the Board shall, on written
application of any party, issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses
and the production of any evidence “in their possession or under their control.” See also FRCP
45(a)(1)(A) (providing for issuance of subpoenas requiring production of documents in a person’s
“possession, custody, or control”). Thus, a subpoenaed person or company must produce, not
only documents in its possession, but also any documents it has “the legal right to obtain.” Clear
Channel Outdoor, Inc., 346 NLRB 696, 702 n. 10 (2006). See also Cascades Containerboard
Packaging–Niagara, 370 NLRB No. 76, slip op. at 13 (2021) (a respondent employer’s
production obligation “extends not only to information in its immediate possession, but also to
information that it could obtain from other persons or companies.”).
The subpoenaed party is required to conduct “a reasonable and diligent search” for all
such requested evidence, and to “affirmatively” advise the subpoenaing party if no responsive
evidence exists. Consolidated Waste Services Corp., 12–CA–192990, unpub. Board order
issued May 24, 2018 (2018 WL 2387581), at 1 n. 2; Winthrop Management, 29–CA–188433,
unpub. Board order issued February 8, 2018 (2018 WL 834316), at 1 n. 2; and KMAC, Inc., 18–
CA–185912, unpub. Board order issued Dec. 22, 2017 (2017 WL 6555202), at 1 n. 2.
For example, an employer has a legal right to obtain communications by its supervisors or
managers using company equipment in the course of conducting company business. Thus, as
such communications are within its control, the employer must conduct a reasonable and diligent
search for those communications and either produce the information or affirmatively represent
that the information does not exist. Consolidated Waste Services, above.
Even if a subpoenaed party does not have possession or control of subpoenaed
information, it may be required to request that information from those who do. For example, if
communications were made by an employer’s supervisors or managers using their own personal
equipment or accounts that are not within the employer’s control, the employer is required to
request the information from the supervisors and managers. If the information does not exist, or
the supervisors or managers decline to provide the information, the employer must affirmatively
represent this. Ibid.
84
An employer may likewise be required to request subpoenaed information that is not in its
possession or control from its subcontractors or vendors. Again, if the subcontractors or vendors
do not comply with the employer’s request, the employer must affirmatively represent this fact.
See KMAC, above (subcontractors); and Taylor Farms Pacific, 32–CA–116854, unpub. Board
order issued Feb. 6, 2015 (2015 WL 514108) (vendors). See also Winthrop Management,
above (documents from “persons or companies directly or indirectly employed by or connected
with” the employer); and Platinum Services Commercial Building Maintenance, Inc., 20–CA–
224943, unpub. Board order issued June 25, 2019 (2019 WL 2644153) (documents from one of
three named companies that allegedly constituted a single employer and/or alter egos, which the
other two companies asserted “no longer exists”).
As discussed in § 8-720, below, where a dispute arises over whether there has been full
compliance with a subpoena, the judge may require the subpoenaed party to describe its efforts
to comply, including whether it sought to obtain the subpoenaed documents from another person
or company. However, the burden is generally on the party subpoenaing the documents to
establish the subpoenaed party’s right to obtain the documents from another person or company.
See, e.g., U.S. v. Petroleum and Industrial Workers, 870 F.2d 1450,1452 (9th Cir. 1989); and
Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Qi Andrew, 276 F.R.D. 143, 147 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing cases).
§ 8–400 Privileged or Protected Material
As indicated in § 8-320, above, a subpoena may be quashed to the extent the subpoena,
on its face, seeks privileged material. The following sections apply where the subpoena has not
been revoked, but the subpoenaed party asserts that one or more of the documents responsive
to the subpoena contain privileged material. For additional, in-depth analyses of attorney-client
and work-product issues, see Gergacz, Attorney-Corporate Client Privilege (3d, August 2021
Update); Rice et al., Attorney-Client Privilege in the U.S. (Dec. 2021 Update); and Greenwald,
Schrantz, and Slachetka, Testimonial Privileges (3d ed. May 2021 Update).
§ 8–405 Attorney-Client Privilege
“The Board recognizes the fundamental principle that communications made in
confidence between an attorney and his or her client for the purpose of seeking and obtaining
legal advice are privileged.” Smithfield Packing Co., 344 NLRB 1, 13 (2004), enfd. 447 F.3d 821
(D.C. Cir. 2006). The Board also recognizes that the privilege protects both communications from
the attorney to the client and communications from the client to the attorney. Patrick Cudahy,
288 NLRB 968, 971 (1988), quoting Upjohn Corp. v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383, 390 (1981) (“the
privilege exists to protect not only the giving of professional advice to those who can act on it but
also the giving of information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice”).
A concise summary of the privilege is set forth in U.S. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.,
89 F. Supp. 357, 358–359 (D. Mass. 1950), which the Board cited with approval in Patrick
Cudahy:
The privilege applies only if (1) the holder of the privilege is or sought to become
a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of
the bar of a court, or his or her subordinate, and (b) in connection with this
communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of
which the attorney was informed (a) by his or her client (b) without the presence
of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law
or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for
85
the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a)
claimed and (b) not waived by the client.
The burden is on the party asserting the privilege to establish that it applies. See, e.g.,
EEOC v. BDO USA, LLP, 876 F.3d 690, 695 (5th Cir. 2017); U.S. v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 608
(9th Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Construction Products Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.), cert.
denied 519 U.S. 927 (1996); U.S. v. White, 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7th Cir. 1991); and In re Sealed
Case, 737 F.2d 94, 99 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “Ambiguities as to whether the elements of a privilege
claim have been met are construed against the proponent.” EEOC v. BDO, above. The privilege
is interpreted narrowly because otherwise the factfinder would not be presented with relevant
evidence. Ibid. But see § 8–410, below, discussing the privilege and collective-bargaining
records.
Regarding communications from the attorney to the client, courts are divided on whether
such communications are protected (1) only if they would reveal a confidential communication
from the client; (2) only if they are based in significant part on a confidential communication from
the client; or (3) irrespective of their relationship to any communications from the client. See
Wright & Miller et al., 24 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5491 (1st ed. April 2021 Update) (collecting
cases). It appears that the Board has not directly addressed this issue.
Substance of communications. The privilege applies only to testimony or evidence that
reveals the substance of communications to or from an attorney or his/her subordinate. For
example, the privilege would normally apply to communications that reveal the client’s motive in
seeking representation, litigation strategy, or the specific nature of the services provided, such as
researching particular areas of law. However, it normally would not apply to the mere existence
of an attorney-client relationship, including the identity of the client, the amount of the fee, and the
general purpose of the work performed. See Clarke v. American Commerce National Bank,
974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992), cited with approval in Benedictine Health Center, 18–CA–
196456, unpub. Board order issued Dec. 27, 2017 (2017 WL 6728886), at 1 n. 1.
The privilege also would not normally apply to the mere fact that an attorney-client
meeting or communication occurred about a general subject matter. See Rice et al., 1 Attorney-
Client Privilege in the U.S. § 6:22 (Dec. 2021 Update); Robinson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
2018 WL 1202826, *4 (S.D. Ohio March 7, 2018); and Davine v. Golub Corp., 2017 WL 517749,
*5 (D. Mass. Feb. 8, 2017), and cases cited there. See also U.S. v. Carillo, 16 F.3d 1046, 1050
(9th Cir. 1994) and Ferrand v. Schedler, 2012 WL 3016219, *6–7 (E.D. La. July 23, 2012)
(questioning opposing party witnesses about whether and when they met with and discussed
their testimony with the party attorney before testifying does not violate the attorney-client
privilege, as coaching is a proper subject of impeachment in cross-examination and such
questions do not require the witnesses to disclose the substance or content of the
communication).
Likewise, the privilege normally would not apply if the communication was not to or from
an attorney and did not reveal the attorney’s advice. Thus, in Smithfield Packing, above, the
Board held that the privilege did not apply to a supervisor’s testimony about what her managers
instructed her to do during a union campaign—notwithstanding the employer’s argument that the
instructions may have resulted from privileged communications between the manager and the
employer’s attorney—because the supervisor’s “testimony pertained only to her instructions from
her management superiors, not to any communications to or from counsel.” 344 NLRB at 12 n.
57. Compare Swartwood v. County of San Diego, 2013 WL 6670545, *9 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18,
2013) (text of email circulated among defendant county’s employees was properly redacted as
privileged because it mentioned the county’s attorney and repeated her legal advice to the
86
county); and Santrade, Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 150 F.R.D. 539, 545 (E.D. N.C. 1993) (“a
document need not be authored or addressed to an attorney in order to be properly withheld . . . .
[D]ocuments subject to the privilege may be transmitted between non-attorneys (especially
individuals involved in corporate decision-making) so that the corporation may be properly
informed of legal advice and act appropriately”).
Communications vs. facts. The privilege applies only to communications and not to facts.
Witnesses may not refuse to disclose facts within their own knowledge simply because they
incorporated those facts into a communication with their attorney. Sunland Construction Co.,
311 NLRB 685, 699–700 (1993), quoting from Upjohn, above, 449 U.S. at 396–397. Nor is
factual information privileged merely because it was uncovered by the company while conducting
an analysis at the direction of its attorney. See In re Six Grand Jury Witnesses, 979 F.2d 939,
944 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied 509 U.S. 905 (1993). See also Patrick Cudahy, above, 288
NLRB at 971 n. 13 (“It is communication between attorney and client related to the giving of legal
advice that is privileged—not simply documents that pass between them. Thus, nonprivileged
documents—e.g., ordinary corporate records such as payroll or personnel records—cannot be
swept within the privilege simply by being transmitted from client to attorney or vice versa.”).
With respect to internal reports containing factual information, see B.P. Exploration, Inc.,
337 NLRB 887, 889 (2002) (Board held that the attorney-client privilege applied to safety reports
because an attorney directed that the reports be created to provide legal advice regarding
compliance with safety regulations and handling of citations; however, the Board emphasized that
it was the reports, not the underlying information, that the union sought); and Borgess Medical
Center, 342 NLRB 1105, 1106 n. 5 (2004) (privilege did not apply to incident reports sought by
union in connection with arbitration proceeding because they were not prepared by or with
participation of attorney).
Outside vs. in-house attorneys. Consistent with at least some courts, the Board appears
to apply a rebuttable presumption that company communications with an outside attorney are for
the purpose of legal advice. See Patrick Cudahy, above, 288 NLRB at 970. In that case, the
respondent company asserted that certain documents subpoenaed by the General Counsel were
privileged communications with the law firm it had hired to assist and give legal advice regarding
contract negotiations with the union. In finding that the documents were privileged, the Board
stated, “We start from the principle that ‘a matter committed to a professional legal adviser is
prima facie so committed for the sake of legal advice . . . for some aspect of the matter, and is
therefore within the privilege unless it clearly appears to be lacking in aspects requiring legal
advice.’ 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2296 (McNaughton rev. 1961) (emphasis original).”
See also Diversified Industries v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 610 (8th Cir. 1978) (en
banc), also cited in Patrick Cudahy (“Here the matter was committed to Wilmer, Cutler &
Pickering, a professional legal adviser. Thus, it was prima facie committed for the sake of legal
advice and was, therefore, within the privilege absent a clear showing to the contrary.”); U.S. v.
Chevron Texaco Corp., 241 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1073 (N.D. Calif. 2002) (“Communications
between a client and its outside counsel are presumed to be made for the purpose of obtaining
legal advice”), citing Diversified Industries, above, and U.S. v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1501 (9th
Cir. 1996) (“If a person hires a lawyer for advice, there is a rebuttable presumption that the lawyer
is hired ‘as such’ to give ‘legal advice,’ whether the subject of the advice is criminal or civil,
business, tort, domestic relations, or anything else.”), cert. denied 520 U.S. 1167 (1997); and
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Anc Vista I, LLC, 2016 WL 3774124 (D. Nev. July 14, 2016) (same).
87
However, courts generally do not apply such a presumption to communications with an
in-house attorney, at least not where the in-house attorney also has a nonlegal position or
nonlegal responsibilities with the company. See Rice et al., 1 Attorney-Client Privilege in the
U.S. § 7:1 (Dec. 2021 Update) (“[T]he unstated operating presumption in situations involving
outside retained counsel with limited responsibilities to the client . . . does not apply to in-house
counsel because of the many nonlegal responsibilities in-house counsel assumes (whether given
a separate position and title or not).”). Courts have held that such communications are privileged
only upon a clear showing that the in-house attorney participated in a professional legal capacity.
Ibid, citing, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 737 F.2d 94, 99 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (company could shelter
former vice president/general counsel’s advice “only upon a clear showing that he gave it in a
professional legal capacity”). See also U.S. v. Chevron Texaco Corp., above, 241 F.Supp.2d at
1076; and Boca Investerings Partnership v. U.S., 31 F.Supp.2d 9, 11–12 (D.D.C. 1998). But
see In re Google, Inc., 462 Fed. Appx. 975, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (same “clear showing” must be
made even if the in-house attorney did not have distinct nonlegal responsibilities).
If a communication to or from an in-house attorney may have both a legal and a business
purpose, the courts generally apply a “primary purpose” test. As formulated by the D.C. Circuit, a
communication is protected under this test if obtaining or providing legal advice was “a primary
purpose of the communication, meaning one of the significant purposes of the communication.”
In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754, 759–760 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (rejecting the strict
“but for” test applied by the district court), cert. denied 135 S.Ct. 1163 (2015). See also Pitkin v.
Corizon Health, Inc., 2017 WL 6496565, *3–4 (D. Or. Dec. 18, 2017); and In re General Motors
LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, 80 F.Supp.3d 521, 530 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2015) (adopting and
applying the D.C. Circuit’s analysis). Thus, for example, an email will not become privileged
simply because in-house counsel was copied (cc’d) on it. See, e.g., Uban 8 Fox Lake Corp. v.
Nationwide Affordable Housing Fund 4, LLC, 334 F.R.D. 149, 161 (N.D. Ill. 2020); and
Minebea Co. v. Pabst, 228 F.R.D. 13, 21 (D.D.C. 2005). See also Slocum v. International
Paper Co., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2021 WL 5861499, *4 (E.D. La. June 28, 2021).
For a Board case involving communications with in-house counsel, see Adams &
Associates, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 193 (2016), enfd. 871 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2017). An issue in that
case was whether the respondent company was motivated by union animus in failing to hire
several of its predecessor’s employees. The ALJ found that it was, based in part on an email that
the company’s CEO had sent to two company HR executives, and other communications
between the HR executives, indicating the CEO’s displeasure that the transition team had failed
to avoid a successorship bargaining obligation with the union. Although both HR executives were
attorneys and one had a dual role as the company’s general counsel, after reviewing the
communications in camera the ALJ ruled that the communications were not privileged because
they pertained principally to human resources or labor relations and not to legal advice. The
Board affirmed the ALJ (see nn. 5 and 15 of the Board’s opinion), and the court likewise agreed
with the ALJ’s determination after independently reviewing the communications (871 F.3d at 370
n. 3).
See also National Football League, 309 NLRB 78, 97 (1992). A primary issue in that
case was whether the NFL unlawfully discriminated against strikers by requiring them to report to
work by Wednesday to be eligible to play the following weekend. In an effort to prove unlawful
motivation, the General Counsel subpoenaed the minutes or notes taken by the Management
Council’s general counsel/assistant executive director, James Conway, at strike-strategy
meetings. The Management Council moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that Conway’s
notes were privileged. However, after reviewing the notes in camera, the judge denied the
motion, finding that the notes primarily reflected discussions of purely business matters, did not
include Conway’s mental impressions, and were taken as part of Conway’s administrative
88
functions as assistant executive director rather than as general counsel. The Management
Council filed a special appeal of the judge’s ruling, but the Board denied it.
Current and former employees. Another potential issue involves whether communications
between an employer’s attorney and a current or former employee of the employer constitute
privileged attorney-client communications. The Supreme Court in Upjohn, above, held that the
privilege applies to communications from corporate employees to the corporation’s attorneys,
regardless of the employee’s corporate position, if “the communications concerned matters within
the scope of the employees’ corporate duties, and the employees themselves were sufficiently
aware that they were being questioned in order that the corporation could obtain legal advice.”
449 U.S. at 394. Lower courts have since held that the privilege also extends to former
employees, provided the communication relates to the former employee’s conduct and
knowledge gained during employment and is relevant and necessary for the attorney to provide
advice to the corporation. See In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 605–606 (4th Cir. 1997); Admiral
Insurance Co. v. U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, 881 F.2d 1486, 1493 n. 6 (9th
Cir. 1989); MF Global Holdings Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 232 F.Supp.3d 558,
569 (S.D. N.Y. 2017); and Hanover Insurance Co. v. Plaquenmines Parish Government, 304
F.R.D. 494, 498 (E.D. La. 2015), and cases cited there.
Note that the Board has established certain safeguards in situations where an employer’s
attorney (or other agent) interviews current employees regarding protected activity in preparation
for an unfair labor practice hearing. In such circumstances, the employer’s attorney must
communicate to the employees the purpose of the questioning, assure the employees that no
reprisal will be taken against them, and obtain the employees’ participation on a voluntary basis.
See Albertson’s, LLC, 359 NLRB 1341, 1342–1344 (2013), reaffd. 364 NLRB No. 71, slip op. at
1 n. 2 (2014), applying Johnnie’s Poultry Co., 146 NLRB 770, 774–775 (1964), enf. denied 344
F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1965).
Charging parties and alleged discriminatees. Communications between individual
charging parties or alleged discriminatees and the General Counsel may constitute privileged
attorney-client communications on the ground that the GC is their “de facto” attorney. See, e.g.,
Donovan v. Teamsters Local 25, 103 F.R.D. 550 (D. Mass. 1984) (rejecting the defendant
union’s contention that the complaining witness in an action by the Department of Labor against
the union under the LMRDA was not a true client of DOL’s legal staff, as his sole legal recourse
was through DOL and he accepted DOL’s legal staff as his own lawyers in the case).
Alternatively, the communications may be protected from disclosure under the “common interest”
doctrine. See, e.g., U.S. v. Gumbaytay, 276 F.R.D. 671 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (attorney-client
privilege protected communications between alleged victims of housing discrimination and
government counsel who brought the discrimination action against the defendant on their behalf
under the Fair Housing Act, as the alleged victims and the government had a common legal
interest). See also § 8–415, Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege, below, for a further discussion of
the common interest doctrine.
Grievants. “It is well established, as a matter of law, that an attorney handling a labor
grievance on behalf of a union does not enter into an ‘attorney-client’ relationship with the union
member asserting the grievance.” Gwin v. National Marine Engineers Beneficial Assoc., 966
F.Supp. 4, 7 (D.D.C. 1997), affd. per curiam 159 F.3d 636 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Nevertheless,
communications between a grievant and the union’s attorney may be protected from disclosure
under the “de facto” attorney or “common interest” doctrines discussed above. See also Cook
Paint and Varnish Co., 258 NLRB 1230 (1981) (employer violated 8(a)(1) by demanding, prior to
an arbitration hearing over an employee’s discharge, that the union steward disclose the
substance of his conversations with the discharged employee and to produce his notes about the
89
matter, as the union steward had the conversations with the employee and took the notes in his
representational capacity, and compelling disclosure would “manifestly restrain[] employees in
their willingness to candidly discuss matters with their chosen, statutory representatives”); and
Bell v. Village of Streamwood, 806 F.Supp.2d 1052 (N. D. Ill. 2011) (finding that a union
representative’s role in disciplinary proceedings is “not unlike that of an attorney,” and that an
“employee-union representative privilege” should therefore be recognized and applied with
respect to communications between a union representative and a union member in such
proceedings to the same extent and with the same limitations as the attorney-client privilege).
With respect to communications between employees and their union other than during the
course of grievance/disciplinary proceedings, see §§ 8–455 (identity of union supporters) and
8–460 (collective-bargaining information), below.
§ 8–410 The Privilege and Collective-Bargaining and Business Records
Citing “labor law policy reasons,” the Board in Patrick Cudahy, 288 NLRB 968, 971
(1988), indicated that it would apply the attorney-client privilege broadly to communications
relating to collective-bargaining. The Board recognized that “the process of collective bargaining
invites the contribution of legal advice at all of its stages,” and that “labor attorneys often advise
an employer or a union in contract negotiations and may even serve as the party’s chief
negotiators.” It also noted that “if collective bargaining is to work, the parties must be able to
formulate their positions and devise their strategies without fear of exposure” (quoting Berbiglia,
Inc., 233 NLRB 1476, 1495 (1977)). It therefore held that, “when the legal advice relates to
collective bargaining, we will not readily and broadly exclude attorney-client communications from
the privilege on the ground that business and economic considerations are also present.” See
also Taylor Lumber & Treating, Inc., 326 NLRB 1298 n. 2 (1998) (holding that the privilege
applied to confidential communications between respondent’s chief negotiator and members of
respondent’s management control group because he was also engaged by respondent to provide
legal services in connection with other employment relations matters).
However, as indicated in § 8–405, above, the Board in Patrick Cudahy made clear that
“nonprivileged documents—e.g., ordinary corporate records such as payroll or personnel
records—cannot be swept within the privilege simply by being transmitted from client to attorney
or vice versa.” 288 NLRB at 971 n. 13.
Further, the Board did not address whether notes of exchanges in bargaining sessions
with other parties are protected if they are not intermingled with privileged communications. Ibid
(“We are not considering notes recording the exchanges in a bargaining session with other
parties except in one instance where such notes are intermingled with privileged
communications.”). For cases addressing this issue see § 8–460, Collective Bargaining
Information, below.
Finally, the Board emphasized that the analysis may be different in other, non-collective-
bargaining situations. See 288 NLRB at 971 n. 12 (“In cases involving other types of unfair labor
practices, when policy considerations such as those noted here are not involved, the analysis of
the relationship of legal advice to business decisions and actions may be different and it may not
necessarily result in as broad an application of the privilege as here.”) For example, a narrower
or stricter analysis typically applied by the courts may be warranted in 8(a)(3) cases where the
communication relates to an employer’s antiunion campaign strategy rather than legal advice.
See, e.g., Adams & Associates, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 193 (2016), enfd. 871 F.3d 358 (5th Cir.
2017); and National Football League, 309 NLRB 78, 97 (1992), discussed in § 8–405, above.
See also Humphreys, Hutcheson & Moseley v. Donovan, 568 F.Supp. 161, 175 (M.D. Tenn.
90
1983) (privilege was not applicable to communications between attorney and company where
attorney acted as a labor consultant to persuade the company’s employees to reject the union,
rather than as a lawyer), affd. 755 F.2d 1211 (6th Cir. 1985).
§ 8–415 Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
Generally, disclosing a privileged communication to a third person who is not acting as an
agent of either the client or the client’s attorney waives the privilege. U.S. v. Evans, 113 F.3d
1457, 1462 (7th Cir. 1997).
In the corporate or organizational context, waiver may occur if dissemination of the
communication was not limited to those with a reasonable need to know its contents, or if the
corporation or organization failed to take steps to preserve confidentiality. See Gergacz,
Attorney-Corporate Client Privilege § 5:48 (3d, Aug. 2021 Update), and cases cited there at n.
2; and Greenwald, Schrantz, and Slachetka, 1 Testimonial Privileges § 1:83 (3d ed. May
2021 Update), and cases cited there at n. 7. See also, with respect to communications in the
presence of union officers or members, Jenkins v. Bartlett, 487 F.3d 482, 490–491 (7th Cir.
2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1039 (2007) (presence of a union officer during the conversations
between an employee and the attorney appointed by the union to represent the employee did not
waive the privilege as the union officer was present to assist the attorney), and Miller v. York
Risk Services Group, 2014 WL 11514550, *3 (D. Ariz. July 22, 2014) (presence of at least five
union members who were not plaintiffs at a pre-litigation union meeting with plaintiffs’ counsel
waived the privilege).
For a waiver to occur, however, the substance of the privileged communication must have
been disclosed to the third person. See Western United Life Assurance Co. v. Fifth Third
Bank, 2004 WL 2583916, *4 (N. D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2004) (disclosure of the mere fact that a
conversation between attorney and client occurred and the topic of the conversation did not
disclose any privileged information and therefore did not constitute a waiver).
Further, courts have recognized a so-called “common interest” or “joint defense” exception
to waiver where the disclosure was made in confidence to a third person having a common legal
interest in furtherance of that interest. See Parts Depot, Inc., 332 NLRB 670, 677 (2000), enfd.
24 Fed. Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2001), and NLRB v. Jackson Hospital Corp., 257 F.R.D. 302, 312–
313 (D.D.C. 2009) (doctrine applies to communications between the charging party union and the
General Counsel). See also Schaeffler v. U.S., 806 F.3d 34, 40–41 (2d Cir. 2015); and U.S. v.
BDO Seidman, LLP, 492 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1242 (2008).
With respect to intentional and unintentional disclosures in a federal proceeding or to a
federal agency, see FRE 502, which is discussed more fully in § 16-502, below.
Once waived, the attorney-client privilege is lost in all forums for proceedings running
concurrent with or after the waiver occurs. See Wal-Mart Stores, 348 NLRB 833, 834 (2006). In
that case, the Board held that the respondent’s production of subpoenaed documents in a state
court proceeding constituted a waiver in the Board proceeding, even though the waiver came
after the hearing closed and while the case was pending before the Board on the General
Counsel’s exceptions to the ALJ’s decision. The Board therefore remanded the case to the ALJ
to reopen the record to receive and evaluate the evidence.
91
§ 8–420 Crime/Fraud Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege
Attorney-client communications in furtherance of crimes or frauds are not protected by the
attorney-client privilege. A sufficient showing of the applicability of the crime/fraud exception is
made by evidence that, if believed, would prima facie establish the elements of an ongoing or
future crime or fraud. See, e.g., Smithfield Packing Co., 344 NLRB 1, 14 n. 60 (2004), enfd. 447
F.3d 821 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
The Board has declined to apply the crime/fraud exception to attorney-client
communications in furtherance of unfair labor practices. Patrick Cudahy, Inc., 288 NLRB 968,
972–974 (1988).
However, in Smithfield Packing, above, the Board held that the crime/fraud exception
applied to otherwise privileged communications regarding the preparation of false affidavits about
alleged unfair labor practices. In that case, a former manager for the respondent was called by
the General Counsel to testify about the reasons why two employees were terminated. On cross-
examination, the respondent introduced affidavits the manager had previously provided to its
attorney that contradicted her testimony. The manager acknowledged signing the affidavits under
penalty of perjury but testified that they were untrue. After further exchanges, the judge asked the
manager if she was aware that the affidavits were false when she signed them. She replied that
she was. The judge then asked if there were any communications between her and the
respondent’s attorney at the time indicating that the attorney was aware the affidavits were
untrue. She replied that the attorney was aware of the false statements; that she told him they
were incorrect, but he said she needed to make the statements as they appeared. She also
testified that the final copies of the affidavits prepared by the attorney included statements that
she never made.
Affirming the judge, the Board found that the communications between the manager and
respondent’s attorney were within the crime/fraud exception because “even assuming” they were
privileged, “[the manager’s] credited testimony indicates that the communications pertained to the
alleged preparation of false affidavits and therefore involved the alleged future commission of one
or more . . . crimes” (perjury, subornation of perjury, and knowing introduction of false statements
of material fact). In support, the Board cited White v. American Airlines, 915 F.2d 1414, 1423–
1424 (10th Cir. 1990) (applying crime/fraud exception under Oklahoma law to the employer’s
outside counsel’s request that employee commit perjury in deposition). 344 NLRB at 13–14.
The Board also rejected respondent’s contention that the judge should have considered
the evidence “in camera” before permitting the manager’s testimony on the record. The Board
noted that the assertedly privileged evidence was testimony rather than documents and the finder
of fact was a judge rather than a jury. Id. at n. 60. See also § 8-520, In Camera Inspection,
below.
§ 8–425 Duration of Attorney-Client Privilege
In Swidler & Berlin v. U.S., 524 U.S. 399 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the
attorney-client privilege survives the death of a client. “The weight of authority, however, holds
that a dissolved or defunct corporation retains no privilege.” SEC v. Carrillo Huettel LLP, 2015
WL 1610282 (S.D. NY. April 8, 2015) (citing cases).
92
§ 8–430 Work Product Doctrine
The work-product doctrine protects documents and tangible things prepared in
anticipation of litigation by or for a party representative, regardless of whether the representative
is an attorney. It was first recognized in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947), and is
now codified in FRCP 26(b)(3) (Trial Preparation: Materials).
The burden is on the party asserting the work product doctrine to establish that it applies.
Public Service Co. of New Mexico, 364 NLRB No. 86, slip op. at 3 (2016). Specifically, the
party must show that the materials were prepared or obtained because of the prospect of
litigation, rather than in the ordinary course of business, i.e., they would not have been prepared
but for the “fairly foreseeable” prospect of litigation. See Central Telephone Company of Texas,
343 NLRB 987, 988 (2004) (finding that the privilege applied, and that the union was not entitled
to notes taken by the respondent’s HR specialist while investigating alleged misconduct that later
became the subject of a grievance, as the investigation was directed by in-house counsel,
respondent did not ordinarily conduct such an extensive investigation, and its fear of litigation was
“objectively reasonable” even though no litigation had been initiated and the employees had not
yet been disciplined when the notes were prepared).
With respect to whether witness statements or affidavits constitute protected work
product, there appears to be a split among the courts regarding both unsigned draft affidavits and
signed affidavits. The majority or more recent view appears to be that an unsigned draft
statement or affidavit is protected work product, but a signed statement or affidavit is not and
must therefore be produced on request even before the witness testifies. See Innovation
Ventures, LLC v. Aspen Fitness Products, Inc., 2014 WL 2763645, *3 (E.D. Mich. June 18,
2014) (unsigned draft affidavits): and Diaz v. Devlin, 327 F.R.D. 26, 29–32 (D. Mass. Aug. 28,
2018) (signed affidavits). But see Bell v. Lackawanna County, 892 F.Supp.2d 647, 661 (M.D.
Pa. 2012) (distinguishing between signed third-party affidavits and signed party affidavits, holding
that the latter constitute protected work product). However, a signed statement or affidavit may
be protected from disclosure before the witness testifies for other reasons. See §§ 8–445 and
16–613.1, below, regarding Jencks Statements.
Note that FRCP 26(b)(3)(A)(ii) provides for an exception upon a party’s showing that it has
“a substantial need for the materials” and “cannot, without undue hardship obtain their substantial
equivalent by other means.” For cases applying this exception, see Central Telephone
Company of Texas, above (union failed to meet its burden with respect to the respondent’s
investigative notes as the respondent had provided the union with witness statements and the
union was able to conduct its own witness interviews); and Marian Manor for the Aged and
Infirm, Inc., 333 NLRB 1084 (2001) (employer seeking copy of responses to union’s survey of
employer’s nursing staff regarding supervisory indicia failed to show that it was unable to obtain
the equivalent information by other means, including conducting its own survey of employees).
See also Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 339 NLRB 829 (2003) (respondent failed to
show substantial need for a copy of the position statement submitted by the charging party to the
General Counsel in support of its charge during the investigation).
However, even if the exception is found to apply and trial preparation materials within the
privilege are ordered disclosed, Rule 26(b)(3)(B) requires protection against disclosure of the
“mental impressions, conclusion, opinions, or legal theories of a parties’ attorney or other
representative concerning the litigation.” Central Telephone Company of Texas, above, 343
NLRB at 998.
93
§ 8–435 Waiver of Work Product Protection
For a Board case addressing waiver of work product protection, see Ralphs Grocery Co.,
352 NLRB 128, 129 (2008), reaffd. 355 NLRB 1279 (2010) (limited waiver respondent executed
in a federal criminal proceeding did not waive work product protection as to certain audit
information as there was no evidence that the audit information was requested or inquired into by
the U.S. Attorney).
With respect to position statements, compare Kaiser Aluminum, above (charging party
does not waive work product protection by giving position statement to the General Counsel); with
Evergreen America Corp., 348 NLRB 178, 187 (2006) (contrary rule applies where respondent
submits position statement to the General Counsel). See also § 16–801.3, Admission or
Statement by Opposing Party.
As indicated by Kaiser Aluminum and Evergreen America, whether the distribution or
disclosure of a document to third parties waives the protection may turn on whether the third party
shares a common interest. Unlike with attorney-client communications, however, the common
interest need not be a common legal interest. See § 8–415, Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege,
above. This is because there is no waiver of work product protection unless the third party was
an adversary or the document was shared or disclosed in a manner that would materially
increase the likelihood of disclosure to an adversary. See Miller UK Ltd. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 17
F.Supp.3d 711, 735–736 (N.D. Ill. 2014); and Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais
(Suisse) S.A., 160 F.R.D. 437, 448 (S.D. N.Y. 1995). Thus, disclosure of work product to a third
party that shares a business interest normally will not result in waiver. See Miller UK Ltd.,
above; Pecover v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 2011 WL 6020412 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2011); and Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 441, 447 (S.D. N.Y. 2004), and cases
cited there.
For a discussion of waiver of work-product protection as a result of intentional and
inadvertent disclosures in a federal proceeding or to a federal agency, see FRE 502, which is
discussed in §16–502, below.
§ 8–440 Board Agent Testimony and Files
A respondent may not subpoena and obtain documents in the Regional Office’s
investigative files without the written consent of the General Counsel. See Section 102.118(a) of
the Board’s Rules, which states that, except as provided under the Board’s Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) regulations (Sec. 102.117(a)–(c)), no person employed by the Agency or
acting on its behalf shall produce or present files, reports, or records under the control of the
Board or General Counsel in any legal proceeding, whether in response to a subpoena or
otherwise, without the written consent of the Board or its Chairman (if the documents are in
Washington, D.C. and in the Board’s control), or the written consent of the GC (if the documents
are in a Regional Office or in Washington, D.C. under the GC’s control).
The Board has held that a respondent likewise may not “circumvent this rule by
subpoenaing material from a party that it could not obtain from the General Counsel.” Logmet,
LLC, 9-CA-247369, unpub. Board order issued April 26, 2021 (2021 WL 1814994), at 2. In that
case, the respondent served virtually identical subpoenas duces tecum on both the Regional
Director and the charging party union seeking a variety of materials that “support and/or
evidence” the complaint allegations. The ALJ quashed both subpoenas to the extent they sought
production of prehearing affidavits before the witness had testified, citing H.B. Zachry, 310 NLRB
1037 (1993) (discussed in § 8–445 below regarding Jencks statements). However, the ALJ
94
required the GC and the union to produce a variety of other subpoenaed materials, including
correspondence, emails, text messages, and recordings, provided the materials did not disclose
the identity of employees or their identifying information was redacted prior to production and the
materials were not claimed to be privileged. Both the GC and the union thereafter filed special
appeals and the Board reversed the ALJ’s order to the extent it required production of these
materials. Citing Rule 102.118(a) and H.B. Zachry, the Board held that, absent the GC’s
consent, neither the GC nor the union could be required to produce any of the subpoenaed
materials. Accordingly, the Board directed that the subpoenas be revoked.
Pursuant to Section 102.118(b), the GC’s written consent must also be given for a
respondent or other party to subpoena an Agency employee or agent to testify. See also Laidlaw
Transit, Inc., 327 NLRB 315, 316 (1998) (“[T]o avoid the appearance of partiality, the Board has
a strong and longstanding policy against Board employees appearing as witnesses in Board
proceedings. Special application must be made to the General Counsel in order for a Board agent
to take the stand.”); and Sunol Valley Golf Co., 305 NLRB 493, 495 (1991) (Board “balanc[ed]
the policy reasons for not involving Board employees as witnesses in Board litigation against the
Respondent’s mere speculation” about what the Board field examiner may have done, found that
“the balance weigh[ed] against requiring the agent to testify,” and therefore quashed the
respondent’s subpoenas), supplemented by 310 NLRB 357, 365, 368 nn. 7 and 8 (1993), enfd.
48 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 1995). See also § 16–611.5, Failure to Call Witness: Adverse Inference,
below.
The failure of the party serving the subpoena to seek and obtain written consent under
Section 102.118 is grounds for revoking or quashing the subpoena. See, e.g., Howard Johnson
Co., 250 NLRB 1412 n. 2 (1980), enfd. mem. 671 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir. 1982); and J.C. Penney
Co., 205 NLRB 1043, 1044 (1973), enfd. mem. 493 F.2d 1400 (3d Cir. 1974).
§ 8–445 Jencks Statements
A Jencks “statement” or affidavit given by a potential witness to the General Counsel is
not subject to production by subpoena in advance of the hearing. The Board’s longstanding rule
is that such statements or affidavits are producible only after the witness has testified and for use
on cross-examination of the witness. See Sec. 102.118(e) of the Board’s Rules; and Wendt
Corp., 369 NLRB No. 135, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2020) (citing cases).
This is true even if a copy of the statement was previously provided to the charging party
union. See H. B. Zachry Co., 310 NLRB 1037, 1037–1038 (1993) (quashing the respondent
employer’s subpoena on the union to the extent it requested affidavits of non-testifying job
applicants/alleged discriminatees in its possession that were taken by the General Counsel
during the investigation of the case), citing NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214,
236–242 (1978) (prehearing disclosure of statements given to the Board during the investigation
by potential witnesses “would interfere with enforcement proceedings” within the meaning of
exemption 7(A) of FOIA, given the danger of witness intimidation or harassment, the risk that
potential witnesses will be reluctant to give statements absent assurances against disclosure
unless called to testify, and the possibility that the respondent could construct defenses to the
alleged violations).
For the origin of the rule, see Jencks v. U.S., 353 U.S. 657, 662 (1957). See also
§ 16–613.1, Jencks Statements, below, for a more detailed discussion of such statements.
95
§ 8–450 Audio/Video Recordings
An audio or video recording of a conversation or incident is not a Jencks “statement”
subject to Section 102.118(e) of the Board’s Rules because it is “not a description of a past
event” but part of the substantive event itself. See Leisure Knoll Assn., 327 NLRB 470 n. 1
(1999) (tape recordings and transcripts of conversations between a supervisor and an employee);
and Dickens, Inc., 355 NLRB 255 n. 7 (2010) (tape recordings of incidents occurring in the
employer’s facility), citing with approval Delta Mechanical, Inc., 323 NLRB 76, 77 (1997).
However, such recordings may be subject to production pursuant to a subpoena. If the
recording is in the sole possession of the General Counsel, a written request must be made
pursuant to Section 102.118(a). See Gallup, Inc., 349 NLRB 1213, 1218 (2007). In that case,
the respondent served a subpoena for any recordings on the alleged discriminatee (Snyder), but
he did not produce a recording because he had given it to the GC during the investigation. The
GC also refused to produce the recording pursuant to either the respondent’s subpoena on
Snyder or the Jencks rule (as the recordings were not “statements” under that rule). The judge
ruled that production was required pursuant to the subpoena, stating that to do otherwise “would
permit a party to hide evidence, in advance of any subpoena, by depositing it with his lawyer,”
and that requiring respondent to serve the GC with a subpoena and file a 102.118(a) request
would be “nothing more than an exercise in wasting time.” On special appeal, however, the
Board reversed and held that the respondent was required to request the GC's consent to
produce the recording under Section 102.118(a). See also § 8–440, Board Agent Testimony and
Files, above.
For a discussion of the admissibility and authentication of recordings in NLRB
proceedings, see § 16–402.7 and § 16–901.2, below.
§ 8–455 Identity of Union Supporters (Authorization Cards)
A respondent may not obtain copies of union authorization cards by subpoena. The
identity of card signers is deemed confidential and disclosure would have a “potential chilling
effect” on union activity. National Telephone Directory Corp., 319 NLRB 420, 421–422 (1995)
(judge erred in ordering production of the names of employees who signed authorization cards
and attended union meetings, as the confidentiality interests of such employees outweighed
respondent’s need to obtain their identity for cross-examination and credibility impeachment
purposes and could only be waived by the employees themselves).
See also Chino Valley Medical Center, 362 NLRB 283 n. 1 (2015) (employer violated
8(a)(1) by issuing subpoenas duces tecum to employees encompassing communications
between employees and the union, union authorization and membership cards, and all
documents relating to the distribution and/or solicitation of union authorization cards), enfd. sub
nom. United Nurses Associations of California v. NLRB, 871 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2017);
Guess?, Inc., 339 NLRB 432 (2003) (employer violated 8(a)(1) by asking an employee during a
deposition in a workers’ compensation case to reveal the identities of other employees who
attended union meetings); and Wright Electric, Inc., 327 NLRB 1194 (1999) (employer violated
8(a)(1) by subpoenaing employee authorization cards in a state court lawsuit), enfd. 200 F.3d.
1162, 1167 (8th Cir. 2000).
The Board has applied the same rule to other types of materials that might reveal
protected employee conduct. See Sheraton Anchorage, 19-CA-32148 et al., unpub. Board
order issued January 21, 2011 (granting the union’s special appeal and quashing a respondent
subpoena that sought all forms indicating that employees wanted continued representation by the
96
union, notwithstanding that the General Counsel had introduced a few of them for impeachment
purposes); and Trump Ruffin Commercial, LLC, 28–RC–153650, unpub. Board order issued
July 28, 2016 (2016 WL 4036983) (Board affirmed hearing officer’s ruling revoking the employer’s
subpoena requesting “any and all photographs or records” in the petitioning union’s possession
relating to the employer’s election objections as production of such materials “could expose
employee conduct protected by Section 7 of the Act that the Employer could not lawfully have
photographed itself,” and the material was “not probative of [the Employer’s] specific objections”
to the election).
Note that the D.C. Circuit has generally upheld the Board’s protection of such materials.
See Veritas Health Services, Inc. v. NLRB, 671 F.3d 1267, 1274 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citing
National Telephone in holding that the ALJ did not abuse her discretion in redacting some
documents and limiting certain testimony to protect the names of registered nurses who had
contacted the union).
§ 8–460 Collective-Bargaining Information
Communications between the union and employees. The Board has held that employer
subpoenas broadly requesting a union’s records, including communications between the union
and its members, are properly revoked to protect the bargaining process. See Berbiglia, Inc.,
233 NLRB 1476, 1495 (1977). In that case, the General Counsel alleged that the respondent
employer had violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by failing to properly reinstate employees
following an unfair labor practice strike. Hoping to show that the strike, which occurred following
failed contract negotiations, was an economic rather than unfair labor practice strike, the
employer served a subpoena duces tecum on the union seeking a wide-ranging examination of
the union’s records, including communications between the union and its members and with other
unions, persons, associations or organizations in correspondence or in meetings, that related to
or tended to show the reasons for a strike. The ALJ, however, revoked the subpoena, stating:
[R]equiring the Union to open its files to Respondent would be inconsistent with
and subversive of the very essence of collective bargaining and the quasi-
fiduciary relationship between a union and its members. If collective bargaining is
to work, the parties must be able to formulate their positions and devise their
strategies without fear of exposure.
The employer thereafter filed exceptions, but the Board summarily affirmed the ALJ’s rulings.
Note, however, that courts have generally declined to recognize a broad “union relations”
privilege covering communications between union members and their union other than during the
course of disciplinary proceedings. See Hernandez v. Office of the Commissioner of
Baseball, 331 F.R.D. 474, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (requiring plaintiff in Title VII action to produce
subpoenaed communications between him and his union as there were no disciplinary
proceedings instituted against him), and cases cited there. Compare cases involving
communications between grievants and their union discussed in § 8–405, above.
For example, in Ozark Automotive Distributors, Inc. v. NLRB, the D.C. Circuit held that
the hearing officer in a postelection proceeding involving the employer’s election objections
improperly revoked the employer’s subpoena to the extent it sought communications between
certain prounion employees and the union. The court held that because the subpoenaed
communications were relevant to the employer’s case (i.e., to whether the employees had actual
or apparent authority to act on the union’s behalf) and to the credibility of an employee witness for
the union, the hearing officer should not have revoked the subpoena in its entirety. Rather, she
97
should have required production of responsive information that did not infringe on any
confidentiality interests under National Telephone (such as the mere date and time of calls
between the union and the employee) and should have conducted an in camera review to
determine if other responsive information that might infringe on employee confidentiality interests
outweighed the employer’s interests or to narrow the scope of the subpoena. 779 F.3d 576, 581–
582 (D.C. Cir. 2015), denying enf. and remanding 357 NLRB 1041 (2011). See also Veritas
Health Services, Inc. v. NLRB, 895 F.3d 69, 81 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (Ozark found that quashing the
subpoena was an abuse of discretion “because the missing evidence prejudiced a critical element
of that case”).
Bargaining notes and summaries. Parties frequently offer their own bargaining notes into
evidence to support their respective positions regarding what occurred during negotiations. See,
e.g., Hilton Anchorage, 370 NLRB No. 83 (2021); and First Hospital Wyoming Valley, 370
NLRB No. 17 (2020). See also the cases cited in § 16–803.1 and 16–803.6, below, regarding the
hearsay exceptions for present sense impressions and records of regularly conducted activity.
However, following Berbiglia, the Board has limited the ability of employers and unions to
subpoena or request each other’s bargaining notes and summaries. See Champ Corp., 291
NLRB 803, 817–818 (1988) (revoking employer’s subpoena that broadly sought all union notes,
memoranda, transcripts, records or other writings describing or recording collective-bargaining
negotiation sessions between the parties to show that a strike was not prolonged by the
employer’s alleged unfair labor practices), enfd. without addressing the subpoena issue 933 F.2d
688 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 957 (1991); and Stericycle, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 89,
slip op. at 1 nn. 5 and 6 (2021) (employer lawfully refused to provide the union with requested
bargaining notes regarding certain provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement, as Berbiglia
“support[s] the proposition that bargaining notes are generally privileged,” and “it is irrelevant
whether an employer or a union requests or subpoenas the bargaining notes.”). See also Boise
Cascade Corp., 279 NLRB 422, 432 (1986), where the ALJ found that the employer lawfully
refused to comply with the union’s request for a report that included a historical overview of the
employer’s negotiations with the union and the employer’s negotiating strategy, as “[a] proper
bargaining relationship between the parties mandates that [the employer] be able to confidentially
evaluate possible interpretations of the existing labor agreement and . . . to plan in confidence a
strategy for altering or changing” a particular program). Although no exceptions were filed to the
ALJ’s finding, the Board later cited that finding as support for its decision in Stericycle, above.
Note again, however, that this view appears not to have been embraced by the courts.
See Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, N.V. v. Fairbanks Joint Crafts Council, AFL-CIO,
2019 WL 2579627 (D. Alaska June 23, 2019) (declining, in a proceeding to determine pension
obligations under a collective-bargaining agreement, to recognize a “labor relations privilege”
and ordering the respondent union to produce notes and correspondence from its bargaining
files that it had redacted or withheld from the employer), and other court cases cited there.
As discussed in § 8–410, above, the Board has also applied Berbiglia in quashing a
General Counsel subpoena to the extent it sought collective-bargaining information the
respondent asserted was protected by the attorney-client privilege, including bargaining notes
that were intermingled with such privileged communications. See Patrick Cudahy, Inc., 288
NLRB 968, 969–971 (1988). However, courts have ordered disclosure of collective-bargaining
information to the GC where no attorney-client privilege was asserted, holding that any
concerns about maintaining confidentiality could be addressed by a protective order. See
NLRB v. SEIU Local 521, 2008 WL 152176 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2008) (court enforced GC
investigative subpoena notwithstanding that the subpoenaed documents might incidentally
contain information about the respondents’ bargaining strategies, distinguishing Berbiglia and
98
Champ on the ground that they involved employer subpoenas, the respondents had failed to
explain or demonstrate how negotiations would be compromised if such information were
disclosed to the Board, and any confidentiality concerns could be addressed by a protective
order); and NLRB v. Jackson Hospital Corp., 257 F.R.D. 302 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing SEIU Local
521, the special master in a contempt proceeding rejected the respondent employer’s assertion
that it was privileged to withhold from the GC documents revealing bargaining strategy, and
ordered the respondent to produce the subpoenaed documents to the GC subject to a
protective order prohibiting disclosure of the bargaining-strategy information to the union).
With respect to whether the General Counsel in an 8(a)(5) or 8(b)(3) refusal-to-provide-
information case may subpoena the same information that the respondent employer or union
allegedly refused to provide, see Electrical Energy Services, 288 NLRB 925, 931 (1988) (GC’s
hearing subpoena seeking each and every document the respondent employer had allegedly
unlawfully refused to provide to the union was “improper” and “an abuse of the subpoena power”).
Compare Cascades Containerboard Packaging–Niagara, 370 NLRB No. 76, slip op. at 12 n.
19 (2021) (distinguishing Electrical Energy Services and denying respondent’s petition to revoke
the GC’s subpoena where the subpoenaed information was relevant to the complaint allegations
that the respondent discriminatorily and unilaterally reduced employees’ profit sharing payments
in violation of Sec. 8(a)(3) and (5) of the Act).
§ 8–465 Mediator’s Privilege
A party may not compel a mediator to testify in Board proceedings. Success Village
Apartments, Inc., 347 NLRB 1065 (2006). Thus, a subpoena requiring a mediator to testify must
be quashed.
§ 8–470 Reporter’s Privilege
Consistent with many courts that have addressed the issue, the Board recognizes a
“qualified” privilege for reporters or journalists which balances the need for the subpoenaed
information against the interests favoring nondisclosure. See M. J. Mechanical Services, 324
NLRB 812, 832 (1997) (granting reporter’s petition to revoke the respondent’s subpoena duces
tecum seeking his notes and records relating to an article on the union’s salting campaign at the
respondent’s work sites, as the remarks attributed to the persons in the article were either
substantially admitted or not particularly relevant, the subpoena appeared to be simply a “fishing
expedition” for any other unpublished statements that might help respondent’s defense, and the
respondent’s need for the information therefore did not overcome the qualified reporter’s
privilege), enfd. mem. 172 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 1998); and Valley Camp Coal Co., 265 NLRB
1683 (1982) (denying newspaper editor’s petition to revoke the General Counsel’s subpoena ad
testificandum seeking her testimony regarding certain statements she had attributed to the
respondent’s owner explaining his decision to close a mine, as there was no absolute reporter’s
privilege not to appear and testify in a judicial proceeding, the subject article did not involve a
confidential source, there was no other non-media source for the information, and the
respondent’s owner denied the statement attributed to him in the article, so the GC could not rely
on the article itself for impeachment).
See also *CNN America, Inc., 352 NLRB 675, 676–677 (2008), supplemental
proceedings 353 NLRB 891 (2009), final decision and order issued 361 NLRB 439 (2014),
reconsideration denied 362 NLRB 293 (2015), rev. granted in part and denied in part 865 F.3d
740 (D.C. Cir. 2017). In that case, the General Counsel subpoenaed various documents relevant
to CNN’s newsgathering processes. CNN filed a petition to revoke on various grounds, including
99
that the documents were protected from disclosure by the reporter’s privilege. The judge denied
CNN’s petition, interpreting the privilege as applying only to confidential sources. CNN thereafter
filed a special appeal, arguing that some courts of appeals have recognized a qualified privilege
not only for confidential sources, but also for editorial and newsgathering processes. The Board
found it unnecessary to decide if the qualified privilege applied. The Board found that, even
assuming the privilege applied, the GC could overcome it under the balancing test developed by
the courts because 1) the information sought was not available from an alternative source; 2)
CNN’s asserted defenses to the complaint had placed its newsgathering techniques at issue and
made the information critical to the General Counsel’s case; and 3) CNN did not contend that the
subpoenaed information was obtained through a promise of confidentiality or that disclosure
would likely lead to discovery of confidential information or sources. Finally, the Board noted that,
to the extent CNN was concerned about disclosure of proprietary business information to third
parties, it could seek a confidentiality agreement with the GC.
For a list of court cases and further discussion of the various issues that may arise in
applying the qualified reporter’s or journalist’s privilege, see Graham, 4 Handbook of Fed. Evid.
§ 501:1, n. 13 (9th ed. Nov. 2021 Update); and Greenwald, Schrantz, and Slachetka, 2
Testimonial Privileges § 8:5 et seq. (3d ed. May 2021 Update).
§ 8–475 State Confidentiality Rules
Evidence that is otherwise admissible is not rendered inadmissible in Board proceedings
because it is privileged under State law. See R. Sabee Co., 351 NLRB 1350 n. 3 (2007) (judge
properly accepted into evidence statements made during a state court injunction proceeding and
a related court-ordered mediation of state law claims, despite a claim of privilege under
Wisconsin law); North Carolina License Plate Agency # 18, 346 NLRB 293, 294 n. 5 (2006)
(evidence from a state unemployment commission, which was privileged under state law, was
nevertheless admissible in the Board proceeding), enfd. 243 Fed. Appx. 771 (4th Cir. 2007);
Landscape Forms, Inc., 7–CA–162398, unpub. Board order issued March 18, 2016 (2016 WL
1086677), at 1 n. 3 (rejecting the respondent’s contention that the General Counsel’s
investigative subpoena should be revoked because the requested information was exempt from
disclosure under Michigan state law); and Diva Limousine, 22–CA–091561, unpub. Board order
issued Dec. 3, 2013 (2013 WL 6328060) (“objections [to subpoenas] made solely on the basis of
a state code of civil procedure . . . are not cognizable in a Board proceeding”). See also Miller v.
St. John’s Health System, 2011 WL 3890315 (S.D. Ind. July 29, 2011) (denying motion to
quash the employer’s subpoena in an ADEA wrongful termination action seeking documents from
the state agency relating to the plaintiff employee’s application for unemployment benefits in
order to determine what steps she had taken to mitigate damages by seeking employment), and
§ 16–501 (FRE 501), below.
§ 8–480 Foreign Blocking Statutes
Like state confidentiality rules or laws discussed in the previous section, foreign “blocking”
statutes—laws prohibiting the removal of documents from the foreign country or province
pursuant to a subpoena issued by a judicial or administrative authority outside the country or
province—are not grounds for quashing a Board subpoena. See Cascades Containerboard
Packaging–Niagara, 370 NLRB No. 76, slip op. at 12 n. 20 (2021) (rejecting respondent’s
contention that Quebec law prohibited disclosure).
100
§ 8–500 Procedures for Evaluating Privilege Claims
§ 8–510 Privilege Log
Consistent with FRCP 26(b)(5)(A) and 45(e)(2)(A), to the extent a party in good faith
believes that certain subpoenaed documents are privileged or otherwise protected from
disclosure, it must promptly submit a privilege log or index identifying those documents. See, e.g.,
Nestle Dreyers Ice Cream Co., 31–CA–190625, unpub. Board order issued Jan. 23, 2018 (2018
WL 549553), at 1 n. 2; and Meadowlands Hospital Medical Center, 22–CA–086823, unpub.
Board order dated Oct. 20, 2015 (2015 WL 6164938), at 1 n. 2. See also NLRB v. NPC
International, Inc., 2017 WL 634713, *6–7 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 16, 2017) (rejecting the company’s
argument that it had no obligation to produce a privilege log at the agency level); and NLRB v.
Sanders-Clark & Co., 2016 WL 2968014 (C.D. Cal. April 25, 2016) (finding that the respondent
waived the privilege by failing to timely submit a privilege log to the ALJ).
Detailed description required. The log must provide “sufficient detail to permit an
assessment by the judge of the [party’s] claims.” Meadowlands Hospital, above. See also
FRCP 26(b)(5)(A)(ii) and 45(e)(2)(A)(ii)) (the person claiming the privilege must “describe the
nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without
revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.”). At
a minimum, the log or index should include: “(1) a description of the document, including its
subject matter and the purpose for which it was created; (2) the date the document was created;
(3) the name and job title of the author of the document; and (4) if applicable, the name and job
title of the recipient(s) of the document.” Tri-Tech Services, 15–CA–16707, unpub. Board order
issued July 17, 2003, quoted in *CNN America, Inc., 353 NLRB 891, 899 (2009), final decision
and order issued 361 NLRB 439 (2014), reconsideration denied 362 NLRB 293 (2015), rev.
granted in part and denied in part 865 F.3d 740 (D.C. Cir. 2017). See also NLRB v. NPC
International, above, 2017 WL 634713, *9 (company’s “conclusory” descriptions of the allegedly
privileged emails were “wholly inadequate to enable the Court to determine whether the items
were properly withheld”).
The particular privilege or doctrine relied on for withholding the document should also be
identified. See, e.g., GenOn Mid-Atlantic, LLC v. Stone & Webster, Inc., 2011 WL 221771,
(S.D. N.Y. Nov. 10, 2011); and MSTG, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2011 WL 221771 (N.D. Ill.
Jan. 20, 2011), reconsideration granted in part, 2011 WL 841437 (N.D. Ill. March 8, 2011)
(refusing to consider whether documents were protected by the work product doctrine as the
privilege log did not rely on that doctrine as the basis for withholding the documents).
Each document and attachment must be described. Unless otherwise agreed or ordered,
the foregoing information should be provided for each communication or document, including
attachments. NLRB v. Interbake Foods, LLC, 637 F.3d 492, 503 (4th Cir. 2011); and U.S. v.
White, 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7th Cir. 1991). An attachment is not privileged simply because it is
attached to a privileged communication, and it should therefore be separately identified and
described in sufficient detail to evaluate the claim. See, e.g., Lee v. Chicago Youth Centers,
304 F.R.D. 242, 249 (N.D. Ill. 2014); and S.E.C. v. Beacon Hill Asset Mgt. LLC, 231 F.R.D. 134,
145 (S.D. N.Y. 2004). See also Roberts Technology Group, Inc., 2015 WL 4503547, *2 (E.D.
Pa. July 20, 2015) (“[T]he privilege must be asserted on a document by document basis. The
communication must be confidential and with the goal of furthering counsel’s provision of legal
advice. Where the attached communication is not confidential but merely contains readily
available or pre-existing information not prepared by counsel, it is not privileged.”) (citations
omitted).
101
Requiring additional information. Under the FRCP, a judge in his/her discretion may also
require the party asserting the privilege to provide additional information in the form of affidavits
or testimony in order to evaluate the privilege. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d
563, 576 (1st Cir. 2001); Holifield v. U.S., 909 F.2d 201, 204 (7th Cir. 1990); Friends of Hope
Valley v. Frederick Co., 268 F.R.D. 643, 651-652 (E.D. Cal. 2010); and In re Rivastigmine
Patent Litigation, 237 F.R.D. 69, 84 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Any significant gaps or ambiguities in the
factual bases for the privilege claim are construed against the proponent. Ibid. See also EEOC
v. BDO USA, LLP, 876 F.3d 690, 695 (5th Cir. 2017).
Post-charge documents. Courts are split on whether post-complaint documents in civil
litigation are conclusively or presumptively protected and therefore exempt from the FRCP
privilege-log requirement. Compare, for example, First Horizon National Corporation v.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, 2013 WL 11090763, *2–5 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 27, 2013)
(rejecting party’s blanket claim that all post-complaint documents were protected attorney-client
communications or work product); with Prism Technologies, LLC v. Adobe Systems, Inc.,
2011 WL 5523389, *2 (D. Neb. 2011) (holding that communications between the parties and their
attorneys that occurred after the date the litigation began need not be included on a privilege log,
particularly in light of the extensive discovery requested), and cases cited there. See also the
additional court decisions cited in Rice et al., 2 Attorney-Client Privilege in the U.S. § 11:8
(Dec. 2021 Update) (arguing against such an exemption for post-complaint documents); and
Douglas C. Rennie, Why the Beginning Should be the End: The Argument for Exempting Post-
Complaint Materials from Rule 26(b)(5)(A)’s Privilege Log Requirement, 85 Tul. L. Rev. 109
(2010) (arguing for such an exemption).
However, it appears that neither the Board nor any court to date has applied the
exemption to post-charge or complaint documents in NLRB unfair labor practice proceedings. In
NLRB v. Jackson Hospital, 257 F.R.D. 302, 308 (D.D.C. 2009), the court stated that
“sophisticated counsel [might] agree that a certain category of information is so clearly likely to be
work product that it need not even be logged on a privilege log.” But the court did not itself
exempt all post-charge or complaint documents from the privilege-log requirement.
Failure to submit a privilege log. If the party asserting the privilege failed to timely identify
the document as privileged or demonstrate that an identified document is at least prima facie
privileged in response to a subpoena, the judge may find that the privilege has been waived.
See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena, above. Courts consider various factors, including the
scope of the subpoena, the amount of time the party had to respond to the subpoena, whether
the party had been afforded one or more prior opportunities to properly identify and adequately
describe the documents it now claims are privileged, and whether the failure to comply was
flagrant, deliberate, or in bad faith. See, e.g., EEOC v. BDO USA, LLC, above, 876 F.3d at 697;
NLRB v. NPC International, Inc., above, 2017 WL 634713, *9; In re Chevron Corp., 749
F.Supp.2d 141, 180–186 (S.D. N.Y.), affd. 409 Fed. Appx. 393 (2d Cir. 1010); and In re In-Store
Advertising Securities Litigation, 163 F.R.D. 452, 457 (S.D. N.Y. 1995), and cases cited there.
See also NLRB v. Jackson Hospital Corp., above, 257 F.R.D. at 307–308 (where a party fails
to submit an adequate privilege log, the court may: (1) permit the party another chance to submit
a more detailed log; (2) deem the inadequate log a waiver of the privilege; (3) conduct an in
camera inspection of the withheld documents; or (4) conduct an in camera inspection of a select
sample of the withheld documents).
Note that it is unsettled whether ALJs have the authority to make such a waiver finding. In
NLRB v. Sanders-Clark & Co., above, 2016 WL 2968014, *4–5, the district court held that the
ALJ exceeded her authority in ruling that the respondent waived the attorney-client privilege by
failing to submit a privilege log, as such a ruling “was, at base, a discovery sanction,” and only the
102
federal district courts may issue “binding discovery sanctions.” The court relied on the Ninth
Circuit’s decision in NLRB v. International Medication Systems, 640 F.2d 1110 (9th Cir. 1981)
(holding that only the federal district courts have authority to issue sanctions for subpoena
noncompliance), as well as two subsequent decisions by the Sixth and Fourth Circuits citing the
decision with approval, NLRB v. Detroit Newspapers Agency, 185 F.3d 602, 605 (6th Cir. 1999)
(holding that a district court may not delegate to the ALJ responsibility for reviewing documents in
camera to determine whether they are privileged); and NLRB v. Interbake Foods, 637 F.3d 492,
499 (4th Cir. 2011) (holding that, while an ALJ has authority to order production of documents for
in camera review to aid in evaluating the privilege, if the responding party refuses to obey, only an
Article III court may resolve the impasse and enforce the subpoena).
However, the Board, with the approval of the D.C. Circuit and some other circuit courts,
holds that the General Counsel may seek, and ALJs may grant, evidentiary sanctions against a
respondent for noncompliance with a subpoena ruling or order as an alternative to court
enforcement. See § 8–720, Failure to Produce Documents, below. Thus, Board precedent
supports the authority of ALJs to make a waiver finding, whether or not the finding constitutes or
is accompanied by any evidentiary sanctions for noncompliance.
For additional discussion of the burden of proving that subpoenaed documents constitute
privileged attorney-client communications or protected work product, see §§ 8–405 and 8–430,
above. For a general discussion of waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product
doctrine, such as by intentional or unintentional disclosure, see §§ 8–415 and 8–435, above.
§ 8–520 In Camera Inspection
ALJ authority. There may be circumstances where in camera review of the documents is
warranted prior to ruling. The authority of administrative law judges to conduct in camera
inspections has been specifically upheld by the Board. See Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corp., 339 NLRB 829 (2003); and Brink’s, Inc., 281 NLRB 468, 470 (1986). See also Everport
Terminal Services, Inc., 32–CA–172286, unpub. Board order issued August 15, 2017 (2017 WL
3531095) (judge did not abuse her discretion in ordering the respondent union and one of its non-
party locals to submit documents listed in their privilege logs for in camera inspection and to
produce some of those documents to the General Counsel based on her assessment that they
were not privileged).
Factual basis required. Generally, if a party seeks in camera inspection of material that is
claimed to be privileged, the judge should require that party to articulate specific grounds for the
inspection. If the moving party shows an adequate factual basis to support a good-faith belief that
in camera inspection may reveal evidence that is not protected by the privilege, the judge in
his/her discretion may order that the evidence be presented for such inspection, considering the
amount of material to be reviewed, the material’s relevance, and the likelihood that an inspection
will reveal whether the documents are privileged. See U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 571 (1989);
and In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068 (9th Cir. 1992). See also NLRB v.
Interbake Foods, 637 F.3d 492, 502 (4th Cir. 2011), and on remand, 2011 WL 6736435 (D. Md.
Dec. 21, 2011) (finding that the General Counsel failed to present sufficient grounds to conduct
an in camera inspection of email strings that respondent claimed were privileged attorney-client
communications).
Procedures. If the ALJ determines that certain documents are not privileged and should
be produced, the ALJ should not turn over the documents directly to the party subpoenaing them
but should identify the documents to be produced and afford the parties an opportunity to seek
103
review. If such review is sought, the ALJ should place the documents under seal so that they can
be reviewed by the Board and/or court. See Quality Roofing Supply Company, 4–CA–36952,
unpub. ALJ special master’s report issued August 17, 2011 (2011 WL 3625915).
In camera inspections may also be used in other contexts. For example, if a subpoena
requests the minutes of union meetings, disclosure of those minutes might reveal the names of
the employees who attended, which would normally be confidential. See § 8–455, Identity of
Union Supporters, above. Thus, if the meeting minutes are found relevant, the judge should view
the minutes in camera and require redaction of any portions identifying individuals other than the
alleged discriminatee(s). *R.K. Mechanical, 27–CA–18863, unpub. Board order issued June 23,
2008, at n. 2. See also § 16–613.1, Jencks Statements, below.
Noncompliance with in camera inspection. As discussed in § 8–720 below, the Board,
with the approval of some circuit courts, has upheld the authority of ALJs to issue evidentiary
sanctions for noncompliance with subpoena rulings and orders. This includes orders requiring a
party to submit withheld documents to the ALJ for in camera inspection. See Pioneer Hotel &
Gambling Hall, 324 NLRB 918, 920, 927 (1999) (drawing adverse inference in part because the
respondent refused to submit withheld documents to the ALJ for in camera inspection to evaluate
the claim of privilege), enfd. in relevant part 182 F.3d 939 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
§ 8–600 Protective Orders
ALJ authority. “It is clear that judges do have [the] authority” to issue a protective order.
Teamsters Local 917 (Peerless Importers), 345 NLRB 1010, 1011 n. 7 (2005), citing AT&T
Corp., 337 NLRB 689, 693 n. 1 (2002) (ALJ issued a protective order prohibiting the disclosure of
any of the hearing exhibits to “outside sources”); United Parcel Service, 304 NLRB 693 (1991)
(ALJ issued a protective order with respect to certain documents subpoenaed by the General
Counsel stating that “their use shall be limited to this hearing and shall neither be disclosed nor
disseminated to other than counsel of record at this hearing”); and National Football League,
309 NLRB 78, 88 (1992) (Board ordered that “the protective order entered into during the hearing
prohibiting the parties from disclosing the contents of certain testimony [will] be continued in full
force and effect and that all exhibits introduced into evidence under seal will continue to be
maintained under seal and that portions of the transcript of the hearing held during in camera
sessions will not be open to the public”). See also Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 665 F.2d 1274, 1278–
1279 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (rejecting the companies’ argument that the Federal Trade Commission’s
administrative law judges lack the authority to issue protective orders).
Good cause requirement. A party seeking a protective order with respect to disclosure of
subpoenaed documents bears the burden of demonstrating “good cause” under FRCP 26(c) “or
that disclosure would cause clearly defined and serious harm.” Impremedia, 29-CA-131066,
unpub. Board order issued Jan. 14, 2015 (2015 WL 193732), at 1 n. 2 (denying respondent’s
request because it failed to establish either). The motion must be supported by a particular and
specific demonstration of fact, as opposed to a mere conclusory or speculative claim of harm.
See Waterbed World, 289 NLRB 808, 809 (1988) (denying respondent’s motion for a protective
order in part because of the “scanty and conclusory nature of the respondent’s averments”). See
also Loomis v. Unum Group Corp., 338 F.R.D. 225, 228–229 (E.D. Tenn. 2021); NLRB v.
CEMEX, Inc., 2009 WL 5184695, *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 22, 2009); Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d
884, 901(6th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 92 (2013); Shingara v. Skiles, 420 F.3d 301,
306 (3d Cir. 2005); Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122,
1130 (9th Cir. 2003); and In re Terra International, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998).
104
A particularly strong showing of harm may be required where a party seeks to prevent
disclosure to a discriminatee. See Waterbed World, above (denying respondent’s motion for a
protective order, which would have barred disclosure to the discriminatees of documents attached
to its motion to reopen the record, in part because of the Board’s policy of affording
discriminatees the right to hear testimony except under certain circumstances). Likewise, a
stronger showing may be required where the documents have been introduced and made part of
the formal record, given the public’s interest in and historical access to judicial records. See, e.g.,
NLRB v. CEMEX, Inc., above, 2009 WL 5184695, *2, citing Kamakana v. City and County of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (requiring “compelling reasons” to seal documents).
See also Citizens First National Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 178 F.3d
943, 944–945 (7th Cir. 1999) (trial judge “may not rubber stamp a stipulation to seal the record”).
Routine employment information. The Board has indicated that certain types of routine
employment information normally do not warrant a protective order. Thus, in Richmond Times-
Dispatch, 5–CA–29157 et al., unpub. Board order issued August 1, 2002, the Board held that the
judge improperly issued a protective order governing the production and exchange of
subpoenaed documents to the extent it covered timesheets that showed hours worked or wages
paid to employees. In agreement with the General Counsel, the Board held that the material
consisted of “routine employment-related information,” and that the respondent had “failed to
demonstrate good cause warranting a protective order under FRCP 26(c).” The Board majority
did not pass at that time on whether the judge properly protected certain other information,
including disciplinary records and electronic mail documents. However, the Board majority later
denied the GC’s special appeal with respect to that information, noting that there had been no
showing of prejudice from entry of the protective order. Richmond Times-Dispatch, 346 NLRB
74 n. 1 (2005), enfd. 225 Fed. Appx. 144 (4th Cir. 2007). See also Kava Holdings, LLC, 31–
CA–074675, unpub. Board order issued March 20, 2018 (2018 WL 1409571) (ALJ did not abuse
her discretion by denying the respondent’s motion for a protective order restricting the use of
payroll records that respondent produced to the General Counsel pursuant to a Board subpoena
and district court order).
Sensitive personal information. In IATSE Local 16, 20–CB–213058, the Board ruled that
the ALJ did not abuse his discretion by issuing a protective order sealing certain documents and
preventing dissemination or disclosure to the public of certain sensitive personal information
about the individual charging party. The Board noted that the information was irrelevant to the
underlying unfair labor practice proceedings and that the respondent union had not challenged
the sensitive nature of the information or demonstrated a significant interest in disseminating it.
See unpub. order dated July 1, 2019 (2019 WL 2869824).
Provisions of order. If it is determined that a protective order is appropriate, the judge
may ask the moving party to submit a proposed order. The judge can thereafter tailor the order to
meet the legitimate needs of the moving party and the possible objections of other parties. See,
e.g., Exxon Corp. v. FTC, above, 665 F.2d at 1274. See also Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 368 NLRB
No. 24, slip op. at 1 n. 2, and 14 (2019) (judge properly granted the respondent employer’s
motion to enforce the terms of the protective orders the parties agreed to at the beginning of the
hearing).
Protective orders typically address who may have access to the information, what the
information may be used for, and how long the information may be retained. See the Board and
court cases cited above. See also H & M International Transportation, Inc., 22-CA-089596,
unpub. Board order issued May 23, 2014 (2014 WL 2194514) (Board ordered that production of
the discriminatee’s cell phone memory card “should be subject to a protective order agreed upon
by the parties, or formulated by the judge in the absence of such agreement, requiring that the
105
memory card be given to a designated qualified expert in forensic analysis of electronic records,
not in the direct employ of any party, for retrieval and review of the audio file at issue, and any
associated metadata, in order to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the data.”); and Pepsi-
Cola, 307 NLRB 1378, 1379 n. 1 (1992) (judge granted the employer’s unopposed motion to
issue a protective order directing that excerpts from its security manual be sealed and returned to
it at the close of the proceedings), which the Board subsequently cited as an example in
Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc., 18–RC–120181, unpub. Board order issued
April 4, 2014 (2014 WL 1339670), at 1 n. 1, and G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., 12–RC–
203988, unpub. Board order issued March 20, 2018 (2018 WL 1409568), at 1 n. 1.
Alternatively, the order may require redaction of personal identifiers, such as names,
addresses, and social security numbers, prior to any disclosure. See, e.g., Rangel v. City of
Chicago, 2010 WL 3699991 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2010); and Kelly v. City of New York, 2003 WL
548400 (S.D. N.Y. Feb. 24, 2003). See also § 12–900, below, regarding the required redaction of
personal information from documents submitted into the record.
Applicability of the Freedom of Information Act. Where a party seeks a protective order
from the ALJ that would prohibit or restrict Agency personnel from disclosing information to the
public, the judge should consider and address the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. FOIA generally requires federal agencies to promptly disclose their
records on request unless one or more exemptions apply. The burden is on the agency to
demonstrate that an exemption applies. U.S. Dept. of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991). If
an agency declines to disclose a record, it must explain the basis for nondisclosure under FOIA; it
cannot simply rely on its own administrative protective order designating the record confidential at
the time it was received. General Electric Co. v. NRC, 750 F.2d 1394, 1400 (7th Cir. 1984).
Various FOIA exemptions may apply to records submitted to the NLRB by private parties,
including exemption 4, which exempts from disclosure matters that are “trade secrets and
commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential,” and
exemption 6, which exempts “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(4) and
(6).
The Board’s FOIA regulations specifically address “business information,” i.e.,
“commercial or financial information obtained by the Agency from a submitter that may be
protected from disclosure under Exemption 4.” Among other things, the regulations state that,
subject to certain exceptions, the Agency will provide a submitter with “prompt written notice” of a
FOIA request or administrative appeal seeking business information that the submitter has
designated in good faith as protected, or the Agency has reason to believe may be protected, and
“a reasonable time” to respond and object to disclosure. See Sec. 102.117(c)(2)(iv) of the
Board’s Rules.
These regulatory provisions may provide sufficient protection with respect to such
business information to render a protective order unnecessary, at least where the information has
not yet been offered into evidence. See NLRB v. CEMEX, Inc., above, 2009 WL 5184695, *3
(denying the employer’s request to prohibit public disclosure of customer lists and profit/loss
statements subpoenaed by the General Counsel in part because the NLRB’s FOIA regulations
requiring notice and an opportunity to object to disclosure “offer sufficient protection”), citing
EEOC v. AON Consulting, Inc., 149 F.Supp.2d 601, 609 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (finding that similar
EEOC regulations provided sufficient protection with respect to confidential employer documents
subpoenaed by the EEOC). See also Illinois School Bus Co., 231 NLRB 1 n. 2 (1977) (denying
106
the employer’s motion for a protective order covering the commerce information it had submitted
to the Agency).
The provisions may also provide guidance in formulating a protective order sealing
confidential documents that have been admitted into the record. See also Exxon Corp. v. FTC,
above, 665 F.2d at 1279 (protective order issued by FTC ALJ was sufficient because it
guaranteed that the companies would be given 10 days’ notice prior to release of confidential
documents so that they could challenge the disclosure).
Sealing Documents. If the protective order forbids or restricts disclosure of an entire
document that has been admitted into the record, it is essential that the judge place the document
under seal. The failure to do so may undermine subsequent attempts to enforce the order. See
United Parcel Service, above, 304 NLRB at 694. It is also advisable to include the protective
order in any recommended order issued by the judge. See National Football League, above,
309 NLRB at 88; and Carthage Heating & Sheet Metal, 273 NLRB 120, 123 (1984).
Violations of order. Violating a protective order may constitute misconduct under Section
102.177 of the Board’s Rules. See United Parcel Service, above, and § 6–600, Misconduct by
Attorney or Representative, et. seq., above.
§ 8–700 Noncompliance with Subpoena
§ 8–710 Failure of Witness to Appear and Testify
The failure of a party witness (i.e. an officer or agent of a party) to appear and testify in
compliance with a subpoena may warrant evidentiary sanctions, including prohibiting the
noncomplying party from calling the same witnesses and drawing adverse inferences against that
party. Rogan Bros. Sanitation, Inc., 362 NLRB 547, 549 n. 9 (2015), enfd. 651 Fed. Appx. 34
(2d Cir. 2016), and Carpenters Local 405, 328 NLRB 788 n. 2 (1999), and cases cited there.
See also IATSE Local 720, 369 NLRB No. 34, slip op. at 1 n. 2, and 6–7 (2020) (judge did not
abuse her discretion by striking the testimony of the respondent union’s business representative
on direct examination by respondent because respondent had previously refused to make him
available to the General Counsel on the erroneous ground that the GC’s subpoena had not been
properly served).
If a subpoenaed nonparty witness appears but refuses to answer questions, the judge
should advise the witness that, absent a Fifth Amendment or other valid privilege, he/she is
required by the subpoena to answer any and all relevant and appropriate questions posed by
counsel. If necessary, the judge should also inform the witness about the consequences of
refusing to answer, including that the Board may request a federal court to enforce the subpoena
and to impose contempt sanctions if the witness thereafter declines to obey the court’s order.
See generally Barnett v. Norman, 782 F.3d 417, 422–424 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing a district
court judge’s obligations if a subpoenaed witness refuses to testify).
§ 8–720 Failure to Produce Documents
A party has an obligation “to begin a good faith effort to gather responsive documents
upon service” of a subpoena; accordingly, “a party who simply ignores a subpoena pending a
ruling on a petition to revoke does so at his or her peril.” McAllister Towing & Transportation,
341 NLRB 394, 396–397 (2004) (upholding judge’s imposition of evidentiary sanctions against
the respondent for failing to substantially comply with the subpoenas upon issuance of the judge’s
107
order partially denying its petition to revoke on the first day of hearing), enfd. 156 Fed. Appx. 386,
388 (2d Cir. 2005). See also San Luis Trucking, 352 NLRB 211, 212 (2008), reaffd. 356 NLRB
168 (2010) (imposing evidentiary sanctions where respondent merely made 2471 boxes of
documents “available” to the General Counsel the afternoon before the hearing, without making
any effort to separate requested materials from unrequested materials, and did not produce the
requested documents as they were kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled
to correspond to the categories of the demand as required by FRCP 45 and 34), enfd. without
addressing the sanctions issue 479 Fed. Appx. 743 (9th Cir. 2012).
Evaluating whether good faith effort was made. If no responsive documents are produced
or a dispute arises over the completeness of the production, the judge may request the
subpoenaed party to describe its search efforts with sufficient specificity to evaluate whether it
exercised due diligence. See, e.g., Cascades Containerboard Packaging–Niagara, 370 NLRB
No. 76, slip op. at 13 (2021) (judge rejected respondent’s assertion that it did not have
possession of subpoenaed documents, as respondent failed to call a custodian of records to
substantiate that it searched its own records for the documents or sought unsuccessfully to obtain
them from its foreign parent corporation, notwithstanding respondent’s prior assurance to the
judge that it would present the custodian of records’ testimony); and Chipotle Services, LLC,
363 NLRB No. 37, slip op. at 8 (2015) (judge called a witness to question him about respondent’s
efforts toward subpoena compliance), enfd. 849 F.3d 1161 (8th Cir. 2017).
See also V5 Technologies v. Switch, Ltd., 332 F.R.D. 356, 366–367 (D. Nev. 2019)
(court found that the subpoenaed individual’s conclusory assertions of a good faith search were
insufficient, given that certain otherwise identified responsive documents were not produced, and
ordered her to use certain electronic search terms proposed by the party seeking the documents
and to provide a sworn declaration identifying with particularity the details of the search); and
Advanced Laboratories International, LLC v. Valentus, Inc., 2017 WL 6209297 (N.D. Cal.
Dec. 8, 2017) (court ordered the subpoenaed individual to provide a sworn declaration
“describ[ing] in detail the steps he took to locate documents responsive to [the] subpoena,
including the date(s) of each search performed, the locations searched (e.g., home office), the
devices searched (e.g., phone, home computer, office computer), the types of files searched
(e.g., email, Word, Skype logs, text messages, Facebook messages), and the methods used to
perform the searches (e.g., the search terms used)”).
However, the judge has no obligation to press for specific information about the
subpoenaed party’s compliance efforts where it is clear that no significant efforts were made to
gather the subpoenaed documents. See McCallister Towing, above, 341 NLRB at 398.
Imposing evidentiary sanctions. As indicated by McAllister Towing and San Luis
Trucking, above, the Board has repeatedly affirmed the authority and discretion of ALJs to
impose evidentiary sanctions against a noncomplying party where the General Counsel has
elected not to initiate court enforcement proceedings (see § 8–800, below). And the D.C. Circuit
and certain other circuit courts have generally agreed. See Perdue Farms Inc. v. NLRB, 144
F.3d 830, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1998), and additional court decisions cited below. However, as
discussed in § 8–510 above, the Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have held to the contrary.
Several sanctions are available where a party refuses or fails to timely or properly comply
with a subpoena. The judge may:
1) Draw an adverse inference. See, e.g., Shamrock Foods Co., 366 NLRB No. 117, slip
op. at 1 n. 1, and 15 n. 29 (2018) (respondent’s contumacious failure to produce subpoenaed
records regarding the duties of its floor captains warranted adverse inference that they would
108
have corroborated the testimony of employees and provided additional evidence that the floor
captains had Section 2(11) supervisory authority), enfd. per curiam 779 Fed. Appx. 752 (D.C. Cir.
July 12, 2019); Sparks Restaurant, 366 NLRB No. 97, slip op. at 9–10 (2018) (respondent’s
failure to produce subpoenaed records of shifts worked by striker replacements warranted
adverse inference that the records would not have supported respondent’s position that the
strikers were permanently replaced before their unconditional offer to return), enfd. 805 Fed.
Appx. 2 (D.C. Cir. 2019); Chipotle Services, LLC, above, slip op. at 1 n. 1, and 8 (respondent’s
failure, despite repeated warnings by the judge, to produce numerous documents or conduct a
diligent search for documents subpoenaed by the General Counsel and charging party warranted
adverse inference that they would have revealed disparate treatment and supported the
complaint allegation that the named discriminatee was unlawfully terminated); Metro-West
Ambulance Service, 360 NLRB 1029, 1030 and n. 13 (2014) (respondent’s unexplained failure,
in an 8(a)(3) discrimination case, to produce subpoenaed accident reports over the previous 3 1/2
years warranted an adverse inference that they would not have supported respondent’s position
that it treated the discriminatee the same as other similarly situated employees); and Essex
Valley Visiting Nurses Assn., 352 NLRB 427, 441–444 (2008), reaffd. 356 NLRB 146 (2010),
enfd. 455 Fed. Appx. 5 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (respondent’s failure to produce subpoenaed documents
warranted an adverse inference supporting the General Counsel’s allegation of single-employer
status).
An adverse inference should be drawn unless there is a valid reason for the judge not to
do so. See Metro-West Ambulance Service, above (granting the General Counsel’s exception
and drawing an adverse inference notwithstanding the ALJ’s conclusion that it was unnecessary
to do so because the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the alleged violation), citing
Auto Workers v. NLRB, 459 F.2d 1329, 1338–1344 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (absent a valid reason for
bypassing the adverse inference rule, “the inference should actually be drawn and its impact
evaluated”). See also Zapex Corp., 235 NLRB 1237, 1239–1240 (1978) (judge improperly failed
to draw an adverse inference that the respondent had not satisfied its burden of proving its
defense where the respondent failed to produce subpoenaed records relevant to the issue),
enfd.621 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1980).
Valid reasons for not drawing an adverse inference include the following.
Subpoena was unclear. See, e.g., Sisters Camelot, 363 NLRB No. 13, slip op. at 8
(2015) (unrepresented charging party could reasonably conclude that the respondent’s subpoena
did not seek certain emails he had forwarded to the General Counsel, as the subpoena’s
description of the requested documents suggested that it pertained only to personnel or work
records).
Satisfactory explanation was provided. See, e.g., Shamrock Foods Co., above, slip op.
at 1 n. 1, and 9 n. 8 (subpoenaed recordings, if they even existed, were not in the charging party
union’s possession or control); CPS Chemical Co., 324 NLRB 1018, 1019 (1997) (union
president testified that he had searched for the subpoenaed attendance list but could not find it,
and the company advanced no argument that his testimony was unworthy of belief), enfd. 160
F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 1998); Hansen Bros. Enterprises, 313 NLRB 599, 608 (1993) (discriminatee
credibly testified that old tax returns did not exist); and Champ Corp., 291 NLRB 803 (1988)
(charging party union presented credible testimony concerning its good-faith but unsuccessful
search for meeting notes, and other evidence supported a reasonable inference that the notes
could have been inadvertently destroyed or misplaced), enfd. 933 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied 502 U.S. 957 (1991).
109
Documents were claimed to be privileged. See U.S. ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co.,
241 F.Supp.3d 37, 54–55 (D.D.C. 2017), affd. 709 Fed. Appx. 23, 29 (D.C. Cir. 2017), and cases
cited there (adverse inference cannot be drawn from the invocation of the attorney-client
privilege). But see Pioneer Hotel & Gambling Hall, 324 NLRB 918, 920, 927 (1999) (drawing
adverse inference in part because respondent refused to permit in-camera inspection of the
withheld documents to evaluate the claim of privilege), enfd. in relevant part 182 F.3d 939 (D.C.
Cir. 1999); and Chromalloy Mining and Materials, 238 NLRB 688, 691, 696 (1978) (drawing
adverse inference because respondent refused to produce the withheld document even after the
ALJ reviewed it in camera and concluded that the claimed privilege did not apply), enfd in part
without reaching issue 620 F.2d 1120, 1128 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1980).
Documents are irrelevant to disputed issues. See CPS Chemical Co., above (judge
properly declined to draw an adverse inference from the unions’ failure to produce documents
identifying employees who had joined the local union, as the relevant issue was whether the
employees were eligible to join not whether they actually joined, and the absence of the
documents therefore did not prevent the respondent company from proving any relevant point in
the case or prejudice it).
With respect to a respondent’s refusal to provide subpoenaed jurisdictional information,
see Tropicana Products, Inc., 122 NLRB 121, 123 (1958) (Board will assert jurisdiction in any
case where the respondent employer has refused to provide information relevant to whether it
satisfies the Board’s discretionary jurisdictional standards, as long as the hearing record
demonstrates statutory jurisdiction). See also Continental Packaging Corp., 327 NLRB 400
(1998) (applying Tropicana and granting the General Counsel’s motion for default summary
judgment where the undisputed allegations in the complaint and motion established that the
respondent employer was within the Board’s statutory jurisdiction and that it refused to produce
subpoenaed information to determine whether it also satisfied the Board’s discretionary
jurisdictional standards). The Board in such cases has relied on its discretionary authority rather
than on the adverse inference rule, however. See also NLRB v. Valentine Painting and
Wallcovering, Inc., 8 Fed. Appx. 116, 118 (2d Cir. 2001) (finding it unnecessary, for this reason,
to consider the employer’s argument that the Board was required to enforce its subpoena before
determining jurisdiction). For a further discussion of the Board’s statutory and discretionary
jurisdiction, see § 3–560, above.
2) Bar the noncomplying party from introducing the unproduced responsive documents
and other evidence about the same subject matter. See, e.g., IATSE Local 720, 369 NLRB No.
34, slip op. at 1 n. 2, and 6–7 (2020); Shamrock Foods Co., above; M.D. Miller Trucking, 361
NLRB 1225 n. 1 and 1228–1229 (2014); and Perdue Farms, 323 NLRB 345, 348 (1997), affd. in
relevant part 144 F.3d 830, 833–834 (D.C. Cir. 1998). See also FRCP 37(c)(1) (“If a party fails to
provide information . . . as required by Rule 26(a) . . ., the party is not allowed to use that
information . . . to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was
substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead of this sanction, the court, on motion
and after giving an opportunity to be heard: . . . (C) may impose other appropriate sanctions,
including [an order under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) ‘prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or
opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence’]”);
and Wright & Miller et al., 8B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2289.1 (3d ed. April 2021 Update)
(discussing the court’s discretion and the relevant factors considered in determining whether to
impose sanctions under FRCP 37(c)(1)).
3) Bar the noncomplying party from cross-examining witnesses about the same subject
matter. Shamrock Foods Co., above; and NLRB v. C. H. Sprague & Son, 428 F.2d 938, 942
(1st Cir. 1970). See also McAllister Towing & Transportation, above, 341 NLRB at 396 (noting
110
that, although the judge did not impose this particular sanction, judges have the authority to do
so).
4) Permit the disadvantaged party to introduce secondary evidence about the same
subject matter. See Bannon Mills, 146 NLRB 611, 614 n. 4, 633–634 (1964); and American Art
Industries, 166 NLRB 943, 951–953 (1967), affd. in pertinent part 415 F.2d 1223, 1229–1230
(5th Cir. 1969) (permitting the General Counsel to present secondary evidence, including
employee testimony, regarding the number of employees in the unit in lieu of employee payroll
and other records that the respondent failed to produce). See also Shamrock Foods Co.,
above, slip op. at 1 n. 1, and 24 n. 61 (permitting the General Counsel to introduce secondary
evidence, including hearsay testimony, regarding wage increases granted by the respondent);
and Roofers Local 30 (Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.), 227 NLRB 1444, 1449
(1977) (same, regarding the identity of those who were present during and participated in the
alleged incidents).
5) Strike pleadings or witness testimony that related to the same subject matter. See
Equipment Trucking Co., 336 NLRB 277 n. 1 (2001) (striking respondent’s answer with respect
to certain allegations); and Lenscraft Optical Corp., 128 NLRB 807, 817 (1960) (striking
testimony of witnesses who failed to reappear for cross-examination after the documents were
belatedly disclosed).
Sanctions against the Charging Party. As suggested in some of the cases cited above,
one or more of the foregoing evidentiary sanctions may be available where a charging party fails
or refuses to fully comply with a respondent subpoena. See also Teamsters Local 917
(Peerless Importers), 345 NLRB 1010, 1011 (2005) (judge could have imposed evidentiary
sanctions against the charging party employer for refusing to comply with the respondent union’s
subpoena duces tecum, including permitting the respondent to use secondary evidence,
precluding the charging party from rebutting that secondary evidence or cross-examining
witnesses about it, and drawing adverse inferences against the charging party).
Sanctions against the General Counsel. An issue may occasionally arise whether
sanctions should be issued against the General Counsel for the contumacious failure of a
charging party or a discriminatee to fully comply with a respondent subpoena.
In Marquez Bros. Enterprises, Inc., 21–CA–039581, unpub. order issued Sept. 7, 2017
(2017 WL 3953408), the Board majority ruled that it was improper for the ALJ to issue evidentiary
sanctions against the General Counsel because of the individual discriminatees’ failure to fully
comply with subpoenas duces tecum served on them by the respondent employer in the backpay
proceeding. The ALJ had prohibited the GC from questioning any witnesses other than the
compliance officer concerning the discriminatees’ interim earnings. The majority reversed on the
grounds that the GC acts on behalf of the Agency in the public interest rather than to vindicate
private rights, and that the Board’s backpay remedy is likewise a public rather than a private right.
The majority found that the ALJ “therefore . . . improperly penalized the General Counsel for
conduct that he did not control.” The majority also noted that the discriminatees were not
represented, one of them lacked reasonable proficiency in English, both were willing to and did
testify about their production of documents and attempts to comply with the subpoena requests,
and there was no indication that their failure to comply fully with the subpoenas was willful.
Marquez Bros. and its reasoning were subsequently applied to an unfair labor practice
proceeding in Queen of the Valley Medical Center, 368 NLRB No. 116 (2019). In that case, the
ALJ barred the charging party union, which was represented by counsel, from examining certain
witnesses as a sanction for failing to fully or timely provide all responsive documents subpoenaed
111
by the respondent employer for the hearing. However, the ALJ declined to issue additional
sanctions against the union as its failure to do so was not contumacious. Relying on Marquez, the
ALJ also denied the employer’s request to bar the General Counsel from questioning the
witnesses as a sanction for the union’s failure to fully or timely produce all subpoenaed
documents (slip op. at 44). The employer subsequently challenged both rulings on exceptions,
but the Board affirmed them. (While the Board’s decision only specifically addresses the
employer’s argument that the ALJ should have issued additional sanctions against the union (slip
op. at 1 n.4), the employer also specifically excepted and argued in its brief to the Board that the
ALJ erred in denying its request to impose sanctions on the GC.)
Based on these decisions, it appears that sanctions should not be issued against the
General Counsel for the failure of a charging party or a discriminatee to fully or timely comply with
a respondent’s subpoena, at least where the failure to do so was not willful or contumacious.
Dismissal of Complaint. “The Board is careful not to impose drastic sanctions
disproportionate to the alleged noncompliance.” Sisters Camelot, above, 363 NLRB No. 13, slip
op. at 8. Thus, noncompliance with a subpoena normally does not by itself warrant the dismissal
of a complaint. See Teamsters Local 917 (Peerless Importers), above. In that case, the Board
reversed a judge who had dismissed the General Counsel’s complaint because the charging
party failed to produce an unredacted copy of a document subpoenaed by the respondent
relevant to its defense. Citing McAllister Towing, above, the Board noted that there were other
less drastic sanctions available to the judge and observed that dismissing a complaint because of
subpoena noncompliance would have been unprecedented. 345 NLRB at 1011. See also
Queen of the Valley, above, slip op. at 44.
§ 8–730 Failure to Preserve Evidence (Litigation Holds and Spoliation)
A duty to preserve discoverable information arises when a reasonable party in the same
factual circumstances would have reasonably foreseen litigation. The duty requires that the party
take reasonable and proportionate steps to preserve relevant and discoverable information within
its possession and control. Depending on the scope of such information and other
circumstances, this may include implementing a “litigation” or “legal” hold to ensure that the
organization’s key custodians or data stewards take steps to preserve such information and to
prevent losses due to routine business or system operations. The failure to take reasonable and
proportionate steps may warrant curative measures or evidentiary sanctions, including adverse
inferences. See Mannina v. District of Columbia, 437 F.Supp.3d 1, 9–13 (D.D.C. 2020), and
cases cited there. See also Ashworth et al., 10A Fed. Proc., L. Ed. § 26:553 (Nov. 2021
Update) (discussing duty to preserve evidence for production and inspection); and Sedona
Conference Commentary on Legal Holds, Second Ed.: The Trigger & The Process, 20 Sedona
Conf. J. 341 (2019) (summarizing the above principles and offering guidelines).
Courts require a party seeking an adverse inference based on spoliation of evidence to
establish that: (1) there was an obligation to preserve the evidence at the time of destruction or
alteration, i.e., the party knew or should have known that the evidence was relevant to pending or
reasonably foreseeable litigation; (2) the records were destroyed with a “culpable state of mind”;
and (3) the evidence was relevant to the extent that a reasonable factfinder could find that the
evidence would support the party’s claims or defenses. See National Assn. of Broadcast
Employees and Technicians (American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.), 371 NLRB No. 15,
slip op. at 5 (2021), citing Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 220 (S.D.N.Y.
2003). See also Mannina v. District of Columbia, above, 437 F.Supp.3d at 6; Apple Inc. v.
Samsung Electronics Co., 888 F.Supp.2d 976, 989–990 (N.D. Cal. 2012); and Grenig &
Kinsler, Handbook Fed. Civ. Disc. & Disclosure § 16:5 (4th ed. July 2021 Update).
112
With respect to hard-copy documents and tangible things, courts disagree about the level
of culpability necessary for an adverse inference. Some hold that mere negligence is sufficient.
See, e.g., Mannina v. District of Columbia, above, 437 F.Supp.3d at 12–13. Others require
gross negligence or bad faith. See cases listed in Grenig & Kinsler, above, § 16:8. See also
Sedona Conference Commentary, above.
With respect to electronically stored information (ESI), FRCP 37(e), as amended in 2015,
specifically states that where ESI is lost due to a party’s failure to take reasonable steps to
preserve it, and cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court may
presume that the lost ESI was unfavorable to the party “only upon finding that the party acted with
the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation.” Intent may be
established by circumstantial evidence, including the timing, method, and selectivity of the
destruction, whether the destruction was inconsistent with preservation policies, how the party
acted throughout the litigation, and whether there is a credible explanation for the failure to
preserve relevant ESI. See Bistrian v. Levy, 448 F.Supp.3d 454, 475 (E.D. Pa. 2020); and In re
Petters Company, Inc., 606 B.R. 803, 827 and n. 217 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2019), and cases cited
there.
However, absent sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence of intent, an adverse
inference is improper, even if it has been shown that the ESI was likely relevant and its loss
prejudicial. See Bistrian, above (denying adverse inference for this reason with respect to a
hallway video that was overwritten). See also Youngevity International v. Smith, 2020 WL
7048687 (S.D. Cal. July 28, 2020); and Alsadi v. Intel Corp., 2020 WL 4035169, *4 (D. Ariz. July
17, 2020), and cases cited there.
Lesser sanctions, such as precluding the spoliating party from presenting certain other
evidence, may also be improper if their effect would be essentially the same as an adverse
inference, for example if the party was precluded from presenting any evidence in support of its
central or only claim or defense in the case. See Bistrian, above, at 478; and Youngevity,
above, at *5 (citing Advisory Committee Notes to 2015 amendments to FRCP 37(e)(1)).
However, it is generally appropriate to consider the destruction of the ESI as a factor along with
all other factors in making the relevant factual finding. See ibid.
For a Board case addressing the duty to preserve evidence for an unfair labor practice
proceeding, see Queen of the Valley Medical Center, 368 NLRB No. 116, slip op. at 41–44
(2019) (applying the three-part test described above and denying the respondent employer’s
request for adverse inferences against the charging party union for spoliation of records). See
also McDonald’s USA, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 144, slip op. at 2 n. 5 (2016) (Board found that it was
premature to decide whether McDonald’s preservation efforts had been sufficient and what
sanctions would be appropriate until after McDonald’s had completed searching all sources
available to it within the scope of the court-enforced subpoena); and BP Amoco Chemical—
Chocolate Bayou, 351 NLRB 614, 636 (2007) (rejecting the General Counsel’s request in an
8(a)(3) termination/reduction-in-force case for an adverse inference based on the supervisors’
destruction of the worksheets they used during the termination selection process, as the
respondent had no legal duty to retain the records and there was no business or personal reason
for the supervisors to keep them).
Regarding the duty to preserve evidence for a compliance/backpay proceeding, see
Lucky Cab Co., 366 NLRB No. 56, slip op. at 7 (2018) (rejecting the employer’s request in the
backpay proceeding for a “negative spoliation inference” based on the discriminatee’s failure to
retain expense receipts, as the employer had the burden in a backpay proceeding to establish
fraudulent concealment, and there was no direct or circumstantial evidence that the discriminatee
113
had willfully destroyed the receipts to prevent them from being discovered), enfd. mem. 818 Fed.
Appx. 638 (9th Cir. 2020). See also Santa Barbara News-Press, 370 NLRB No. 119, slip op. at
5–6 (2021) (rejecting the employer’s argument in the backpay proceeding that all of the union’s
claimed bargaining expenses should be denied because the underlying receipts had been
shredded, as they were destroyed pursuant to the union’s normal document destruction policy or
to clear up work space, and there was ample other evidence of the claimed expenses, including
detailed contemporaneous expense reports).
See also Dauman Pallet, Inc., 314 NLRB 185, 213 (1994). In that case, the judge
exercised his discretion to defer issues of “piercing the corporate veil” and personal liability to the
compliance proceeding, but did not revoke the General Counsel’s subpoena for this reason to the
extent it sought such information. Rather, he ordered the respondent to “preserve” and “maintain”
documents related to these issues for later use at the compliance stage.
For a case addressing evidence-preservation letters, see National Assn. of Broadcast
Employees and Technicians (American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.), above, 371 NLRB
No. 15 (finding that the respondent union violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) by sending the individual
charging party and his legal counsel evidence-preservation demand letters detailing an extensive
duty to preserve a wide variety of types of data—including data not remotely relevant—and
threatening to seek damages should he fail to satisfy the asserted duty).
§ 8–740 Interference with Subpoena Compliance
It is a violation of the Act for an employer to:
(1) State or imply to a subpoenaed employee that compliance with the subpoena is
optional. Bobs Motors, Inc., 241 NLRB 1236 (1979) (employer violated 8(a)(1) by telling
employee that the Board’s subpoena was not enforceable and it was up to him to decide whether
to appear at the hearing), and cases cited there.
(2) Attempt to dissuade a subpoenaed employee from appearing at the hearing. See
Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., 127 NLRB 803, 804 (1960) (finding 8(a)(1) violation where the
employer told the subpoenaed employee on the day of hearing that it needed him to remain at
work and did not want him to appear at the hearing, and gave him the phone number of the
employer’s counsel).
(3) Threaten to treat the subpoenaed employee’s attendance at the hearing as an
absence subject to discipline or other adverse action, or to impose conditions on attendance,
such as trading shifts. See Fitel/Lucent Technologies, Inc., 326 NLRB 46, 54–55 (1998)
(employer violated 8(a)(4) and (1) by telling employee that he needed to exchange shifts with
another employee to avoid incurring an absence subject to discipline); and U.S. Precision Lens,
288 NLRB 505 n. 3 (1988) (employer violated 8(a)(4) and (1) by treating employee’s days of
attendance at hearing as absences that would count against her in the employer’s “excellent
attendance” program).
An ALJ who learns that such conduct may be occurring should at least warn the employer against
it.
§ 8–800 Enforcement of Subpoenas on Behalf of Private Party
Section 102.31(d) of the Board’s Rules provides that upon failure to comply with a Board
subpoena issued on request of a private party, the General Counsel “shall,” in the name of the
114
Board, institute a proceeding in district court, “unless enforcement of the subpoena would be
inconsistent with the law and the policies of the National Labor Relations Act.” See also Sec.
11(2) of the Act (providing for federal district court jurisdiction “upon application by the Board” in
the event of “contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any person”).
The Board, however, has made clear that the General Counsel is not required to institute
enforcement proceedings sua sponte, but only on request of the party on whose behalf the
subpoena was issued. See Best Western City View Motor Inn, 325 NLRB 1186 (1998)
(applying the same rule to subpoena enforcement contempt proceedings). Nor is the GC required
to initiate enforcement proceedings where the subpoena is incapable of being enforced. See
Champ Corp., 291 NLRB 803 (1988) (subpoena was incapable of being enforced as documents
were unavailable), enfd. 933 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 502 U.S. 957 (1991). See
also NLRB v. RadNet Mgt., Inc., 818 Fed. Appx. 663, 667 (9th Cir. June 17, 2020) (hearing
officer in postelection objections case did not err by refusing to enforce certain employer
subpoenas as they “were mere ‘fishing expeditions’ with no basis of belief or knowledge that they
would provide any probative information”); Equinox Holdings, Inc. v. NLRB, 883 F.3d 935, 940
(D.C. Cir. 2018) (hearing officer in postelection objections case did not unreasonably refuse to
enforce the company’s subpoena of an employee witness, as the company never made a proffer
that the testimony might have warranted setting aside the election); and Powerback
Rehabilitation, 365 NLRB No. 119, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2017) (Acting Regional Director did not
abuse his discretion in postelection objections case by refusing to enforce the employer’s
subpoena duces tecum on one of its supervisors to determine if she had made objectionable
preelection prounion statements because the subpoena was “at best, a fishing expedition,”
notwithstanding that the supervisor had not filed a petition to revoke the subpoena).
If asked to rule on whether the subpoenaed party has contumaciously refused to comply
with the subpoena within the meaning of Section 11(2) of the Act and Section 102.31(d) of the
Rules, the ALJ should normally do so. See Station Casinos, LLC, 28-CA-22918, unpub. Board
order issued March 3, 2011 (2011 WL 828422) (granting the respondent’s request for special
permission to appeal the Regional Director’s refusal to institute subpoena enforcement
proceedings, and remanding the matter to the judge with instructions to address in the first
instance, upon respondent’s request, whether the charging party had contumaciously refused to
comply with those portions of the subpoena not previously quashed by the judge).
Where enforcement proceedings are initiated, an adjournment of the trial may be
necessary until the subpoena issue is resolved. Often the judge may avoid the delay attendant to
subpoena enforcement by convincing the parties to resolve the issue by agreement.
115
CHAPTER 9. SETTLEMENTS
§ 9–100 In General
“[T]he Board from the very beginning has encouraged compromises and settlements. The
purpose of such attempted settlements has been to end labor disputes, and so far as possible to
extinguish all the elements giving rise to them.” Wallace Corp. v. NLRB, 323 U.S. 248, 253–254
(1944). As stated in the NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 1), Section 10124.1:
It is the policy of the Board and the General Counsel to actively encourage the
parties to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of issues at the earliest
possible stage. Moreover, the Administrative Procedure Act (Sec. 5(b)) requires
that the Agency consider “offers of settlement, or proposals of adjustment where
time, the nature of the proceeding, and the public interest permit.” (5 U.S.C. §
554(c)(1)). Since voluntary remedial action is a high priority, diligent settlement
efforts should be exerted in all meritorious cases. Settlement of a meritorious
case is the most effective means to: (1) improve relationships between the
parties; (2) effectuate the purposes of the Act; and (3) permit the Agency to
concentrate its limited resources on other cases by avoiding costly litigation
expenses.
§ 9–200 Promoting Settlement
§ 9–220 At Pretrial Conference
Normally the trial judge has his or her first contact with the parties by telephone in the
pretrial conference call. By definition, at this stage of the proceeding a complaint has issued, the
parties have not been able to settle the case, and the trial is imminent.
Consistent with the general policies set forth above, the judge at that time should
emphasize the importance of pursuing settlement and ensure that the parties are fully apprised of
each other’s positions on settlement. The parties should also be encouraged to discuss their
positions and settlement terms during the conference call, with the degree of judicial participation
the parties and the judge find appropriate. Finally, the General Counsel should be asked to
prepare a complete settlement package including, when appropriate, a calculation of all monetary
obligations.
Parties, particularly respondents, may sometimes be reluctant to freely discuss the merits
of the case during settlement discussions. However, they should be encouraged to do so, at least
to some extent, as it will assist in identifying areas of disagreement and evaluating whether a
settlement is possible.
It may be helpful to remind the parties of the many disadvantages of litigation, including:
(1) the financial costs of trial; (2) the time that managers, supervisors, and employees will be
absent from work to prepare for and attend the trial; (3) the delay in resolving the dispute,
including the possibility of subsequent appeals and compliance proceedings; and (4) the risk of
losing, and thereby either receiving nothing (if the charging party), or being ordered to pay
additional backpay with interest (if the respondent), including medical expenses (see, e.g.,
Nortech Waste, 336 NLRB 554 n. 2 (2001); McDaniel Ford, Inc., 331 NLRB 1645 (2000), enfd.
12 Fed. Appx. 75 (2d Cir. 2001); and Hansen Bros. Enterprises, 313 NLRB 599 (1993)).
116
If there is any possibility of settlement, the parties should be encouraged to continue
settlement discussions after the conference call. If practical and potentially helpful, the judge
should also attempt to schedule one or more follow-up conference calls. This will establish both a
target date for the exchange of additional information or proposals and an agreed-upon time for
further discussion.
Ordinarily such calls should include all parties, unless the judge secures permission to
speak to one party separately. The judge should be careful not to discuss settlement offers
directly with an alleged discriminatee in the absence of counsel for the General Counsel.
§ 9–230 At the Trial
At their discretion, ALJs may offer parties an opportunity to settle at the hearing. As
indicated in § 1–100, Judge’s Opening Statement, above, ALJs typically do so before going on
the record, at the close of the General Counsel’s case, and/or after all the evidence has been
introduced. See J. Westrum Electric, 365 NLRB No. 151, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2017) (ALJ did not
demonstrate bias against respondents by encouraging settlement after the GC’s case had been
presented and again at the close of the hearing; the judge stated at the beginning of the hearing
that she would do so at those times, and she did not display bias against any party or create the
impression that she had prejudged the case), enfd. 753 Fed. Appx. 421 (8th Cir. 2019), cert.
denied 140 S.Ct. 2771 (2020).
How much time a judge should allow before going on the record or during the trial for
settlement discussions will depend on all the circumstances. Relevant factors include the
willingness of the parties to share information and offer reasonable terms, the complexities of the
case, the likelihood of reaching a full or partial settlement that will significantly reduce the time
needed for litigation, and the availability of witnesses if the trial is delayed.
The judge should carefully evaluate the circumstances to ensure that any significant delay
is likely to be fruitful and minimally impact the flow of the trial in the event a final settlement is not
realized.
§ 9–240 After the Trial
Parties may, of course, continue to engage in settlement discussions after the record is
closed and while the judge is preparing a decision. Such discussions typically occur, if at all,
without the judge, but the judge may participate if requested. If the parties desire an extension of
time beyond the usual 35-day limit for the filing of posthearing briefs to engage in further
settlement efforts, they may seek an extension from the Chief Judge or Deputy or Associate Chief
Judge in the appropriate office.
§ 9–300 Judge’s Role in Approving Settlements
§ 9–320 Settlements Before Hearing Opens
A Regional Director’s decision to approve a settlement and withdraw a complaint prior to
the opening of the hearing is not reviewable by the administrative law judge or the Board. The
charging party’s sole avenue of review in such circumstances is to file an appeal with the General
Counsel in Washington, D.C., whose determination is final. See NLRB v. Food & Commercial
Workers Local 23, 484 U.S. 112, 124–126 (1987); and Sections 102.18 and 102.19 of the
Board’s Rules. The same appears to be true if the hearing has opened but no evidence has been
117
introduced. See Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 (American Elgen), 306 NLRB 981, 981–982
(1992) (reversing the ALJ and holding that, even if the trial has opened, the General Counsel
retains sole, unreviewable authority to withdraw the complaint if no evidence has been introduced
and no contention has been made that a legal issue is ripe for adjudication on the parties'
pleadings alone), and other cases discussed in § 3–500, Withdrawal or Dismissal, above.
However, there is no such limitation on Board review where the General Counsel rejects
or opposes a proffered settlement executed by the respondent and the charging party. The
Board may rule on the adequacy of such a settlement pursuant to a timely prehearing motion to
dismiss the complaint under Section 102.24 of the Board’s Rules. Fairmont Hotel, 314 NLRB
534 n. 4 (1994).
Judges have also reviewed and approved or rejected such settlements prior to the hearing
or before any evidence has been introduced pursuant to their general authority to rule on
prehearing motions under Sections 102.25 and 102.35(a)(8) of the Board’s Rules. See, for
example, Kiss Electric, LLC, 4–CA–164351, unpub. Board order issued June 27, 2017 (2017
WL 2794211). In that case, the Board upheld the judge’s approval of an informal settlement over
the General Counsel’s objections that it did not provide backpay for the discriminatees, require
instatement of one of the discriminatees, or include any provision for a default judgment. Although
not reflected in the Board’s order, the record before the Board indicated that judge had issued his
written order approving the settlement the day before the scheduled hearing. See also Flint
Iceland Arenas, 325 NLRB 318 (1998) (ALJ reviewed and approved a non-Board settlement
executed by the respondent and the charging party over the General Counsel’s objection at the
beginning of the hearing and before any evidence was introduced; although the Board
subsequently reversed the ALJ and rejected the settlement on appeal, it did so on the merits, not
because the ALJ lacked authority to rule on the settlement); and Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 341
NLRB 296, 298 (2004) (ALJ considered and rejected the respondent’s proposed settlement on
the merits several months prior to opening the hearing).
Judges have likewise considered and ruled on so-called “consent orders” proposed by the
respondent over the objection of both the General Counsel and the charging party prior to the
hearing or before any evidence is introduced. See AFSCME Local 47, 274 NLRB 1434, 1435
(1985) (the ALJ issued a show cause order and subsequently approved the respondent’s
proposed prehearing “consent order” based on the written responses; although the ALJ stated
that his show cause order “effectively opened the hearing,” no hearing was actually held); and
Enclosure Suppliers, LLC, 9-CA-46169, unpub. Board order issued July 14, 2011 (2011 WL
2837659) (the respondent proposed a consent order several weeks before the hearing and the
ALJ subsequently opened the hearing and issued an oral ruling approving it). Although the Board
subsequently rejected the proposed consent orders in both cases on appeal, as in Flint Iceland
Arenas, above, it did so on the merits, without any finding or suggestion that the ALJs lacked
authority to consider or rule on the consent orders prehearing. (For a further discussion of
“consent orders,” see § 9–440, below).
As discussed in § 9–500, below, the judge should ensure that the parties’ positions for
and against such a proposed settlement or consent order are placed on the record. One option,
which has been used successfully by judges, is to open the hearing by telephone in advance of
the scheduled date with a court reporter present. See § 12–200, Opening the Hearing by
Telephone or Mail, below. The settlement or consent order is placed into the record as an exhibit
along with the formal papers; the parties and the discriminatees, if any, are provided an
opportunity to state their positions on the record; and the judge rules on the settlement or consent
order, either immediately on the record or afterwards in a written order. This procedure saves the
parties, witnesses, counsel, and judge the time and expense of preparing for trial and traveling to
118
the hearing site in the event the settlement or consent order is approved. It may also preserve
the scheduled hearing date in the event the settlement or consent order is not approved.
§ 9–330 Settlements After Hearing Opens and Before Decision Issues
If an informal settlement is reached after the hearing opens and evidence has been
introduced but before a decision is issued, it must be submitted to the trial judge for review and
approval. See Section 101.9(d)(1) of the Board’s Statements of Procedure. See also §§ 3–500
and 9–320, above. This applies to all settlements, including formal settlements providing for
issuance a Board order. See Beverly California Corp., 326 NLRB 232, 236 n. 18 (1988); and
Today’s Man, 263 NLRB 332 (1982). However, Section 101.9(d)(1) provides that a formal
settlement must also be submitted to the Board for final approval after receiving approval from the
judge.
If the judge issues an order approving the settlement over objection, or rejecting the
settlement, an aggrieved party may file a special appeal with the Board pursuant to Section
102.26 of the Board’s Rules. See § 10-600, “Interlocutory Special Appeals from Judges Rulings,”
below.
§ 9–340 Settlement After Judge’s Decision Issues—ADR Program
After the judge issues a decision in a case, the matter is transferred to the Board and the
judge has no further role. Therefore, any settlement proposal proffered to the judge after the
decision has issued should be rejected as beyond the jurisdiction of the judge. The moving
parties should be directed to take appropriate matters to the Executive Secretary of the Board.
The parties may also avail themselves of the Board’s voluntary Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) program, which applies to unfair labor practice and compliance cases pending
before the Board. See Section 102.45(c) of the Board’s Rules for the applicable procedures.
§ 9–400 Standards for Approving or Rejecting Settlements
§ 9–410 Types of Settlements—Formal, Informal, and Non-Board
As indicated above, settlements may be either formal (providing for issuance of a Board
order and court enforcement) or informal (not involving issuance of a Board order). Either type of
settlement may be utilized at any time after a charge has been filed, although normally informal
settlements are not accepted after the case has been heard and the Board has issued a cease-
and-desist and affirmative order based on the record.
A third type of settlement, a non-Board settlement, involves an adjustment strictly between
the respondent(s) and the charging party(ies). The General Counsel is not a party to a non-Board
settlement, even though he/she may be involved in the settlement discussions and post-
settlement compliance. Thus, the GC cannot be found in breach of a non-Board settlement. See
Dilling Mechanical Contractors, 348 NLRB 98, 103 (2006). See also § 9–620, below.
§ 9–420 Formal Settlements
The NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 1), Section 10164.1 provides:
119
A formal settlement is a written stipulation providing that, on approval by the
Board, a Board order in conformity with its terms will issue. Ordinarily, it will also
provide for the consent entry of a court judgment enforcing the order. Sec.
101.9(b)(1), Statements of Procedure.
The Casehandling Manual also sets forth procedures for transferring formal settlements to
the General Counsel’s Washington, D.C. office and the Board, as well as sample language
appropriate for formal settlements. See Secs. 10164–10170.
Normally formal settlement agreements are drafted by the Regional Offices, using the
procedural and technical language in the manuals, to meet the requirements for submission to
the General Counsel and the Board for final review and approval. The judge should refrain from
significantly reviewing nonsubstantive aspects of formal settlement agreements. But see
Pipefitters Local 290, UFCW, 348 NLRB 998 (2006), where the Board majority rejected a
proposed formal settlement because it did not contain provisions memorializing the parties’
reported agreement that the General Counsel would only seek enforcement of the order if the
respondent failed to comply with it.
If the judge rules on a formal settlement during the trial, the judge should indicate approval
or rejection on the record. Alternatively, such as during an adjournment or after the trial closes,
the judge should issue an order and notification to the parties. The Regional Office thereafter
assumes the responsibility for transmitting the stipulation and supporting documents to the
General Counsel’s Division of Operations Management so that the procedure for obtaining
approval of the GC and the Board can be implemented.
§ 9–430 Informal and Non-Board Settlements
In Independent Stave Co., 287 NLRB 740, 743 (1987), the Board set out the relevant
considerations for approving non-Board settlements. The Board stated that it would not reject a
non-Board settlement “simply because it does not mirror a full remedy”; rather, it would
examine all the . . . circumstances including, but not limited to, (1) whether the
charging party(ies), the respondent(s), and any of the individual discriminatee(s)
have agreed to be bound, and the position taken by the General Counsel
regarding the settlement; (2) whether the settlement is reasonable in light of the
nature of the violations alleged, the risks inherent in litigation, and the stage of
the litigation; (3) whether there has been any fraud, coercion, or duress by any of
the parties in reaching the settlement; and (4) whether the respondent has
engaged in a history of violations of the Act or has breached previous settlement
agreements resolving unfair labor practice disputes.
Applying these factors, the Board approved the subject non-Board settlements in that case.
Although the settlements were opposed by the General Counsel, did not resolve the 8(a)(3)
refusal-to-hire allegation regarding one of the four charging parties/discriminatees, provided only
10 percent backpay to the other three charging parties/discriminatees, and did not provide for
posting a notice, the Board approved the settlements as they were reached before the hearing,
were signed by the three charging parties/discriminatees and approved by the union, and gave
them employment with retroactive seniority. See also McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center,
361 NLRB 54 (2014), where the Board applied the foregoing factors and approved a posthearing
non-Board settlement of the 8(a)(5) failure-to-provide-information allegations over the General
Counsel’s objection that it did not provide for posting a notice or otherwise fully remedy the
allegations.
120
The Board also applies the Independent Stave factors to both informal and formal
settlements. See, e.g., Kiss Electric, LLC, 4–CA–164351, unpub. Board order issued June 27,
2017 (2017 WL 2794211). In that case, the complaint alleged that the employer had unlawfully
refused to consider and hire five union salts. The Board upheld the judge’s approval of a
prehearing informal settlement of the allegations notwithstanding the General Counsel’s
objections that the settlement did not provide backpay for the discriminatees, require instatement
of one of the discriminatees, or include any provision for a default judgment. See also
Woodworkers Local 3–433 (Kimtruss Corp.), 304 NLRB 1, 2 (1991) (upholding the judge’s
approval of a post-hearing informal settlement of 8(b) allegations against the respondent union
over the objections of the respondent employer in the companion 8(a) case); and KW Electric
Inc., 327 NLRB 70 (1998) (approving a formal settlement over the charging party’s objection after
the judge’s decision issued).
For other cases approving settlements applying the above factors, see Hospital Perea
Unidad, 356 NLRB 1204, 1204–1205 (2011) (reversing the ALJ and approving a prehearing non-
Board settlement of an 8(a)(5) unilateral change allegation notwithstanding the General Counsel’s
objection that the respondent had committed similar unlawful conduct 2–3 years earlier);
American Pacific Pipe Co., 290 NLRB 623, 623–624 (1988) (approving a prehearing non-Board
settlement of a backpay claim notwithstanding the General Counsel’s objection that it provided
the discriminatee only about half of the total amount set forth in the specification); and
Longshoremen ILA Local 1814 (Amstar Sugar), 301 NLRB 764, 764–765 (1991) (approving a
non-Board settlement of the 8(b)(3) illegal strike allegation against the union over the General
Counsel’s objection, notwithstanding that the judge had already issued a decision on the
stipulated record finding a violation and the settlement did not require the union to post a notice).
For a case approving a settlement involving an alleged joint employer, see McDonald’s
USA, LLC, a joint employer, et al., 368 NLRB No. 134 (2019). In that case, the Board reversed
the ALJ and approved informal settlements over the charging parties’ objections, notwithstanding
that the settlements were not executed by the General Counsel and the respondents until near
the close of the 150-day hearing and respondent McDonald’s did not guarantee compliance with
the remedies as a joint employer of the respondent franchisees. The Board noted that the
settlements required the franchisees to provide an immediate remedy for all 181 violations of the
consolidated complaints, including full backpay for all 8(a)(3) violations and premium backpay for
the discriminatees who waived reinstatement. The Board also noted that there was no history of
recidivism by the respondents; that the settlements imposed certain remedial obligations on
McDonald’s in lieu of a guarantee of joint and several liability; and that there was no significant
probability of prevailing on the complaint’s joint-employer allegation.
For cases rejecting settlements, see Postal Service, 1–CA–176465, unpub. Board order
issued July 27, 2018 (2018 WL 3642688) (rejecting a formal settlement of the complaint’s 8(a)(5)
allegations that the Postal Service unreasonably delayed providing the union with information,
even though both the General Counsel and the charging party union agreed to the settlement, as
the Postal Service was a recidivist and the stipulated order would allow it to seek modification or
dissolution of the judgment after 5 years); International Shipping Agency, Inc., 24–CA–091723,
unpub. Board order issued April 20, 2015 (2015 WL 1802717) (finding that the judge erred in
approving a non-Board settlement in an 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) partial-closing case that was
opposed by the General Counsel, did not provide for posting a notice, provided for only 32
percent backpay and a circumscribed preferential hiring remedy rather than a reinstatement
remedy for the 28 alleged discriminatees, failed to address a large portion of the alleged
violations, and required the employees to waive their right to strike); *Michels Corp., 30–CA–
81206, unpub. Board order issued Dec. 19, 2012 (2012 WL 6625274) (finding that the judge
improperly accepted a non-Board settlement over the General Counsel’s objections where the
121
settlement provided only backpay and a neutral employment reference to the alleged
discriminatee, did not provide for any notice to other employees of their rights, and included a
broad confidentiality clause); Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 338 NLRB 275 (2002) (likewise
disapproving a non-Board settlement where the first and second factors weighed heavily against
approval); and Flint Iceland Arenas, 325 NLRB 318, 318–319 (1998) (same).
See also *Goya Foods of Florida, 358 NLRB 345 (2012) (finding that all four criteria
favored rejecting the non-Board settlement); Frontier Foundries, Inc., 312 NLRB 73 (1993)
(rejecting a non-Board settlement that provided only 6 percent backpay plus additional amounts
as “liquidated damages,” allegedly to avoid being taxed as income, did not require posting any
notices, and did not contain assurances against future misconduct); Flyte Time Worldwide, 362
NLRB 393 (2015) (Board declined to apply the Independent Stave analysis and denied the
charging party’s unopposed request, following issuance of the ALJ’s decision, to withdraw his
8(a)(1) charge pursuant to a private settlement reached in a related class action wage and hour
lawsuit, as the settlement did not even address, much less remedy, the 8(a)(1) allegation); and
Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., 19–CA–032908, unpub. Board order issued Oct. 20, 2015 (2015 WL
6156743) (Board declined to remand a pending proceeding where the parties refused to disclose
the terms of their non-Board settlement).
Note that, in International Shipping Agency, above, the Board also held that the judge
erred in rejecting certain financial and tax records the General Counsel offered into evidence to
show, contrary to the charging party union’s assertion, that the respondent had the ability to pay a
greater backpay amount than provided in the non-Board settlement.
Finally, the Board also applies the same Independent Stave analysis in evaluating
whether private termination or severance agreements containing waiver and release provisions
bar the unfair labor practice complaint allegations. See, for example, BP Amoco Chemical—
Chocolate Bayou, 351 NLRB 614 (2007), where the Board applied the Independent Stave
factors and found that the 8(a)(3) discharge allegations were barred by private termination
agreements containing waiver and release provisions that all of the alleged discriminatees signed
in exchange for enhanced severance benefits. See also A.S.V., Inc., 366 NLRB No. 162 (2018),
where the Board found that severance agreements containing waiver and release provisions
signed by 11 of the 13 alleged discriminatees did not bar the 8(a)(3) layoff allegations or prevent
the Board from fully remedying the discrimination against them, both because the agreements
were inadequate under Independent Stave, and because the severance agreements were offered
to the employees “as part of a broader scheme to eliminate union supporters”). (A further
discussion of such waiver and release provisions is found in §9–640, below.)
§ 9–440 Settlement by Consent Order
A trial judge may also be asked by a respondent to approve a settlement by “consent
order”—that is, a unilateral settlement offered by the respondent but not agreed to by either the
General Counsel or the charging party.
The judge should apply the Independent Stave “all the surrounding circumstances”
analysis in evaluating such proposed consent orders. See UPMC, 365 NLRB No. 153 (2017)
(overruling the “full remedy” standard announced in Postal Service, 364 NLRB No. 116 (2016),
and returning to the Independent Stave analysis applied in prior cases). Most importantly, the
judge should consider the second of the four nonexhaustive factors listed in Independent Stave—
whether the proposed resolution is “reasonable in light of the nature of the violations alleged, the
risks inherent in litigation, and the stage of the litigation.” Id., slip op. at 8.
122
Applying the foregoing analysis, the Board in UPMC affirmed the judge’s approval of the
offer submitted by respondent UPMC. The only allegation against UPMC was that it was a single
employer with Presbyterian Shadyside (PS), the respondent company that allegedly committed
the Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (4) violations. Prior to litigating the single-employer allegation
(which was severed pending resolution of related subpoena disputes to avoid delaying the
substantive allegations against PS), UPMC offered to “guarantee the remediation of any violation”
found against PS, and “as a guarantor . . . [be] liable for [PS’s] compliance with any remedy
ordered” and to “take any necessary action to ensure compliance” “to the extent PS fails to
remediate any unfair labor practices on its own.” The General Counsel and the union objected to
UPMC’s offer because it was not equivalent to the full joint and several liability that would obtain if
UPMC was ultimately adjudicated to be a single employer, which would allow the GC to hold
UPMC primarily and directly liable for any violations committed by PS. However, the Board
majority found that the GC’s and the charging party’s opposition were outweighed by the following
“countervailing factors”: (1) UPMC’s remedial guarantee was “as effective as” a finding of single-
employer status; (2) there was no allegation or evidence presented at trial that UPMC had
independently committed any unfair labor practices, and thus PS “should be primarily responsible
to remedy its own violations”; (3) rejecting UPMC’s offer would run the risk that UPMC might
ultimately be found not to be a single employer and thus bear no responsibility for remedying the
alleged violations; and (4) accepting UPMC’s offer would greatly expedite the resolution of the
proceeding by avoiding lengthy litigation of the single-employer allegation. Id. at 6–9.
Following UPMC, the Board found that an ALJ in an 8(a)(3) and (4) case did not abuse his
discretion in approving a nonadmission consent order at the outset of the hearing over the
General Counsel’s objections. The GC objected because there was a history of prior alleged
violations by the respondent employer and the proposed consent order did not include “default”
language providing for a Board order and court judgment in the event of noncompliance. The
Board rejected the GC’s objections and found that the consent order was properly approved
under Independent Stave because (1) the consent order contained traditional remedies for the
alleged violations; (2) the previous alleged violations had been resolved pursuant to a
nonadmission informal settlement and a nonadmission consent order and thus did not establish a
proclivity to violate the Act; and (3) an alternative enforcement mechanism existed in which the
GC could issue a new complaint in the event of noncompliance. El Super, 28–CA–170463,
unpub. Board order issued June 10, 2019 (2019 WL 2435789).
For a pre-UPMC example where the Board approved a consent order applying the
Independent Stave factors, see Laborers Local 872, 28–CB–118809, unpub. Board order issued
Jan. 12, 2015 (2015 WL 153954). The complaint in that case alleged that the respondent union
had unlawfully failed to provide certain hiring hall information to the individual charging party.
Under the proposed informal consent order, the union agreed to provide the charging party with
the requested information and to post a union notice in the hiring hall for a year stating that, on
request, the union would promptly make hiring hall referral records available for review by anyone
using the hall. Applying the Independent Stave factors, the judge approved the consent order,
notwithstanding the General Counsel’s objection that it did not provide for posting an official
Board notice that specifically addressed the refusal to provide information to the charging party.
The Board upheld the judge’s ruling, finding that the consent order “substantially remedie[d]” the
alleged violations.
See also Heil Environmental, 10-CA-114054, unpub. Board order issued June 20, 2014
(2014 WL 2812204). The complaint in that case alleged a variety of 8(a)(1) violations during an
organizing campaign. The General Counsel objected to the respondent’s proposed informal
consent order because it did not require the respondent to read the remedial notice and failed to
include “default” language providing for a formal Board order in the event of noncompliance. The
123
Board rejected the GC’s objections, finding that “a recent non-Board settlement entered into by
the Respondent and the Charging Party which no party seeks to set aside and a 30-year old
unrelated unfair labor practice case are insufficient bases for concluding that the Respondent has
a history of violations of the Act.” Citing Independent Stave, the Board therefore found that the
consent order substantially remedied the alleged violations.
For pre-UPMC examples where proposed consent orders have been rejected applying the
Independent Stave factors, see Enclosure Suppliers, LLC, 9-CA-46169, unpub. Board order
issued July 14, 2011 (2011 WL 2837659) (granting the General Counsel’s special appeal and
finding that the judge abused his discretion in approving an informal consent order that did not
require the respondent to comply with the 8(a)(1) cease and desist provisions beyond the 60-day
notice posting period); Iron Workers Local 27 (Morrison-Knudson), 313 NLRB 215, 217 (1993)
(rejecting a proposed consent order in an 8(b)(1)(A) hiring hall case because it did not provide for
posting a notice), enfd. mem. 70 F.3d 119 (9th Cir. 1995); Food Lion, Inc., 304 NLRB 602 n. 4
(1991) (rejecting a proposed consent order in an 8(a)(1) denial of union access case because it
contained various restrictions on union access); and Copper State Rubber, 301 NLRB 138
(1991) (rejecting a proposed consent order because it did not settle the allegations concerning
one of the discriminatees, and settling the other allegations would not necessarily save the
parties the time and expense of litigation as the evidence underlying those allegations could be
used as background evidence to support the nonsettled allegations). See also Lin Television
Corp., 362 NLRB 1818 (2015) (rejecting a proposed consent order that contained a broad
nonadmission clause and omitted notice language stating that the respondent would not attempt
to prevent or interfere with employees’ Section 7 rights, given that the respondent had previously
misrepresented to the Region that it agreed the allegations should be deferred to arbitration, a
representation later belied by respondent’s arguments to the arbitrator and motion to stay the
arbitration).
§ 9–500 Procedures for Considering, Accepting, or Rejecting Settlement
Preparation of written agreement. It is always wise to ensure that the parties prepare a
legible and complete settlement with all elements included before the settlement is formally
considered. Experience has shown that oral agreements are sometimes based on mutual
misunderstandings. Indeed, even written settlements should be clear and understandable
because the Board will set aside an ambiguous settlement where the Board concludes there has
been no meeting of the minds. See Local Union 290, UFCW, 348 NLRB 998 (2006); and
Doubletree Guest Suites Santa Monica, 347 NLRB 782 (2006).
An informal settlement may be secured on Form NLRB 5378, “Settlement Agreement
Approved by an Administrative Law Judge.” The forms are available in Regional Offices. The
settlement agreement and the notice should be entered into evidence as exhibits so that the
Board has a full record to review if there is an appeal.
Positions of Parties. The positions of all parties on the settlement should also be put on
the record. See NLRB Statements of Procedure, Sec. 101.9(d)(1). If the issues are somewhat
complex, it may be appropriate to request briefs on the advisability of approving a settlement.
Positions of Alleged Discriminatees. In settlements involving alleged discriminatees, their
position(s) regarding approval of the settlement should also be put on the record, either directly or
indirectly through the General Counsel or the charging party. In Flint Iceland Arenas, 325 NLRB
318, 320 (1998), a Board majority rejected a non-Board settlement in part on this basis. The
Board majority held, among other things, that although it is not necessary that all alleged
discriminatees be notified and that they all agree to be bound, the views of named and otherwise
124
identifiable discriminatees should be taken into account and, if those individuals have not been
informed of the settlement or have not been given opportunity to express their views of the
settlement on the record, this is a factor to be considered in evaluating the settlement. See also
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 338 NLRB 275 (2002) (affirming the judge’s rejection of a non-Board
settlement, opposed by the General Counsel, where the settlement only partially remedied the
unfair labor practices alleged and had the approval of only one of four alleged discriminatees).
Judge’s Ruling or Order. As indicated in §§ 9–320 and 9–420, above, the judge’s ruling
and reasoning in approving or rejecting the settlement should likewise be stated on the record for
purposes of review. See also El Super, 367 NLRB No. 34, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2018) (judge did not
err by including in the hearing record his prehearing decision denying the respondent’s motion for
approval of a consent order, together with the motion papers and exhibits). Alternatively, if the
settlement occurs after the close of trial or during a hiatus in the case, a written order is
appropriate. The judge should issue an order rather than a decision when approving a settlement
agreement, even where the judge overrules an objection to the settlement.
Right to Appeal. As indicated in § 9–330, above, if the judge issues an order approving
the settlement over objection or rejecting the settlement, aggrieved parties should be advised of
the right to file a special appeal with the Board pursuant to Section 102.26 of the Board’s Rules.
See NLRB Statements of Procedure, Sec. 101.9(d)(2).
Recessing Trial and Remanding Pending Compliance. Ordinarily, if a judge approves a
settlement on the record, the judge should recess the trial indefinitely pending compliance.
If the settlement is informal, the standard NLRB informal settlement form (NLRB Form
5378) states that the settlement agreement is remanded to the Regional Director to secure
compliance with its terms. Form 5378 also provides that, upon notification of compliance, a
motion to withdraw the complaint should be filed and the judge should issue an order approving
withdrawal of the complaint as well as the answer. See also IATSE Local 16 (Various
Employers), 20–CB–213058, unpub Board order issued June 4, 2019 (2019 WL 2408687)
(judge acted in accordance with the terms of the informal settlement agreement and Sec. 10154.4
of the Board’s Casehandling Manual in remanding the case to the regional director to secure
compliance before entertaining a motion to withdraw the complaint). But cf. McDonald’s USA,
Inc., 368 NLRB No. 134, slip op. at 8 (2019) (approving informal settlements notwithstanding that
they required the General Counsel to move for withdrawal of the consolidated complaints within
10 days after approval, before compliance was effectuated, given the unusual complexity of the
consolidated complaints and the Regional Director’s ability to reinstate the relevant charges and
complaint allegations if the respondents commit post-settlement conduct that violated the terms of
the settlement or the Act).
If the settlement is a non-Board settlement that does not include similar provisions, the
judge may approve withdrawal of the charge(s), dismiss the complaint, and remand the case to
the Regional Director to handle compliance without further involvement by the judge. See, e.g.,
Longshoremen ILA Local 1814 (Amstar Sugar), 301 NLRB 764, 765 (1991). The parties
should be informed that, in the event the Regional Director determines compliance has not been
achieved, the Regional Director may set aside the settlement and reissue the complaint, which
would be assigned for trial in the normal course, without automatic reassignment to the judge who
approved the settlement. See § 9–800, below, Setting Aside Settlement Agreements.
With respect to formal settlements, see § 9–420, above.
125
§ 9–600 Various Provisions of Settlement Agreements
§ 9–610 Nonadmission Clauses
Inclusion of a nonadmission clause is not a valid basis for objecting to a proposed formal
settlement that provides for entry of an enforceable Board order and otherwise effectuates the
policies of the Act. Mine Workers (James Bros. Coal), 191 NLRB 209, 209–210 (1971). See
also Containair Systems Corp. v. NLRB, 521 F.2d 1166, 1172 (2d Cir. 1975); NLRB v. Oil
Workers (Catalytic Maintenance), 476 F.2d 1031, 1037 (1st Cir. 1973); and Concrete
Materials of Georgia v. NLRB, 440 F.2d 61, 68 (5th Cir. 1971). But cf. Teamsters Local 115
(Gross Metal Products), 275 NLRB 1547 (1985) (upholding the judge’s rejection of a formal
settlement after the close of the hearing, which was opposed by the charging party, as it
contained both a narrow order and a nonadmission clause notwithstanding that the respondent
union was a recidivist, had allegedly again engaged in widespread picket line misconduct and
violence, and offered only a limited defense at trial), enfd. 800 F.2d 1136 (3d Cir. 1986).
Informal settlements containing such clauses are also frequently accepted by the General
Counsel and approved by judges and the Board, even over the objection of the charging party.
See, e.g., Woodworkers Local 3–433 (Kimtruss Corp.), 304 NLRB 1, 2 (1991); and Garment
Workers ILGWU Local 415–475 (Arosa Knitting) v. NLRB, 501 F.2d 823, 826, 832–833 (D.C.
Cir. 1974). Although Section 10130.8 of the NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 1) states that
nonadmission clauses “should not be routinely incorporated in settlement agreements,” this
provision is apparently intended simply to make clear to regional office personnel that they can
reject such clauses in egregious cases. See BPH & Co. v. NLRB, 333 F.3d 213, 222 (D.C. Cir.
2003).
Nonadmission clauses, however, may not be included in the Board’s Notice to Employees
“under any circumstances.” Pottsville Bleaching Co., 301 NLRB 1095, 1095–1096 (1991). See
also Teamsters Local 372 (Detroit Newspapers), 323 NLRB 278, 280 n. 4 (1997).
§ 9–620 Reservation Clauses: Settlement Bar Rule
As previously discussed in §3–750, above, a formal or informal Board settlement disposes
of all issues involving presettlement conduct, unless prior violations were unknown to the General
Counsel, were not readily discoverable by investigation, or were specifically reserved from the
settlement by mutual understanding of the parties. Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel Co., 235 NLRB
1397 (1978), reaffd. in Park-Ohio Industries, 283 NLRB 571, 572 (1987). See also Ratliff
Trucking Corp., 310 NLRB 1224 (1993) (finding that the issue was not specifically reserved, and
that the settlement therefore barred the new complaint). Thus, where the issue is raised, the
judge may have to determine the scope and meaning of the prior settlement agreement. See also
§ 13–400, Reliance on Settlements, and § 16–402.4, Evidence of Presettlement Conduct, below.
As indicated in § 9–410, above, however, a non-Board settlement does not preclude the
General Counsel from re-alleging settled matters in subsequent unfair labor practice proceedings.
Such a settlement is not approved by the Regional Director, even though withdrawal of a charge
may have been approved, and therefore “does not estop the Regional Director from proceeding
on any new charge alleging the same conduct as the withdrawn charges.” Auto Bus, Inc., 293
NLRB 855, 855–856 (1989), quoting the judge in Quinn Co., 273 NLRB 795, 799 (1984). See
also KFMB Stations, 343 NLRB 748 n. 3 (2004) (citing Auto Bus with approval).
126
For a discussion of the General Counsel’s right to use evidence from a settled case to
establish animus or other elements of proof in another case, whether or not the settlement
specifically reserved that right, see § 16–402.4, Evidence of Presettlement Conduct, below.
§ 9–630 Joint and Several Liability
A settlement proposal limited to one of a number of alleged jointly and severally liable
respondents does not extinguish the liability of the nonsettling respondents, unless that is the
intention of the parties. See Urban Laboratories, 305 NLRB 987, 987–988 (1991), citing Zenith
Radio v. Hazeltine Research, 401 U.S. 321, 342–348 (1971) (an antitrust case).
§ 9–640 Waiver and Release Provisions
The Board has held that a provision waiving and releasing a respondent from all claims by
an employee is a permissible and lawful part of a settlement or severance agreement, unless it
prohibits filing future unfair labor practice charges that are unrelated to the past dispute or
employment, or prohibits providing evidence in the investigation of charges filed by other
employees. See First National Supermarkets, 302 NLRB 727, 727–728 (1991) (employer did
not unlawfully require discharged employee to sign a release, as a condition to settling a
grievance, that prohibited the employee from filing any future charges arising out of “[his] total
employment and [his] discharge,” as the most sensible interpretation of this phrase, in the context
of the release and the surrounding circumstances, was that it only prohibited claims that related
to his pre-discharge employment); and Clark Distribution Systems, Inc., 336 NLRB 747, 748–
749 (2001) (employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by conditioning acceptance of its severance
package on a requirement that employees “will not . . . voluntarily appear as a witness, voluntarily
provide documents or information, or otherwise assist in the prosecution of any claims . . . against
the company,” as this language was broad enough to include charges filed by or concerning other
employees).
With respect to whether the waiver and release language is sufficient to bar charges
involving past conduct, compare Septix Waste, Inc., 346 NLRB 494 (2006) (dismissing 8(a)(1)
charges filed by the union, as a prior settlement waived all such claims that “could have been
made” as of that date and the new charges were all based on facts in existence at that time), with
Quality Roofing Supply Company, 357 NLRB 789 (2011) (distinguishing Septix and finding that
the release did not waive the union’s right to file a charge regarding conduct that occurred before
the settlement, as the conduct was different from any alleged in the settled charges and the
release did not contain similar language waiving any charges that “could have been” raised at the
time of the settlement.)
§ 9–650 Taxability
Backpay is generally taxable as income in the year it is received. See Tortillas Don
Chavas, LLC, 361 NLRB 101, 104 (2014) (requiring respondents to compensate employees for
the adverse income tax consequences of receiving lump-sum backpay awards in a calendar year
other than the year in which the income would have been earned absent the violation).
A number of circuit courts have held that awards of both back and front pay under Title
VII, ADEA, and ERISA are “wages” subject to statutory withholding of income and FICA taxes.
See Noel v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 697 F.3d 209, 213 n. 4 (2d Cir. 2012),
and cases cited there.
127
§ 9–700 Grievance/Arbitration Settlements
As discussed in § 3–740, Deferral to Grievance Arbitration, the Board applies the same
deferral principles to grievance/arbitration settlements as it does to arbitral awards.
§ 9–800 Setting Aside Settlement Agreements
Informal and non-Board settlements may be set aside if their provisions are breached,
postsettlement unfair labor practices are committed, or the settlement is so ambiguous that there
was no meeting of the minds.
Noncompliance with Settlement. Section 101.9(e)(2) of the Board’s Statements of
Procedure specifically provides that if a respondent fails to comply with the terms of an informal
settlement agreement, the Regional Director may set the agreement aside and institute further
proceedings on the same charge. It is also well established that a Regional Director has the
authority to reinstate a withdrawn charge following noncompliance with a non-Board settlement
agreement, notwithstanding Section 10(b) of the Act, provided the original charge was timely
filed. See Sterling Nursing Home, 316 NLRB 413, 416–417 (1995); and Norris Concrete
Materials, 282 NLRB 289, 291 (1986).
The Regional Director’s action in setting aside the settlement and reactivating the case is
reviewable by the judge and the Board in the proceeding on the new complaint. For cases
upholding the Regional Director’s action, see Sidhal Industries, LLP, 356 NLRB 422 (2010)
(Regional Director set aside settlement and reissued complaint pursuant to the settlement’s
default language, where the employer complied with the 8(a)(3) remedial provisions of the
settlement, but not the 8(a)(5) provisions); Nations Rent, Inc., 339 NLRB 830, 831 (2003)
(employer reinstated and made whole the employee, but continued to maintain an overbroad rule
and failed to notify the employee in writing that his discipline had been expunged); and Postal
Workers Local 735, 340 NLRB 1363, 1364–1365 (2003) (respondent union’s president
published a post-settlement column, either during or immediately after the notice-posting period,
which condemned the charging party and lauded the steward whose conduct led to the original
charge). But see Courier Journal, 342 NLRB 1148, 1149–1150 (2004) (union’s failure to protest
closure of the original case on compliance pursuant to a settlement agreement precluded an
unfair labor practice complaint predicated on the company’s failure to furnish certain information
not provided at the time of compliance).
Where a settlement has been set aside, a full remedy should normally be issued on
request for the alleged presettlement conduct, less any amounts already paid pursuant to the
settlement. See Sidhal Industries, above, at n. 2. But see Totilleria La Poblanita, 357 NLRB
191, 194 (2011). In that case, the General Counsel’s motion for default judgement specifically
requested only that the respondent be ordered to pay the unpaid balance of the backpay amount
provided in the settlement. Although the motion also generally requested “that the Board grant
such further and other relief as may be appropriate,” the Board concluded that the GC was not
seeking remedies beyond those specified in the settlement and therefore limited its remedial
order accordingly. See also Midwestern Video Personnel, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 120, slip op. at
2–3 (2016); and Frontline Security Services, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 130, slip op. at 3–4 (2019).
New Unfair Labor Practices. Subsequent or continuing unfair labor practices will ordinarily
justify setting aside a settlement agreement. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 102, slip op.
at 2–3 (2017); Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas, 347 NLRB 52, 53 (2006); and YMCA of
the Pikes Peak Region, Inc., 291 NLRB 998, 1010, 1012 (1988), enfd. 914 F.2d 1442, 1449–
1450 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
128
However, new unfair labor practices will not warrant setting aside a settlement if they are
“isolated” or “insubstantial.” See Diamond Electric Mfg. Corp., 346 NLRB 857, 862–863 (2006)
(finding a single post-settlement instance of discriminatory discipline insufficient), citing Coopers
Int’l Union, 208 NLRB 175 (1974). See also Porto Mills, 149 NLRB 1454, 1470 (1964); and
Wooster Brass Co., 80 NLRB 1633, 1635 (1948).
Ambiguous Agreement. An informal settlement may also be set aside if the agreement is
so ambiguous that a conclusion is warranted that there was no “meeting of the minds” on the
settlement. See Doubletree Guest Suites Santa Monica, 347 NLRB 782, 782–783 (2006)
(setting aside an informal settlement because the “WE WILL NOT” provision of the notice at issue
was ambiguous and neither of the interpretations advanced by the parties resolved the
ambiguity); and IATSE, Local 659, 197 NLRB 1187 (1972) (setting aside informal settlement
where the circumstances indicated that there was no meeting of the minds when the settlement
was executed regarding the formula that would be used by the Regional Director to determine the
backpay amount), enfd. mem. 477 F.2d 450 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
Compare Jam Productions, Ltd., 367 NLRB No. 30 (2018) (finding that an informal
settlement’s silence regarding whether the terminated employees were entitled to seniority on the
on-call list indicated that the parties specifically agreed not to include such a requirement; that the
settlement was therefore not ambiguous; and that the judge therefore erred in setting aside the
agreement because there was no meeting of the minds); and Inter-Lakes Engineering Co., 217
NLRB 148 (1975) (declining to set aside settlement because of the parties’ dispute over its
meaning, as the settlement’s meaning was clear on its face). See also McDonald’s USA, LLC,
368 NLRB No. 134, slip op. at 10 n. 37 (2019) (rejecting the ALJ’s finding that there was no
meeting of the minds between the General Counsel and respondent McDonald’s based on their
apparently conflicting statements at the hearing, as their subsequent statements and briefs to the
ALJ and the Board demonstrated “a coherent and consistent understanding of their obligations
under the settlement agreements”).
§ 9–900 Default Judgment for Noncompliance with Settlement
Informal settlements often include provisions for issuance of a default judgment if the
respondent fails to comply with the settlement’s terms. However, the provisions typically require
the Regional Director to give the respondent at least 14 days’ notice of such noncompliance
before filing the motion for default judgment. See, e.g., Nursing Center at University Village,
367 NLRB No. 43 (2018). Further, the Board has held that it is a denial of due process to issue a
default judgment for noncompliance with a settlement without giving the respondent prior notice
and an opportunity to be heard regarding the alleged noncompliance. See ConAgra Foods,
above, slip op. at 3.
If the respondent’s response raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding the alleged
noncompliance, the parties are entitled to a hearing on the disputed issue(s) before an ALJ.
However, if the respondent’s response fails to raise any such material factual issue, it is
appropriate to rule on the General Counsel’s motion for default judgment without a hearing. For
example, in Bristol Manor Health Care Center, 360 NLRB 38 (2013), the Board found that the
respondent’s response was insufficient to raise any material factual issue warranting a hearing
because, although the response asserted that certain requested information had been provided to
the union as required by the settlement, it did not directly deny that certain other information had
still not been provided. The Board therefore granted the General Counsel’s motion for default
judgment pursuant to the noncompliance provisions of the informal settlement.
129
See also Rogan Bros. Sanitation, Inc., 357 NLRB 1655 (2011). In that case, the
respondent’s response contended that its general manager had lacked authority to enter into the
settlement and was coerced into signing it by the Board agent’s alleged statement that, if he did
not sign, the Board would issue a complaint and find that respondent violated the law. The Board
found that neither contention raised a material factual issue because the respondent had ratified
the agreement by its subsequent conduct and the Board agent’s alleged statement simply
informed the manager of the Board’s processes and the possible consequences of refusing to
settle.
Of course, a hearing is also unnecessary if the parties stipulate to the material facts. See
Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 365 NLRB No. 127 (2017) (affirming the ALJ’s finding, based
on a stipulated record, that the respondent employer breached an informal Board settlement by
posting, next to the Board’s remedial notice, a side letter that undermined the effectiveness of the
notice, and that a default judgment was therefore warranted pursuant to the noncompliance
provisions of the settlement)., enfd. 773 Fed. Appx. 531 (11th Cir. 2019).
§ 9–1000 Decision Vacated by Settlement
Unless otherwise expressly provided, an order vacating a prior decision pursuant to a
settlement vacates that decision “only insofar as there is no longer a court-enforceable order in
the case and the decision has no preclusive effect on the parties.” Caterpillar, Inc., 332 NLRB
1116 (2000). The decision remains published and “may be cited as controlling precedent with
respect to the legal analysis therein.” Ibid. In this respect, it is distinguishable from a vacatur on
the merits, which eliminates the prior decision for all purposes, including precedential effect.
§ 9–1100 Role of Settlement Judge
The role of a settlement judge is established and defined by Section 102.35(b) of the
Board’s Rules:
Upon the request of any party or of the Administrative Law Judge
assigned to hear a case, or upon the Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge or
Associate Chief Judge’s own motion, the Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge or an
Associate Chief Judge may assign a Judge other than the trial judge to conduct
settlement negotiations. In exercising this discretion, the Chief Judge, Deputy
Chief Judge, or Associate Chief Judge making the assignment will consider,
among other factors, whether there is reason to believe that resolution of the
dispute is likely, the request for assignment of a settlement judge is made in
good faith, and the assignment is otherwise feasible. However, no such
assignment will be made absent the agreement of all parties to the use of this
procedure.
(1) The settlement judge shall convene and preside over conferences and
settlement negotiations between the parties, assess the practicalities of a
potential settlement, and report to the Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge, or
Associate Chief Judge the status of settlement negotiations, recommending
continuation or termination of the settlement negotiations. Where feasible,
settlement conferences will be held in person.
(2) The settlement judge may require that the attorney or other
representative for each party be present at settlement conferences and that the
130
parties or agents with full settlement authority also be present or available by
telephone.
(3) Participation of the settlement judge shall terminate upon the order of
the Chief Judge, Deputy Chief, or Associate Chief Judge issued after
consultation with the settlement judge. The conduct of settlement negotiations
must not unduly delay the hearing.
(4) All discussions between the parties and the settlement judge will be
confidential. The settlement judge must not discuss any aspect of the case with
the trial judge, and no evidence regarding statements, conduct, offers of
settlement, and concessions of the parties made in proceedings before the
settlement judge will be admissible in any proceeding before the Board, except
by stipulation of the parties. Documents disclosed in the settlement process may
not be used in litigation unless voluntarily produced or obtained pursuant to
subpoena.
(5) No decision of a Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge, or Associate Chief
Judge concerning the assignment of a settlement judge or the termination of a
settlement judge's assignment is appealable to the Board.
(6) Any settlement reached under the auspices of a settlement judge shall
be subject to approval in accordance with the provisions of Section 101.9 of the
Board's Statements of Procedure.
Although the rule provides that the settlement judge shall be “other than the trial judge,” a
settlement judge was assigned to be the trial judge in the absence of any objections in
*Kingsbridge Heights Rehabilitation and Care Center, 353 NLRB 631, 633 n. 5 (2008).
Note that the settlement judge has no authority to rule on a motion to approve a
settlement or consent order over objections. Such a motion should be made to the trial judge.
131
CHAPTER 10. MOTIONS AND SPECIAL APPEALS
Motions and requests for special permission to appeal ALJ rulings are addressed in
Sections 102.24 through 102.26 of the Board rules, respectively. Section 102.24(a) describes
where to file motions made before, during, and after the hearing but before transfer of the case to
the Board. Section 102.24(b) addresses motions for summary judgment or dismissal. And
Section 102.24(c) states that the party filing a motion may file a reply to an opposition to the
motion within 7 days of receipt of the opposition; however, further responses are not permitted
absent special circumstances warranting leave to do so.
Section 102.25 addresses who will rule on prehearing motions and motions made after
opening of the hearing.
Section 102.26 states that motions and related rulings and orders will be made part of the
record except for rulings on motions to revoke subpoenas, which will become part of the record
only on request of the aggrieved party as provided in 102.31 (see also § 8–235, above, with
respect to admitting the subpoena ruling and related pleadings into the record). Section 102.26
also addresses how a party may request special permission from the Board to appeal a ruling by
the judge.
As discussed below, specific types of motions are addressed in more detail in other
sections of the rules or in Board decisions.
§ 10–100 Motions In Limine
Judges have authority to rule on motions in limine seeking to limit the issues or evidence
to be litigated or presented at a hearing. See, e.g., TNT Logistics, 346 NLRB 1301 n. 1 (2006)
(ALJ properly granted the General Counsel’s prehearing motion in limine to strike seven of the
respondent’s eight affirmative defenses as they were not relevant to the complaint allegations),
enfd. 246 Fed. Appx. 220 (4th Cir. 2007); Farm Fresh Company, Target One, 361 NLRB 848 n.
1 (2014) (ALJ did not abuse his discretion by granting the GC’s motion in limine to exclude certain
direct questions about the alleged discriminatees’ immigration status); Operating Engineers
Local 18 (Nerone & Sons), 8–CD–135243, unpub. Board order issued July 12, 2016 (2016 WL
3743256) (ALJ did not abuse his discretion by granting the charging party employer’s prehearing
motion in limine to bar the respondent union from relitigating in the 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) unfair labor
practice proceeding threshold issues that had been addressed by the Board in the prior related
10(k) jurisdictional work-assignment proceedings); and Cargill, Inc., 7–CA–270555, unpub.
Board order issued April 20, 2021 (2021 WL 1814988) (ALJ did not abuse his discretion by
granting in part motions in limine filed by the Acting GC and the charging party union to exclude
certain evidence pursuant to the parol evidence rule).
See also Voith Industrial Services, 363 NLRB No. 109, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2016) (ALJ
granted GC’s motion in limine to prevent litigation of the respondent employer’s successorship
status and duty to bargain, issues that had been previously litigated and decided by a different
ALJ in a case that was pending before the Board on exceptions). For a discussion of relying on
ALJ decisions that are pending before the Board on exceptions, see § 13–300, below.
§ 10–200 Motions for Decision Based on Stipulated Record
Under section 102.35(a)(9) of the Board’s Rules, a record may be stipulated directly to the
Board for decision, provided the parties consent and waive a hearing and decision by the judge.
132
Alternatively, under the same section, the parties may agree to waive a hearing and stipulate
facts to the judge for issuance of a decision. In that event, the judge should make sure the
stipulation is complete enough to support a decision on all relevant issues.
If the stipulated record is sufficient, the judge may approve it even over the objection of
the charging party. However, the charging party should be given an opportunity to make an offer
of proof regarding the contrary evidence or additional material facts it would introduce at a
hearing. See Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 195, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2016) (rejecting
the charging party’s argument that the judge improperly approved the joint motion of the General
Counsel and the respondent to resolve the case on a stipulated record, as the stipulation included
sufficient evidence to evaluate the complaint, and the additional evidence that the charging party
sought to introduce exceeded the scope of the GC’s theory), reaffirmed 367 NLRB No. 78, slip
op. at 1 n. 1 (2019). See also Borg-Warner Corp., 113 NLRB 152, 154 (1955), petition for
review denied 231 F.2d 237 (7th Cir. 1956), cert. denied 352 U.S. 908 (1956).
The Board has long held that a stipulation of fact is conclusive, precluding withdrawal or
further dispute by a party to the stipulation after it has been accepted. See Woodland Clinic,
331 NLRB 735, 741 (2000), citing Kroger Co., Houston Div., 211 NLRB 363, 364 (1974). See
also Academy of Art College, 241 NLRB 454, 454–455 (1979) (rejecting respondent’s
contention that it was “manifestly unjust” to assert discretionary jurisdiction over it based on
stipulations of fact that had been entered into the hearing record), enfd. sub. nom. Stephens
Institute v. NLRB, 620 F.2d 720, 725 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 449 U.S. 953 (1980). Similarly,
where the parties have stipulated to the issues for resolution, only those issues should be
considered. Dynamic Nursing Services, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 49, slip op. at 3 n. 2 (2020)
(declining for this reason to consider the respondent’s argument that the complaint allegation
should be dismissed pursuant to the Board’s postarbitral deferral standard).
For a discussion of how courts have addressed requests to withdraw from stipulations,
see U.S. v. Kanu, 695 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2012). See also Graham, 6 Handbook of Fed. Evid.
§ 801:26 (9th ed. Nov. 2021 Update).
§ 10–300 Motions for Summary and Default Judgment
Section 102.24(a) of the Board’s Rules provides that prehearing motions for summary or
default judgment must be filed with the Board. The motion must be filed with the Board no later
than 28 days before the scheduled hearing; if no hearing is scheduled, or the hearing is
scheduled less than 28 days after the date for filing an answer, the motion must be filed with the
Board promptly. Sec. 102.24(b).
Motions for summary or default judgment after the hearing has opened must be filed with
the judge. Sec. 102.24(a). The judge has authority under Section 102.35(a)(8) of the Board’s
Rules to rule on such motions at the hearing even if the moving party could have but failed to file
the motion with the Board at least 28 days prior to the hearing. See Calyer Architectural
Woodworking Corp., 338 NLRB 315 n. 1 (2002).
Summary judgment is warranted only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Security Walls, LLC, 361 NLRB
348 (2014) (granting General Counsel’s motion); Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., 365
NLRB No. 67 (2017) (denying General Counsel’s motion); and Leukemia and Lymphoma
Society, 363 NLRB No. 124 (2016) (denying respondent’s motion). It is not necessary for the
133
party opposing summary judgment to submit affidavits or other evidence establishing a factual
dispute. Section 102.24(b) of the Board’s Rules states:
Neither the opposition nor the response must be supported by affidavits or other
documentary evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for hearing. The
Board in its discretion may deny the motion where the motion itself fails to
establish the absence of a genuine issue, or where the opposing party’s
pleadings, opposition and/or response indicate on their face that a genuine issue
may exist.
See also Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, above, slip op. at 1 n. 1.
§ 10–400 Motions to Dismiss
The same procedural rules in Sections 102.24(a) and (b) discussed in the previous
section governing motions for summary or default judgment also apply to motions to dismiss.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss based on the pleadings, the judge should follow the same
standard the Board uses in ruling on prehearing motions to dismiss; that is, the judge should
“construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the General Counsel, accept all factual
allegations as true, and determine whether the General Counsel can prove any set of facts in
support of his claims that would entitle him to relief.” Detroit Newspapers Agency, 330 NLRB
524, 525 n. 7 (2000).
Where the motion to dismiss is filed at the close of the General Counsel’s case, the judge
should evaluate whether the GC had “satisf[ied] his duty to establish a prima facie case by
presenting evidence sufficient to demonstrate the occurrence of an unfair labor practice.” Yale
University, 330 NLRB 246, 247 (1999) (affirming the judge’s dismissal of the 8(a)(3)
discrimination allegations at the close of the General Counsel’s case in chief as the GC had failed
to make a prima facie showing that the alleged discriminatees’ conduct was protected, an
essential element of the case against the employer). See also Central Telephone Company of
Texas, 343 NLRB 987, 998, Appendix B (2004) (upholding the judge’s bench decision granting
the respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint after the General Counsel rested); and St.
Mary’s Nursing Home, 342 NLRB 979, 980 n. 6 (2004) (finding that the judge erroneously ruled
from the bench that the General Counsel had failed to establish animus in a discrimination case).
The judge should also consider whether the General Counsel is seeking to pursue a new
theory of violation that has not previously been considered by the Board. See Fry’s Food
Stores, 358 NLRB 704, 705 (2012), reaffd. 362 NLRB 292 (2015) (discussing the Board’s earlier
October 18, 2010 unpublished ruling granting the General Counsel’s special appeal of the judge’s
order granting the respondent union’s motion to dismiss), vacated and remanded 851 F.3d 21
(D.C. Cir. 2017).
When granting a motion to dismiss, the judge should issue a “decision” under Section
102.45(a) of the Board’s Rules, so that the appropriate procedures for appealing under Section
102.46 will apply. See Technology Service Solutions, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000).
See also the cases cited in § 3–740 above, addressing motions to defer to arbitration,
which are also essentially motions to dismiss.
134
§ 10–500 Motions to Reopen Record
After the close of the trial but before issuance of the judge’s decision, a party may file a
motion with the judge to reopen the record. The judge is authorized to rule on such a procedural
motion under Section 102.35(a)(8) of the Board’s Rules.
Section 102.35(a)(8) does not set forth any standards for ruling on such contested
motions. Thus, ALJs appear to have considerable discretion. See, e.g., New Otani Hotel &
Garden, 325 NLRB 928, 946 (1998) (denying the charging party union’s motion to reopen the
record, filed 9 months after the hearing ended and while the ALJ decision was in the final stages
of preparation, to present evidence of certain events 1-2 months earlier that the union argued
tended to show the alleged discriminatees had been disparately treated).
However, the provisions in Section 102.48(c) [formerly 102.48(d)] of the Board’s Rules,
which are applied by the Board in ruling on motions to reopen, may provide guidance. See, e.g.,
Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems, 331 NLRB 1407 n. 1, 1413 (2000) (ALJ cited the
rule in denying respondent’s motion to reopen the hearing to introduce portions of the transcript
from an ancillary 10(j) injunction proceeding in federal court); and Apex Investigation & Security
Co., 302 NLRB 815 n. 1, 816 n. 1 (1991) (ALJ cited the rule in denying respondent’s motion to
reopen the hearing to receive certain evidence respondent claimed supported its position that the
union did not represent a majority of the employees). Section 102.48(c) states in relevant part:
(1) . . . A motion to reopen the record must state briefly the additional evidence
sought to be adduced, why it was not presented previously, and that, if adduced
and credited, it would require a different result. Only newly discovered evidence,
evidence which has become available only since the close of the hearing, or
evidence which the Board believes should have been taken at the hearing will be
taken at any further hearing.
(2) . . . [A] motion to reopen the record must be filed promptly on discovery of the
evidence to be adduced.
To qualify as newly discovered or previously unavailable under 102.48(c)(1), the evidence
must have existed at the time of the hearing. ILWU Local 4, 367 NLRB No. 64, slip op. at 5–6
(2019), enf. denied and remanded on other grounds 978 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2020); Circus Circus
Las Vegas, 366 NLRB No. 110, slip opinion at 1 n. 1 (2018), enf. denied and remanded on other
grounds 961 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 2020); Security Walls, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 99, slip op. at 7 and
n. 17 (2017); Ford Store San Leandro,349 NLRB 116 n. 1 (2007); and Fitel/Lucent
Technologies, Inc., 326 NLRB 46 n. 1 (1998); and cases cited there.
The movant must also show that it was “excusably ignorant” of the newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence and “acted with reasonable diligence to uncover and introduce
the evidence.” Circus Circus Las Vegas, above (denying the respondent’s motion to reopen to
introduce certain work-order records, as they were routinely created and maintained electronically
and respondent was certainly aware of their existence). See also Fitel/Lucent Technologies,
above (finding that the respondent’s mere assertion that the evidence was not found before the
hearing despite a diligent search of its records fell short of the requisite showing); and Walden
Security, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 44, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2018) (denying the respondent’s motion to
reopen as the evidence respondent sought to introduce was apparently in its possession at the
time it agreed to submit the case to the judge on a stipulated record).
135
The movant must also demonstrate that the evidence would require a different result.
Security Walls, Inc., above; Fitel/Lucent Technologies, above; and County Waste of Ulster,
354 NLRB 392 (2009), reaffd. 355 NLRB 413 (2010).
Finally, under 102.48(c)(2), the motion to reopen must be filed “promptly.” See, e.g.,
Labor Ready, Inc., 330 NLRB 1024 (2000) (motion to reopen following issuance of Board’s
decision was not filed “promptly” where it was not filed until 3 months after the evidence was
subpoenaed); and Michigan State Employees Assoc., 364 NLRB No. 65, slip op. at 1 (2016)
(motion to reopen following issuance of ALJ’s decision was not filed “promptly” where the motion
was not filed until 2 1/2 months after the evidence was obtained through discovery in a state court
proceeding).
Note that, while Section 102.35(a)(8) is somewhat unclear, it appears that ALJs have the
discretion to reopen the record sua sponte at least in some circumstances, such as to revisit and
reconsider an evidentiary ruling. See Local 3, Electrical Workers, 257 NLRB 1358,1362 n. 11
(1981) (judge reopened the record sua sponte to reconsider one of his evidentiary rulings and,
after receiving additional testimony, reversed that evidentiary ruling).
For a case where the Board held that reopening the record sua sponte was an abuse of
discretion, see New York Paving, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 44, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2020), enfd. mem.
per curiam 2021 WL 6102199 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 10, 2021). In that case, the ALJ reopened the
record sua sponte to add the collective-bargaining agreement between the charging party union
and the respondent, which had been included in the record in two previous cases involving the
parties and which the judge believed was necessary to complete the record and evaluate certain
representations in the General Counsel’s posthearing brief. On exceptions, the Board found that
the judge’s ruling “abused her discretion,” but affirmed, based on the other record evidence, her
conclusion that the respondent violated the Act.
For a discussion of the authority and discretion of federal courts to reopen the record on
their own motion, see Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 478–479 (9th Cir. 1988), (reopening the
record sua sponte to receive additional evidence is “unusual” but “within the discretion of the trial
court” where the evidence is “both important as a matter of preventing injustice and reasonably
. . .available.”), cert. denied 493 U.S. 813 (1989).
See also § 16–201, below (discussing the authority of ALJs to take judicial notice).
§ 10–600 Interlocutory Special Appeals from Judges’ Rulings
Section 102.26 of the Board’s Rules permits a party to file a request to the Board for
“special permission to appeal” ALJ rulings or orders on motions. The request must be filed “in
writing promptly and within such time as not to delay the proceeding.” See also Hampton Roads
Shipping Assoc., 5–CA–176015, unpub. Board order issued March 13, 2018 (2018 WL
1325100) (denying the General Counsel’s special appeal from certain ALJ subpoena and
evidentiary rulings during the first several days of hearing, without prejudice to raising the same
arguments on exceptions, as the appeal was not filed with the Board until 2 months later, during a
recess in the hearing, and thus was not filed “promptly” as required by Sec. 102.26). The request
and any responses must also be served on the parties and the judge.
A judge is not required to grant a recess in the hearing pending a special appeal and may
continue with and close the hearing without waiting for the Board to rule. See, e.g., Custom
Excavating, Inc., 228 NLRB 285, 286 (1977). See also Cargill, Inc., 7–CA–270555, unpub.
Board order issued April 20, 2021 (2021 WL 1814988) (leaving “to the discretion of the judge” the
136
respondent’s request to postpone the hearing pending the Board’s ruling on the respondent’s
special appeal of the judge’s ruling granting in part motions in limine filed by the Acting General
Counsel and the union). However, if the judge has a genuine doubt about the ruling, any recess
should allow adequate time for the Board to rule. It is suggested that the judge set a deadline for
the special appeal to be filed and set a resumption date no less than one week later.
If the Board grants the request for special permission to appeal and upholds or reverses
the ALJ’s ruling, that Board’s order normally establishes “the law of the case, which governs the
future course of proceedings.” Teamsters Local 75 (Schreiber Foods), 349 NLRB 77, 80
(2007), enfd. in part and remanded in part 522 F.3d 423 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
137
CHAPTER 11. SEQUESTRATION OF WITNESSES
§ 11–100 In General
The primary Board cases addressing separation of witnesses during trial are Unga
Painting Corp., 237 NLRB 1306, 1308 (1978) (addressing the rights of discriminatees under a
sequestration order); and Greyhound Lines, 319 NLRB 554 (1995) (setting forth a model
sequestration order).
Consistent with the statutory command to follow the Federal Rules of Evidence “so far as
practical,” the Board has generally attempted to follow the “spirit” of FRE 615 (Exclusion of
Witnesses) in fashioning its own rules in this area. Thus, as under FRE 615, the Board has held
that exclusion of witnesses is a matter of right, and the judge therefore has no discretion to deny
a request. Unga Painting, above.
In dealing with specific situations arising under the rule, however, the Board has
attempted to balance the sometimes competing interests of openness and protecting the rights of
parties and discriminatees on the one hand, and “minimiz[ing] fabrication,” “detecting inconsistent
testimony,” and “ascertaining the truth” on the other. Unga Painting, above. Specific situations
addressed by the Board and courts are discussed in the sections below.
§ 11–200 Scope of Sequestration Order
The model sequestration order set forth in the Board’s Greyhound decision is quoted in
full in § 1–300, above. As indicated there, it is appropriate for an ALJ, not only to exclude
potential witnesses from the courtroom during the hearing, but also to bar potential witnesses
from discussing their testimony with each other until the hearing is concluded. It is also
appropriate to instruct counsel not to inform potential witnesses of testimony by other witnesses
(except those for the other side) either by showing them transcripts or otherwise.
As discussed in the next section, an ALJ may also properly impose certain limits on
witnesses conferring with counsel during recesses in their testimony.
§ 11–210 Conferring with Counsel
Nonparty witnesses. The trial judge has discretion, pursuant to a sequestration order, to
instruct nonparty witnesses not to discuss their testimony with anyone, including the parties’
counsel, during recesses in the witnesses’ testimony. Geders v. U.S., 425 U.S. 80, 87–88,
(1976).
Party witnesses. The judge likewise has discretion to instruct party witnesses not to confer
with counsel during a short recess between direct and cross-examinations. Perry v. Leeke, 488
U.S. 272, 283–284 (1989). See also United Chrome Products, 288 NLRB 1176 n. 1 (1988),
where the Board rejected the respondent’s contention that the judge improperly directed its
general manager not to discuss his testimony with respondent’s counsel during a 10-minute
recess. The Board noted that the recess occurred during the General Counsel’s direct
examination of the general manager as a hostile witness; the judge stated that the general
manager could talk with respondent’s counsel during the recess about anything except “what he
testified and how to change it”; and the judge also stated that the general manager could be
prepared for questioning by respondent’s counsel on completion of the GC’s direct examination.
138
However, in Geders, above, the Court held that the trial judge deprived the criminal
defendant of this Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel by prohibiting him from
consulting with his counsel about anything during a 17-hour overnight recess after the conclusion
of his direct testimony. The Court reasoned that it is common practice for an accused to discuss
matters other than testimony with counsel during a long recess, including trial tactics and strategy
and information relevant to the case.
The Fifth Circuit subsequently reached a similar conclusion in a civil case, based on the
Fifth Amendment right to due process. The court held that the trial judge erred in barring the
defendant corporation’s president and sole shareholder from having any discussions with the
corporation’s counsel from the time his testimony commenced until it was completed, which
effectively barred him from talking to counsel for 7 days, including during several overnight
recesses. Potashnick v. Port City Construction Co., 609 F.2d 1101, 1117 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied 449 U.S. 820 (1980).
Opposing counsel “may cross-examine a defendant as to the extent of any ‘coaching’
during a recess, subject, of course, to the control of the court.” Geders, 425 U.S. at 89. Such
questioning may properly include “whether [the defendant] met with his attorney and whether his
testimony was discussed at those meetings.” U.S. v. Carrillo, 16 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir.1994)
(prosecutor in jury trial did not violate the attorney-client privilege by asking the defendant on
cross-examination whether he had met with his attorney and whether his testimony was
discussed at those meetings, and by then exposing a subtle difference in the witness’s testimony
before and after a recess during direct examination to raise an inference of coaching, as the
prosecutor’s questions did not reach the substance of the legal advice given to the defendant).
Pursuant to the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, the questioning may
also include the substance of the conversations with counsel where there is reason to believe the
witness was coached to testify falsely. See U.S. v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070, 1086 (8th Cir.
1988) (crime or fraud exception applied where lawyer actively coached witnesses to present a
uniform, knowingly untruthful story). See also Smithfield Packing Co., 344 NLRB 1, 14 and n. 60
(2004), enfd. 447 F.3d 821 (D.C. Cir. 2006), discussed in § 8–420, above (crime/fraud exception
applied to otherwise privileged communications regarding the preparation of false affidavits).
§ 11–300 Requests to Separate Witnesses
As indicated above, if a request is made, the judge “shall” order witnesses excluded. FRE
615 and Unga Painting, above, 237 NLRB at 1307. No formal exceptions to this rule are
recognized. However, the failure of the judge to issue a sequestration order on request will not
require reversal in the absence of any prejudice. See AEI2, LLC, 343 NLRB 433 (2004) (finding
no prejudice where there were only two other witnesses, one who would not have testified to the
events and the other who likely would have been designated as a party representative); and
Curlee Clothing Co., 240 NLRB 355 n. 1 (1979) (finding no prejudice where the judge in a pre-
Unga Painting hearing denied a request because the large number of witnesses and severe
spatial limitations rendered separation impossible), enfd. in relevant part 607 F.2d 1213 (8th Cir.
1979).
No time is specified for making the request to separate witnesses. See FRE 615. See also
AEI2, above, 343 NLRB at 433 n. 4, and authorities cited there. But see Alpert’s, Inc., 267 NLRB
159 n. 1 (1983) (upholding the judge’s denial of a request that was not made until after the
General Counsel’s second witness had testified).
139
The judge also possesses authority to order witnesses excluded on his/her own motion,
i.e., even if not requested. FRE 615.
Finally, the judge also has discretion to order that witnesses be excluded before opening
statements so that they do not hear counsel’s summaries of what the trial evidence will show.
See U.S. v. Baca, 447 F.Supp.3d 1232, 1237–1238 (D. N.M. 2020), and cases cited there.
§ 11–400 Who Should and Should Not Be Separated
All potential witnesses should be excluded from the trial. Unga Painting, above, 237
NLRB at 1307; and Greyhound, above, 319 NLRB at 554. However, both FRE 615 and the
Board, recognize several exceptions.
Party who is a natural person. See FRE 615(a) (“a party who is a natural person”) and
Greyhound, above (“natural persons who are parties”). But see alleged discriminatees who are
charging parties, below.
Officer or employee of a non-natural party who is designated as its representative by its
attorney. FRE 615(b). See also Greyhound, above (“representatives of nonnatural parties”). The
Board reads this exception as limiting a corporate respondent to its attorney and one other
representative. Unga Painting, above, 237 NLRB at 1308 n. 16. See also Opus 3 Ltd. v.
Heritage Park, 91 F.3d 625, 630 (4th Cir. 1996), where the court held that the representative
must be an employee, and that the corporation’s “mere designation of a person to act on its
behalf at trial” does not convert the person into its employee.
Person essential to a party’s presentation. See FRE 615(c) (“a person whose presence a
party shows to be essential to presenting the party’s claim or defense”); and Greyhound, above
(“a person who is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause”). It
must be shown that the presence is “‘essential,’ rather than simply desirable.” U.S. v. Jackson,
60 F.3d 128, 135 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 980, 1130, 1165 (1995 and 1996). See
also Opus 3, above, 91 F.3d at 628 (the burden is on the party asserting that the witness’s
presence is essential); and Tasty Baking Co. v. NLRB, 254 F.3d 114, 123 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“the
ALJ retains considerable discretion in determining which witnesses are ‘essential’ within the
meaning of the rule”).
For guidance on whether a person is “essential,” see U.S. ex rel. Bahrani v. ConAgra,
Inc., 624 F.3d 1275,1296–1297 (10th Cir. 2010) (district court acted within its discretion in
allowing witness to remain in courtroom throughout the trial as an “essential” person, given that
he was, inter alia, “the person most knowledgeable about the history and complex factual details
of the matters at issue, and with whom counsel needed to confer during trial”); and Oliver B.
Cannon & Son, Inc. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 519 F.Supp. 668, 678–679 (D.
Del. 1981) (“What must be shown is that a witness has such specialized expertise or intimate
knowledge of the facts of the case that a party’s attorney could not effectively function without the
presence and aid of the witness or that the witness would be unable to present essential
testimony without hearing the trial testimony of other witnesses.”)
For a good overall discussion of this and the other exceptions in FRE 615, see Wright &
Miller et al., 29 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6245 (2d ed. April 2021 Update).
Alleged discriminatees. The Board has adopted a special rule for alleged discriminatees,
regardless of whether they are also charging parties in the case. They are exempted from
exclusion except “during that portion of the hearing when another of the General Counsel’s or the
140
charging party’s witnesses is testifying about events to which the discriminatees have testified, or
will or may testify, either in the case-in-chief or on rebuttal.” Unga Painting, above, 237 NLRB at
1307. See also Greyhound, above.
However, the judge retains some discretion in applying this rule. Thus, in Unga Painting,
the Board stated that the judge may decline to follow the rule if in his/her judgment “there are
special circumstances warranting the unrestricted presence of discriminatees or total exclusion
when not testifying.” 237 NLRB at 1307. The Board noted that the third exception in FRE 615 for
“essential” persons “is broad enough to permit a showing of these special circumstances and
allows the [judge] considerable discretion.” Id. at n. 14.
Alleged discriminatees designated essential representative. Consistent with the Board’s
footnote in Unga Painting, above, judges have permitted a discriminatee who was designated as
an essential representative by the General Counsel or charging party to remain in the hearing
room after testifying. See Impact Industries, 285 NLRB 5, 6 (1987), remanded on other grounds
847 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1988); and Weis Markets, Inc., 325 NLRB 871, 872 (1998), modified in
part 265 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2001). In the latter case the Fourth Circuit on appeal expressed
disapproval of what it termed the judge’s “departure from Board precedent,” but rejected the
respondent’s contention that it was prejudiced by the judge’s ruling. 265 F.3d at 245–246.
Counsel who is also a witness. In Napleton Cadillac of Libertyville, 13–CA–187272,
unpub. Board order issued Jan. 29, 2018 (2018 WL 620366), the Board held that the trial judge
did not abuse his discretion by applying the sequestration order to one of the respondent’s two
co-counsel (Hendricks) who would be called by respondent as a witness. The respondent
subsequently challenged the sequestration ruling again before the court of appeals, but the court
found it unnecessary to address the merits of the challenge because, even assuming it was valid,
respondent had failed to show prejudice. The court noted that respondent acknowledged
Hendricks was not lead counsel and that it “failed to offer anything concrete or to explain what
Hendricks would have done” that the lead counsel or another attorney could not have handled.
Napleton 1050, Inc. v. NLRB, 976 F.3d 30, 50 (D.C. Cir. 2020), enfg. 367 NLRB No. 6 (2018).
Rebuttal witnesses. The Board’s decisions in Unga Painting and Greyhound do not
recognize a blanket exception for rebuttal witnesses. Thus, unless otherwise exempted from a
sequestration order, any witnesses that a party anticipates may be called in rebuttal should be
excluded. See, e.g., U.S. v. Ell, 718 F.2d 291, 293 (9th Cir. 1983) (district court erred by denying
the defendant’s request to exclude government witnesses after they testified in the case-in-chief
and by later permitting them to testify as rebuttal witnesses); and U.S. v. Baca, 447 F.Supp.3d
1232, 1238 (D.N.M. 2020) (citing Ell as support for applying sequestration orders equally to direct
and rebuttal witnesses).
However, “[i]t is often difficult to know in advance who may be called to rebut evidence
which has not yet been presented.” U.S. v. Bramlet, 820 F.2d 851, 855 (7th Cir. 1987). And
judges retain discretion to consider this and other relevant circumstances in determining whether
to allow rebuttal witnesses to testify notwithstanding that they heard the testimony of other
witnesses for the same side and were not exempted from the sequestration order. See, for
example, Servomation, Inc., 235 NLRB 975, JD. n. 1 (1978), where the ALJ permitted a General
Counsel rebuttal witness to testify, even though he had remained in the hearing during a portion
of the hearing, given that the GC had not intended to call him but found it necessary to do so on
rebuttal. See also Conair Corp., 261 NLRB 1189, 1230 n. 157 (1982) (ALJ permitted GC
rebuttal witness to testify, even though he had been present in the hearing room during the GC’s
case, as the GC represented that he was being called to rebut specific allegations made against
141
him during the respondent’s case), enf. denied in part 721 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied 467 U.S. 1241 (1984), overruled on other grounds Gourmet Foods, 270 NLRB 578 (1984).
§ 11–500 Violation of Sequestration Order
A prerequisite to finding a violation of a sequestration order is the issuance of the order
itself. See U.S. v. Williams, 136 F.3d 1166, 1168–1169 (7th Cir. 1998) (the parties informed the
judge that they had agreed to sequestration, but there was “no formal request for entry of an
order,” and “no sequestration order was ever entered”). Further, the parameters of the judge’s
sequestration order should be clearly defined. See Continental Winding Co., 305 NLRB 122,
129 (1991).
Once an order has issued, however, counsel are expected to police the rule, to inform any
witnesses not present at the time the judge issues the order of their obligations under the order,
and to bring any violations to the judge’s attention. See Greyhound, above, 319 NLRB at 554.
When a witness has violated a sequestration order, the Board’s preferred course appears
to be “stricter scrutiny of the tainted testimony,” without striking the testimony of that witness.
Medite of New Mexico, Inc., 314 NLRB 1145, 1149 (1994), enfd. 72 F.3d 780 (10th Cir. 1995).
Nevertheless, violating a sequestration order “may warrant striking the tainted testimony if it can
be demonstrated that a party was prejudiced by the violation of the rule.” Suburban Trails, 326
NLRB 1250 n. 1 (1998).
If disregard of a sequestration order is revealed before a witness is called to testify, under
FRE 615 that witness may be barred from testifying. U.S. v. Wilson, 103 F.3d 1402, 1406 (8th
Cir. 1997) (holding that the trial court “clearly acted within its discretion in concluding that [the
witness] could not be called to testify at the last minute after sitting in the courtroom and listening
to much of the case”). Cf. North Hills Office Services, 342 NLRB 437 n. 2 (2004) (Board
rejected the respondent’s contention that the judge improperly allowed the attorney for the
charging party, who had been present throughout the trial, to testify in violation of the
sequestration order, inasmuch as the judge had warned the parties that the “credibility of
witnesses who were present during the testimony of other witnesses would be subject to attack,”
and “fairly applied the sequestration order to all parties”).
As discussed above in § 6–600, et seq. regarding attorney misconduct, violations of a
sequestration order by counsel may warrant an admonishment or reprimand or referral to the
General Counsel under Section 102.177 of the Board’s Rules. See Sargent Karch, 314 NLRB
482 (1994) (suspending the attorney for 6 months after his second violation).
142
CHAPTER 12. THE HEARING RECORD
§ 12–100 Public hearings
Section 102.34 of the Board’s Rules provides that hearings “will be public unless
otherwise ordered by the Board or the Administrative Law Judge.” Similarly, Section 101.10(a) of
the Board’s Statements of Procedure provides that “except in extraordinary situations the hearing
is open to the public.”
§ 12–200 Opening a Hearing by Telephone or Mail
A judge may open a hearing by telephone or by mail in the interests of saving time and
expenses for all concerned. As discussed in § 9–320, above, this is typically done to consider and
address objections to a respondent’s proposed settlement or consent order. See, e.g., Operating
Engineers Local 181 (Marathon Petroleum Co.), 9–CB–155016, unpub. Board order issued
April 14, 2017 (2017 WL 1374032) (judge opened hearing telephonically and issued a ruling
approving the respondent’s proposed informal settlement agreement/consent order over the
objections of the General Counsel and the charging parties).
A similar procedure is also used in lengthy hearings at a distant location involving the
production of voluminous subpoenaed documents. See, e.g., *Station Casinos, LLC, 358 NLRB
1556, 1563 and JD. n. 11 (2012). The hearing is opened by telephone, and the judge rules on
disputed issues raised in the petition to revoke the subpoena during the recorded conference call.
The judge then travels to the hearing site when the parties are ready to resume. The Board has
rejected a subpoenaed respondent’s argument that employing such a procedure violates the
Board’s policy against pretrial discovery. See Quickway Transportation, 09-CA-251857, unpub.
Board order issued October 19, 2021 (2021 WL 4893957) and discussion at § 7–200 and
§ 8–230, above.
§ 12–300 Taking Testimony by Telephone
In Westside Painting, Inc., 328 NLRB 796, 796–797 (1999), the Board held that, “under
Section 102.30 of the Board’s Rules, witnesses in Board unfair labor practice proceedings may
not testify by telephone.” The Board emphasized that telephonic testimony does not permit the
judge to observe the demeanor of the witness, impairs a party’s right of cross-examination, and
makes it impossible as a practical matter to ensure the witness is not reading from documents or
being influenced by someone while testifying. See also Morrison Healthcare, 369 NLRB No. 76,
slip op. at 2 (2020) (holding that preelection hearings likewise should not be held by telephone
when witness testimony will be taken because, although no credibility determinations are made in
such hearings, “the potential impairment of cross-examination, or the inability to detect whether
testimony is being guided by documents or coached by another individual, remain salient . . .
concerns.”).
Nevertheless, judges have, on occasion, taken telephone testimony when all parties
agreed to the procedure. See, for example, Team Clean, Inc., 348 NLRB 1231 (2006), where an
entire unfair labor practice hearing—albeit a short one with simple issues—was conducted by
telephone. See also Morrison Healthcare, above, slip op. at 2 n. 4 (“Nothing in our decision
should be read as limiting the ability of parties to agree to a telephonic hearing, provided that
‘compelling circumstances’ exist.”)
143
§ 12–400 Taking Testimony by Videoconference
This section addresses whether and when it is appropriate to permit an individual witness
to testify remotely by videoconference. For a discussion of the propriety of conducting an entire
hearing remotely by videoconference, see § 12–500, Holding Remote Hearings by
Videoconference, below.
Section 102.35(c) of the Board’s Rules, which was adopted effective September 29, 2017
(82 FR 43695), states:
Upon a showing of good cause based on compelling circumstances, and under
appropriate safeguards, the taking of video testimony by contemporaneous
transmission from a different location may be permitted.
“Good cause based on compelling circumstances”. The standard for allowing testimony
by videoconference is not further defined or explained in the Rule or the Federal Register notice
announcing it. However, it is identical to the standard set forth in FRCP 43. The 1996 Advisory
Committee Notes to FRCP 43 state:
Transmission cannot be justified merely by showing that it is inconvenient for the
witness to attend the trial. The most persuasive showings of good cause and
compelling circumstances are likely to arise when a witness is unable to attend
the trial for unexpected reasons, such as accident or illness, but remains able to
testify from a different place. Contemporaneous transmission may be better than
an attempt to reschedule the trial, particularly if there is a risk that other—and
perhaps more important—witnesses might not be available at that time. Other
possible justifications for remote transmission must be approached cautiously.
For a Board case denying a motion to take testimony by videoconference under Section
102.35(c), see Tesla, Inc., 32–CA–197020, unpub. Board order issued July 16, 2018 (2018 WL
3436889). In that case, the General Counsel filed a motion to take the testimony of an alleged
discriminatee by videoconference from the Agency’s regional office in Buffalo, New York, where
he lived, on the ground that traveling to the hearing in Oakland, California would impose a
“significant financial burden” on him. The respondent opposed the motion and the ALJ denied it,
finding that the costs of travel were not “so compelling as to override the need for in-person
testimony of an alleged discriminatee.” The GC thereafter filed a special appeal, arguing that the
discriminatee was the only witness who could testify about certain alleged one-on-one
conversations between him and a supervisor, and the Agency’s budget constraints prevented the
GC from subpoenaing him and paying his travel costs. The Board, however, denied the appeal
because the GC had “failed to establish that the judge abused her discretion.”
Compare DH Long Point Mgt. LLC, 369 NLRB No. 18, slip op. at 5 n. 9 (2020), enfd.
mem. per curiam 858 Fed. Appx. 366 (D.C. Cir. 2021). In that case, the ALJ granted the General
Counsel’s motion, over the respondent’s objection, to allow a corroborating witness to testify at
the Los Angeles hearing by videoconference from the Board’s regional office in Philadelphia. The
ALJ found that the GC’s motion set forth “good cause based on compelling circumstances” under
Sec. 102.35(c); specifically, that the witness might be unable to travel to the hearing due to the
time this would take him away from his job as a line cook; he would most likely be precluded from
testifying if he was not allowed to do so by videoconference; videoconferencing was the only
certain means of securing his testimony; and his corroborating testimony was necessary to prove
the complaint allegations. The ALJ also found that the motion set forth the conditions in place to
protect the integrity of the testimony and the appropriate safeguards that would be implemented
144
as required by 102.35 (c)(1) and (2). The Respondent filed exceptions, but the Board affirmed
the ALJ’s rulings. See also the Board decisions discussed in § 12–500, below (finding that the
COVID-19 pandemic constituted “compelling circumstances” warranting a remote unfair labor
practice hearing).
There is no indication in the Federal Register notice accompanying Section 102.35(c) that
the new rule was intended to change the Board’s prior policy or practice with respect to
videoconferencing. Board decisions prior to the new rule may therefore also provide useful
guidance. See, for example, the following Board decisions that issued within a year or two before
102.35(c) was adopted: MPE, Inc., 9–CA–084228, unpub. Board order dated Jan. 29, 2015
(2015 WL 400660) (reversing the judge and ruling that the General Counsel should be permitted,
notwithstanding the respondent’s opposition, to take the testimony of the alleged discriminatee by
videoconference because he was incarcerated in federal prison several hundred miles from the
hearing site and was not scheduled to be released for over a year); Oncor Electric Delivery Co.,
364 NLRB No. 58 (2016) (affirming the judge’s ruling granting the General Counsel’s motion, over
the respondent’s objection, to allow a former employee of the respondent to testify regarding
certain background facts by videoconference from the NLRB Regional Office in Denver rather
than testify in person at the hearing in Fort Worth), vacated and remanded in part on other
grounds 887 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 2018); and EF International Language Schools, Inc., 363
NLRB No. 20, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2015) (affirming the judge’s ruling in the 8(a)(3) discharge case
that the respondent was not denied due process by permitting the General Counsel to take the
testimony of a corroborating witness who resided in Madrid, Spain by videoconference from the
U.S. Embassy there), enfd. 673 Fed. Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
For court cases permitting videoconferencing under FRCP 43, see Ever Win
International Corp. v. Prong, Inc., 2017 WL 1654063 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2017) (finding that one
witness’s “overseas residency” and another’s “East Coast residency” presented “good faith
compelling circumstances” to grant the defendant’s request to permit both witnesses to testify by
videoconference); FTC v. Swedish Match North America, Inc., 197 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2000)
(granting the plaintiff’s motion to permit a witness in Oklahoma to testify by videoconference to
avoid the “serious inconvenience” of traveling “across the continent”); Sprint Nextel Corp. v.
Yoak, 2014 WL 6796074 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2014) (granting the plaintiff’s motion to permit a
witness to testify by videoconference in order to “spare the witness the serious inconvenience in
traveling from Seattle a second time”; the witness had previously traveled to St. Louis to testify,
but was unable to do so because of defendant’s motions to delay and continue the hearing); and
Virtual Architecture, Ltd. V. Rick, 2012 WL 388507 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2012) (granting the
plaintiff’s motion to permit a witness in Seychelles to testify by videoconference given the long
distance and flight time and the witness’s assertion that it would be “virtually impossible” for him
to obtain a visa in time to testify in person).
But compare Rodriguez v. SGLC, Inc., 2012 WL 3704922 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2012)
(denying the plaintiffs’ motion to permit them to testify from Mexico by videoconferencing, as they
had shown only that it would be inconvenient for them to attend the trial, not that they could not
have obtained a visa or could not afford to attend); SEC v. Yang, 2014 WL 1303457 (N.D. Ill.
March 30, 2014) (denying the defendants’ motion to take testimony of witnesses in China by
videoconference in the absence of a showing that they could not obtain a visa or that travel was
prohibitively expensive for them), affd. 795 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2015); and Sille v. Parball Corp.,
2011 WL 2680560 (D. Nev. July 8, 2011) (denying the plaintiff’s “blanket” motion to take
testimony of virtually all of its witnesses in Norway and New York by videoconference, given the
lateness of the motion and the absence of any unexpected circumstances).
145
During the COVID–19 pandemic, several district courts found the public health risk
attendant with travel, as well as quarantine requirements in various locations, to constitute “good
cause in compelling circumstances” under FRCP 43, justifying individual witness testimony being
heard by videoconference. See, e.g., Shenzen Synergy Digital Co., 2021 WL 6072565 at *4–5
(E.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021); and In re RFC & ResCap Liquidating Trust Action, 444 F.Supp.3d
967, 971–972 (D. Minn. 2020). See also the additional cases cited in § 12–500, below, where
courts ordered the entire hearing to be held remotely during the pandemic. But cf. Arrastia-
Cardosa v. U.S., 2020 WL 7238459 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2020) (denying defendant/petitioner’s
motion, filed 2 days before the hearing was scheduled to begin in Ft. Meyers, to allow two Miami
witnesses to testify remotely, as the petitioner expressed only “general COVID-19 concerns—
without any details” and the court had taken various precautions over the past several months to
prevent infection, including taking temperature checks of every person at the front door of the
building; requiring a face mask or shield and social distancing in every public area; providing
hand sanitizer almost everywhere in the courthouse; outfitting the courtroom with plexiglass
barriers and providing extra plexiglass barriers that could be moved around the courtroom on
request as needed; and making gloves and disposable microphone covers available to prevent
cross-contamination) and Nautica Entertainment, LLC v. Allied Debt Collection of Virginia,
LLC, 2020 WL 10356124, *1 (D. Wyo. Oct. 16, 2020) (denying witness’s motion to testify
remotely “because of a general apprehension surrounding the COVID–19 Pandemic,” where she
“did not provide a reasonable showing that she is high risk or has specific extenuating
circumstances surrounding the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic; “[f]ear of contracting the virus does
not rise to the level needed to show ‘good cause’ to be excused from testifying in open Court”).
If all parties agree to videoconferencing a witness’s testimony, the 1996 Advisory
Committee Notes to FRCP 43 state that “good cause and compelling circumstances may be
established with relative ease.” The judge “is not bound by a stipulation, however, and can insist
on live testimony,” considering, “among other factors, . . . the apparent importance of the
testimony in the full context of the trial.”
For examples where ALJs have approved taking testimony by videoconference in the
absence of any objection, see Spurlino Materials, LLC, 357 NLRB 1510 (2011) (by agreement
of all parties, the ALJ held the last day of hearing, which followed a 3-week recess and was
relatively short, by video), enfd. 805 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2015); SRC Painting, 357 NLRB 27
(2011) (ALJ conducted the entire hearing, which lasted less than 1 hour, by video where neither
the General Counsel nor the charging party objected and the respondent did not respond to the
judge’s notice to show cause or appear at the hearing); and *M.V.M., Inc., 352 NLRB 1165 n.1
(2008) (the testimony of one witness was taken by video without objection where the original
testimony of the witness had erroneously not been transcribed), enfd. 2010 WL 1255942 (D.C.
Cir. 2010).
“Appropriate safeguards.” Section 102.35(c)(2) states that appropriate safeguards “must
ensure that the [ALJ] has the ability to assess the witness’s credibility and the parties have a
meaningful opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witness.” The safeguards must also
include “at a minimum” measures ensuring that:
- party representatives have the opportunity to be present at the remote location;
- the judge, participants, and the reporter are able to hear the testimony and
observe the witness;
- the camera view is adjustable to provide a close-up view of counsel and the
witness and a panoramic view of the room;
146
- exhibits used in the witness’s examination are exchanged in advance of the examination;
and
- video technology assistance is available to assist with technical difficulties that
arise during the examination.
ALJs may also impose additional safeguards.
Application for videoconferencing testimony. Section 102.35(c)(1) states that applications
to take testimony by videoconference must be in writing, be simultaneously served on all parties,
and set forth:
- the compelling circumstances for such testimony;
- the witness’s name and address;
- the location where the video testimony will be held;
- the matter concerning which the witness is expected to testify;
- the conditions in place to protect the integrity of the testimony;
- the transmission safeguards; and
- the electronic address from which the testimony will be transmitted.
§ 12–500 Holding Remote Hearings by Videoconference
During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the Board held that ALJs also have the
discretionary authority to order an entire hearing to be held by videoconference with all
participants and witnesses appearing remotely from separate locations. The Board held that ALJs
have such discretion pursuant to their general authority to “regulate the course of the hearing”
under Section 102.35(a)(6) of the Board’s rules. It further held that, while Sec. 102.35(c) is not
controlling with respect to remote hearings, the same framework is properly applied, i.e., a judge
may order a remote hearing upon a showing of “good cause based on compelling circumstances
and under appropriate safeguards.” Applying that framework, the Board found that the COVID-19
pandemic constituted good cause based on compelling circumstances to conduct remote
hearings, as postponing a case until an in-person hearing was feasible could result in an
indefinite delay. It also found that ALJs could impose appropriate safeguards during the remote
hearings that are informed but not controlled by those listed in 102.35(c). See William
Beaumont Hospital, 370 NLRB No. 9 (Aug. 13, 2020) (judge did not abuse his discretion in
denying employer’s motion requesting an in-person hearing); and XPO Cartage, LLC, 370 NLRB
No. 10 (Aug. 20, 2020) (judge did not abuse her discretion in ordering a remote hearing via the
Zoom for Government video-conferencing platform, notwithstanding that both the employer and
the union appealed the order).
The Board also rejected various procedural and technical objections or concerns raised
about holding remote video hearings. The Board found that the stated prehearing concerns were
speculative at that point. Further, the Board found that the objecting parties had failed to show
that advances in current videoconferencing technology would not be able to address many, if not
147
all, of their procedural concerns. William Beaumont, slip op. at 2; and XPO Cartage, slip op. at
1–2. See also Oxarc, Inc., 19–CA–230472, unpub. Board order issued Sept. 23, 2020 (2020 WL
5735979) (rejecting the respondent’s objection to the judge’s procedural request to upload
documents so they could be viewed by other parties prior to the Zoom hearing, as the respondent
failed to object to this procedure in response to the judge’s prehearing order or at the parties’
prehearing conference, and also failed to ask the judge for an alternative method for uploading
documents, such as to a private folder).
Finally, the Board stated,
Certainly, [the trial judge] has the discretion to determine whether the case is too
complex; cumbersome; or witness-, document-, and fact-heavy to be heard
remotely. And to the extent [any party] has a concrete, not speculative, concern
that cannot be ameliorated by the videoconferencing technology, or other pretrial
accommodations or stipulations among the parties, [any party] may raise it to [the
trial judge] in the first instance, or on exceptions to the Board pursuant to Section
102.46 of the Rules and Regulations, in the event [the party] receives an adverse
ruling.
William Beaumont, slip op. at 2; and XPO Cartage, slip op. at 2.
For additional Board orders following William Beaumont and XPO Cartage and likewise
finding that ALJs properly exercised their discretion in ordering remote hearings via Zoom over
the objection of a party, see Sparks Restaurant, 2–CA–142626, unpub. Board order issued May
14, 2021 (2021 WL 1966555); New York Paving, Inc., 29–CA–254799, unpub. Order issued Oct.
8, 2020 (2020 WL 6032640); Oxarc, Inc., 19–CA–230472, unpub. Board order issued Sept. 23,
2020 (2020 WL 5735979); Pipefitters Local 675 (RPS Mechanical, Inc.), 20–CB–251372,
unpub. Board order issued Sept. 4, 2020 (2020 WL 5353969); and Boeing Co., 10-CA-204795,
unpub. Board order issued Aug. 31, 2020 (2020 WL 5204848).
For court decisions ordering remote bench trials by videoconference during the COVID-19
pandemic under FRCP 43, see, e.g., Flores v. Town of Islip, 2020 WL 5211052 (E.D. N.Y. Sept.
1, 2020) (granting plaintiffs’ application, over the defendant’s objections, to conduct the bench
trial using the Zoom for Government video platform); and Gould Electronics Inc. v. Livingston
County Road Commission, 470 F.Supp.3d 735 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2020) (ordering that the
bench trial would be conducted via videoconference notwithstanding the objections and concerns
raised by both parties).
§ 12–600 The Hearing Transcript
The Board utilizes court reporting services to audiotape and prepare and certify an official
transcript of its hearings. Such official transcripts are generally “deemed prima facie a correct
statement of the testimony taken and the proceedings had.” 28 U.S.C. Sec. 753(b) (addressing
the use of reporters in federal court proceedings). Thus, the judge should attempt to make sure,
to the extent possible, that the hearing testimony is adequately recorded (e.g., that a witness’s
testimony is audible) and transcribed by the reporting service.
If a transcription error occurs, corrections may be made pursuant to a stipulation or motion
filed with the judge. See, for example, Teamsters Local 705 (Pennsylvania Truck Lines), 314
NLRB 95 n. 2 (1994). In that case, the Board rejected the General Counsel’s attempt, for the first
time on exceptions to the judge’s decision, to supply the surname of an additional discriminatee
whose name was inaudibly described in the transcript. The Board stated that “the burden was on
148
the General Counsel, not the court reporter, to identify the discriminatees,” and indicated that the
GC should have filed a posthearing motion or proposed stipulation to clarify the matter. See also
NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 1), Sec. 10412.
If a party files a motion, or the judge believes there has been a material transcription error,
the parties should be notified and provided an opportunity to state their positions. The judge
should not unilaterally correct the transcript except for obvious typographical errors. Serv-Air,
Inc., 161 NLRB 382 n. 1 (1966), enfd. 395 F.2d 557 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 393 U.S. 840 (1968);
and W. B. Jones Lumber Co., 114 NLRB 415 n. 1 (1955), enfd. 245 F.2d 388 (9th Cir. 1957).
With respect to the timing of a motion to correct the transcript, it is obviously preferable
that the motion be filed before the due date for filing posthearing briefs, particularly if the asserted
transcription error is significant. However, the Board’s rules do not specifically require that
motions to correct the transcript be filed before the due date for filing briefs. See Pacific Green
Trucking, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 14, slip op. at 3, JD. n. 2 (2019) (granting the General Counsel’s
motion to correct, notwithstanding the respondent’s objection that it was filed 5 days after the due
date for filing briefs, as the Board had no “hard and fast rule” requiring that a motion to correct be
filed before the due date for filing briefs; the parties had agreed to an expedited briefing schedule;
the identified transcript errors were minor; and the respondent did not dispute the accuracy of the
proposed corrections or contend that it would have to revise its brief if they were approved).
Where disputes arise over the accuracy of the transcript, the judge may request the
reporting service to review the audiotape and provide a revised transcript if the original was
incorrect. See, e.g., Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group, 356 NLRB 89, 95 n. 7
(2010). Motions requesting that the ALJ direct the reporting service to provide a party with a copy
of the audiotape to determine the accuracy of the transcript have generally been denied. See,
e.g., Dickens, Inc., 355 NLRB 255, 259 n. 1 (2010) (ALJ denied respondent’s motion for an order
directing the reporting service to furnish it with copies of the audio files from which the transcript
was typed to determine if corrections were warranted). However, if the ALJ finds that good cause
has been demonstrated and grants such a motion, the reporting service should be directed to
provide a copy of the recording to all parties, not just the party requesting it. The judge, who must
make the ultimate determination with respect to such disputes, should also receive and review a
copy of the recording.
Where an accurate transcription of testimony cannot be determined (for example because
the audiotape has been lost), reopening the hearing to retake the testimony may be necessary,
absent an agreement or stipulation otherwise. See, e.g., Jackson Corp., 340 NLRB 536, 549 n.
21 (2003) (witnesses were recalled to repeat lost portions of their prior testimony); and Lucky
Stores, Inc., 245 NLRB 647, JD. n. 1 (1979) (parties stipulated to the substance of the lost
testimony and waived the right to further examination or cross-examination).
§ 12–700 Tape Recorders in Hearing
The use of a tape recorder by parties to record the hearing is within the discretion of the
judge. Compare Red & White Supermarkets, 172 NLRB 1841, 1846 (1968) (use of tape
recorder permitted), with Marriott Corp., 172 NLRB 1891, 1892 n. 1 (1968) (permission to use
tape recorder denied), enfd. in part 417 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. 1969).
Although the reviewing court in Marriott found no prejudice from the trial examiner’s ruling
in that case, the court indicated that a recorder should be permitted to the extent that it does not
interfere with or slow down the hearing. 417 F.2d at 178. Nevertheless, the Board subsequently
149
upheld a trial examiner’s discretion to deny a respondent’s request to use a tape recorder in
Daisy’s Originals, Inc., 187 NLRB 251 n. 1 (1970). The respondent’s counsel requested
permission to use the tape recorder “to implement our taking of notes and to help us prepare our
defense,” arguing that the recorder would not conflict with the official reporting service “except
insofar as . . . there is an error in the transcript.” The trial examiner denied the request on the
ground he would not be able to police its use. The Board found that this ruling was not an abuse
of discretion, noting that “the Trial Examiner, the General Counsel, and the Charging Party are
equally bound by the transcript prepared by the official reporting service.”
Obviously, if a tape recording is permitted, it would be subject to the restrictions imposed
by a sequestration order.
§ 12–800 Television Cameras in Courtroom
The Board’s policy is that its hearings may not be televised. That policy is reflected in a
June 10, 1991 letter from the Deputy Executive Secretary to a television station that had
requested permission to televise a hearing. Although the letter stated that the policy may be
reviewed later, there has been no change to date.
§ 12–900 Redacting Private Information (Social Security Numbers)
Sensitive personally identifiable information (SPII) should not be submitted by the parties
into the public record. The Agency’s public website defines SPII as an individual’s name in
combination with one or more of the following:
• Date and/or place of birth
• Social Security number
• Mother’s maiden name
• Driver’s license number / passport number / other government-issued unique ID number
• Financial account number
• Credit or debit card number
• Biometric data
See https://apps.nlrb.gov/myAccount/#/FileCaseDocument/TermsConditions
If a party submits an exhibit that contains irrelevant SPII, the judge should direct that the
SPII be redacted. If the SPII is relevant to the issues in the case, or irrelevant SPII was included
in documents filed or admitted into the hearing record, the judge should take steps to protect
against public disclosure of the SPII. See, e.g., Kansas City Cement Masons Pension Fund v.
Lan-Tel Communications Services, Inc., 2018 WL 2207984 (W.D. Mo. March 7, 2018) (court
temporarily sealed summary judgment documents containing personally identifiable information
that had been filed by the parties and directed counsel to file properly redacted versions of the
documents to substitute for the sealed versions); and Doe v. U.S., 210 F.Supp.3d 1169 (W.D.
Mo. 2017) (court sealed unredacted deposition transcripts containing SPII that the FTC had
inadvertently attached as exhibits to its preliminary injunction brief). See also § 8–600, Protective
Orders, above.
150
CHAPTER 13. BOARD PRECEDENT AND RELITIGATION OF ISSUES
§ 13–100 Binding Board Precedent, Judge Required to Follow
Administrative law judges must follow and apply Board precedent, notwithstanding
contrary decisions by courts of appeals, unless and until the Board precedent is overruled by the
Supreme Court or the Board itself. See, e.g., Western Cab Co., 365 NLRB No. 78, slip op. at 1
n. 4 (2017); and Pathmark Stores, Inc., 342 NLRB 378 n. 1 (2004). See also D.L. Baker, Inc.,
351 NLRB 515, 529 n. 42 (2007) (summarizing the reasons for the Board’s nonacquiescence
policy).
Judges are also bound to follow particular Board findings in a prior case, where
appropriate, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. See Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 300
NLRB 1024, 1024–1025, n. 3 (1990), enfd. 967 F.2d 624 (D.C. Cir. 1992). See also Planned
Building Services, Inc., 347 NLRB 670 n. 2 (2006), overruled on other grounds Pressroom
Cleaners, 361 NLRB 643 (2014); and Stark Electric, Inc., 327 NLRB 518 n. 1 (1999) (judge
properly relied, at least in part, on findings in prior Board decisions involving the same respondent
to find animus), and § 13–600, Relitigation of Issues, below.
§ 13–200 Adopted Judge Decisions, When Not Binding Precedent
When the Board has adopted all or even a portion of a judge’s decision to which no
exceptions have been filed, that decision or portion is not binding precedent in other cases. See
Colorado Symphony Assoc., 366 NLRB No. 122, slip op. at 1 n. 3 (2018), enfd. 798 Fed. Appx.
669 (D.C. Cir. 2020); Operating Engineers Local 39 (Mark Hopkins Intercontinental Hotel),
357 NLRB 1683 n. 1 (2011); Trump Marina Associates LLC, 354 NLRB 1027 n. 2 (2009),
reaffd. 355 NLRB 585 (2010), enfd. 435 Fed. Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011); and Carpenters Local
370 (Eastern Contractors Assn.), 332 NLRB 174, 175 n. 2 (2000), and cases cited there.
In reviewing prior decisions to determine whether any of the ALJ’s findings or analyses
have precedential value, it is important to check:
1) which party or parties filed exceptions to the ALJ’s decision (this is usually stated in the
first paragraph of the Board’s decision);
2) whether no exceptions were filed to any of the judge’s findings or analyses (this is
usually stated in a footnote in the Board’s decision);
3) whether the Board did not pass on any of the judge’s findings or analyses for some
reason (this is also usually stated in a footnote); and
4) whether the Board affirmed any of the findings on different grounds than the ALJ.
§ 13–300 Reliance on Prior Findings of Another Judge
Credibility determinations. It is “generally inappropriate” to base credibility determinations
solely on credibility determinations made in a prior case. Electrical Workers (Nixdorf
Computers Corp.), 252 NLRB 539 n. 1 (1980). See also Fluor Daniel, Inc. v. NLRB, 332 F.3d
961, 972 (6th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1089 (2005) (judge was “under no obligation to
151
consider determinations made by another ALJ in a wholly different case regarding the credibility
of a particular witness”).
ALJ decisions adopted in the absence of exceptions. Although lacking precedential legal
authority, a judge’s decision that has been adopted by the Board in the absence of exceptions
may properly be relied on in a subsequent case involving the same parties, at least where all the
required elements of collateral estoppel are met. See Moulton Mfg. Co., 152 NLRB 196, 207–
209 (1965) (rejecting the respondent’s argument that such decisions should be given no more
effect than a settlement agreement); and Operating Engineers Local 12 (Associated
Engineers), 270 NLRB 1172, 1172–1173 (1984) (prior ALJ decision may be relied on to show
respondent has a proclivity to violate the Act, even if the decision was adopted by the Board in
the absence of exceptions). See also Hitchens v. County of Montgomery, 98 Fed. Appx. 106
(3d Cir. 2004) (hearing officer’s proposed decision that was adopted by the state labor agency in
the absence of exceptions was a final order sufficient to bar relitigation of the same issues in a
subsequent federal action against the same party or party in privity). For cases addressing the
requirements for collateral estoppel, see § 13–600, Relitigation of Issues, below.
ALJ decisions pending before the Board on exceptions. An ALJ decision that is pending
before the Board on exceptions is not binding authority and should not be cited as such. See
Healthbridge Management, LLC, 362 NLRB 310 n. 3 (2015), enfd. per curiam 672 Fed. Appx. 1
(D.C. Cir. 2016). See also Richfield Hospitality, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 111 n. 1 (2020) (finding
that ALJ correctly refused to apply collateral estoppel to findings by another ALJ in a prior case
then pending before the Board).
Nevertheless, the trial judge appears to have the discretion to rely on factual findings
made by another ALJ in a prior case even if the case is still pending before the Board on
exceptions. See Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 358 NLRB 690 n. 1 (2012) (holding that the trial judge
properly barred respondent from relitigating the lawfulness of a suspension, as that issue had
already been decided by another ALJ in a prior case that was pending before the Board on
exceptions, and the Board had since affirmed the ALJ’s decision). See also Voith Industrial
Services, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 109, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2016) (trial judge properly relied on a finding
by another ALJ in a previous case that the respondent was a legal successor, even though that
finding was pending before the Board on exceptions, as the Board subsequently affirmed that
finding); Longshoremen ILWU (ICTSI Oregon, Inc.), 363 NLRB No. 47, slip op. at 1 n. 3 (2015)
(same, where the judge relied on the findings by another ALJ in an earlier 8(b)(4) secondary
boycott case against the respondent union), enfd. per curiam 705 Fed. Appx. 3 (D.C. Cir. 2017);
Detroit Newspapers Agency, 326 NLRB 782 n. 3 (1998) (same, where the trial judge relied on
an earlier decision by another ALJ that a strike was an unfair labor practice strike), enf. denied on
other grounds 216 F.3d 109 (D.C Cir. 2000); and Grand Rapids Press of Booth Newspapers,
327 NLRB 393, 394–395 (1998) (same, where the trial judge relied on another ALJ’s findings in
an earlier case as evidence of animus), enfd. mem. 215 F.3d 1327 (6th Cir. 2000).
This approach advances judicial efficiency and avoids inconsistent results and delays
attendant to awaiting the Board’s review of the judge’s decision in the earlier case. However, the
judge should keep in mind that, if the Board reverses the earlier judge’s findings on review, the
judge’s findings in the second case may likewise be vulnerable to reversal. See, e.g., Truck
Drivers Local No. 100 (Beta Productions LLC), 370 NLRB No. 36, slip op. at 2 (Oct. 21, 2020);
Detroit Newspapers, above; and Ironworkers Local 103, 195 NLRB 980, 983 (1972). Thus,
the judge should consider whether he/she would reach the same conclusions without relying on
the findings in the prior case. If it is clear that the judge would do so, the judge should either not
rely on the prior findings or state in the decision that the same conclusions would be reached
without relying on them.
152
§ 13–400 Reliance on Settlements
Informal or non-Board settlements that do not contain an admission, and formal
settlements that contain a nonadmission clause, may not be relied on in subsequent cases. See
Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 (Astoria Mechanical Corp.), 323 NLRB 204 (1997). See also
Cablevision Systems Corp., 367 NLRB No. 59 (2018) (non-Board settlement that did not
contain an admission that the employer committed the alleged unfair labor practices provided no
basis for refusing to reinstate a decertification petition which had been blocked pending resolution
of the allegations, as “the nonadmission of wrongdoing applies to both findings of fact and
conclusions of law”).
However, formal settlements that do not contain a nonadmission clause may be relied on
in subsequent cases to show that the respondent has a proclivity to violate the Act. Teamsters
Local 122, 334 NLRB 1190, 1192 n. 11 (2001), enfd. 2003 WL 880990 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Painters
District Council 9 (We’re Associates), 329 NLRB 140, 143 (1999); and Teamsters Local 945
(Newark Disposal Service), 232 NLRB 1, 3–4 (1977), enfd. mem. 586 F.2d 835 (3d Cir. 1978).
See also El Super, 367 NLRB No. 34, slip op. 1 n. 4 (2018) (“[T]he only type of settlement
agreement that can be used to establish a proclivity to violate the Act is a formal settlement
agreement without a non-admission clause.”)
§ 13–500 Reliance on Portions of Other Records
In Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Services, 335 NLRB 635, 639 n. 26 (2001), enfd. in
part, 317 F.3d 316 (D.C. Cir. 2003), the Board stated that it expects parties to introduce all
nontestimonial evidence on which they rely in the form of exhibits. They cannot “incorporate by
reference” portions of other records, even those of Board cases involving the same parties.
Similarly, the Board also appears to disfavor allowing a party to “incorporate by reference”
portions of other records into a pleading. Superior Industries Intern., 295 NLRB 320, 322 n. 8
(1989) (granting motion to strike portions of respondent’s answer that generically incorporated “all
the documents, transcripts and exhibits” in certain related Board and federal court proceedings).
§ 13–600 Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
Res judicata is sometimes defined to include both claim and issue preclusion. However,
in its narrow sense it refers only to claim preclusion, which forecloses relitigation of matters that
should have been raised in an earlier action but were not, while collateral estoppel, or issue
preclusion, refers to the effect of a judgment in foreclosing relitigation of a matter that has already
been litigated and decided. See Casino Pauma, 363 NLRB No. 60, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2015),
enfd. 888 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied 139 S.Ct. 2614 (2019). There, the Board held
that the doctrine of issue preclusion foreclosed the respondent in the unfair labor practice case
from relitigating jurisdiction where the issue had been litigated and decided in a prior unfair labor
practice case, citing Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 77
n. 1 (1984). See also Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (“Under the doctrine of claim
preclusion, a final judgment forecloses ‘successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or
not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit.’ Issue preclusion, in
contrast, bars ‘successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a
valid court determination essential to the prior judgment,’ even if the issue recurs in the context of
a different claim.”) (citation omitted).
153
Because relitigation may unnecessarily waste judicial resources, the trial judge may raise
res judicata or collateral estoppel sua sponte, i.e., even if a party has failed to properly do so.
See A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc., 362 NLRB 1195, 1204 n. 28 (2015); Park v. Board of Trustees of
University of Illinois, 754 Fed. Appx. 437, 439 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2018); and Stanton v. D.C.
Court of Appeals, 127 F.3d 72, 77 (1997), and cases cited there.
The doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel have been applied to Board
proceedings in a variety of circumstances.
Relitigating representation case issues in subsequent unfair labor practice case. In the
absence of newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence or special circumstances, a
respondent may not relitigate in a Section 8(a)(5) refusal-to-bargain case issues that were or
could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding. See, e.g., La Mirada Imaging,
368 NLRB No. 89, slip op. at 1 n. 3 (2019), enfd. sub nom. RadNet Management, Inc. v. NLRB,
992 F.3d 1114, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2021); Nursing Center at Vineland, 318 NLRB 901, 903 (1995),
enfd. mem. 151 LRRM 2736 (3d Cir. 1996); and Western Temporary Services, 278 NLRB 469
n. 1 (1986), enfd. 821 F.2d 1258 (7th Cir. 1987). See also FedEx Freight, Inc., 362 NLRB No.
74, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2015) (treating respondent’s request to admit additional evidence in the
refusal-to-bargain proceeding as a motion to reopen the representation proceeding and denying
the request because the respondent failed to establish that the evidence existed but was
unavailable at the time of the representation hearing or could not have been discovered with
reasonable diligence; that the evidence would change the result; and that respondent moved
promptly to present the evidence), enfd. 816 F.3d 515 (8th Cir. 2016); and Kaweah Manor, 367
NLRB No. 22 (2018) (rejecting the respondent’s argument that there were special circumstances
warranting reconsideration of the appropriate bargaining unit in the 8(a)(5) refusal-to-bargain
proceeding because respondent, as a successor, was not a party to the prior representation
proceeding and the predecessor failed to request Board review of the regional director’s unit
determination in that proceeding). Cf. Cristal USA, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 141 (2019) (finding
special circumstances and denying General Counsel’s motion for summary judgment where there
was an intervening change in the legal standard applicable to the bargaining-unit determination,
which the Board found should be applied retroactively notwithstanding the union’s previous
certification in that unit).
The same policy has been applied to parties in unfair labor practice proceedings involving
violations of other Sections of the Act. See Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC, 370 NLRB No.
117, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2021) (affirming judge’s denial of respondent’s motion to dismiss the Sec.
8(a)(4), (3), and (1) complaint for lack of jurisdiction based on respondent’s claim that it was a
joint employer with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as the respondent’s claim was considered and
rejected in representation case); Local 340, New York New Jersey Regional Joint Board
(Brooks Brothers), 365 NLRB No. 61, slip op. at 1, n. 6 (2017) (precluding respondent union in
Section 8(b)(1)(A), (2) and (3) case from relitigating scope of unit previously determined in unit
clarification proceeding); Allied Trades Council (Duane Reade, Inc.), 342 NLRB 1010, 1012–
1013 (2004) (precluding respondent union in Sec. 8(b)(3) case from relitigating the scope of the
bargaining unit by raising for the first time the issue of accretion, an issue that could have been
raised in the prior representation proceeding); and American Tempering, Inc., 296 NLRB 699
(1989) (adopting ALJ's reliance, in Sec. 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) case, on “no accretion” finding in a
prior unit clarification decision, affirmed by the Board on review, in light of parties’ failure to
identify any new evidence in regard to the accretion issue), enfd. 919 F.2d 731 (3d Cir. 1990).
See also Sec. 102.67(g) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
154
Relitigating 10(k) proceeding issues in 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) case. In Longshoremen Local 12
(Southport Lumber Co.), 368 NLRB No. 88, slip op. at 1–2 (2019), the Board summarized its
law in this area as follows:
After the [Board’s] 10(k) award [determining which union has jurisdiction over
disputed work], both parties to an 8(b)(4)(D) charge may offer new evidence, and
the respondent need not offer previously unavailable evidence to be entitled to a
hearing on that allegation. Longshoremen ILWU Local 6 (Golden Grain), 289
NLRB 1, 2 (1988); see also [NLRB v.] Plasterers Local 79, 404 U.S. [116,] 122
fn. 10 [(1971)]. In addition, “[t]he findings conclusions in a 10(k) proceeding are
not res judicata on the unfair labor practice issue in the later § 8(b)(4)(D)
determination.” Golden Grain, 289 NLRB at 2; quoting Plasterers Local 79, 404
U.S. at 122 fn. 10. The Board, however, will not relitigate threshold matters that
are not necessary to prove an 8(b)(4)(D) violation, e.g., the existence of an
agreed-upon method of resolving the dispute, Golden Grain, 289 NLRB at 2 fn. 4,
nor will it relitigate the Board's 10(k) determination in the subsequent 8(b)(4)(D)
case, International Longshore & Warehouse Union and International
Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 4 (Kinder Morgan), 367 NLRB No. 64,
slip op. at 5 (2019).
Note, however, that the Ninth Circuit denied enforcement of the Board’s decision in the
cited Kinder Morgan case. Contrary to the Board, the court held that the Board’s prior 10(k)
decision did not preclude the respondent union from reasserting its work preservation defense in
the subsequent 8(b)(4)(D) proceeding. International Longshore and Warehouse Union v.
NLRB, 978 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2020).
Relitigating ULP case issues in compliance/backpay proceeding. A respondent may not
relitigate in a compliance proceeding matters decided in the underlying unfair labor practice
proceeding. See Tito Contractors, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 133, slip op. at 4 (2021) (respondent was
precluded from relitigating in the compliance proceeding whether it unlawfully encouraged a third
party to discharge employees because of their union and other protected concerted activities); New
York Party Shuttle, LLC, 365 NLRB No. 147, slip op. at 2 (2017) (respondent was precluded
from relitigating in the compliance proceeding whether reinstatement of the discriminate was
unwarranted because he was operating a competing business), and unpub. Board order issued
May 8, 2018 (2018 WL 2148460), slip op. at 1 n. 2 (respondent was also precluded from
relitigating in the compliance proceeding whether the discriminatee was an independent
contractor rather than a statutory employee), and cases cited there. See also Santa Barbara
News-Press, 368 NLRB No. 65, slip op. at 2 (2019) (respondent’s contention in the backpay
proceeding that merit increases were discretionary was impermissible to the extent it was an
attempt to relitigate the Board’s prior finding that the failure to continue the merit increases was
unlawful).
Relitigating ULP case issues in another ULP case. With respect to issues in an unfair
labor practice proceeding that were litigated and decided in a prior unfair labor practice
proceeding, see Casino Pauma, above, 363 NLRB No. 60, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (respondent tribal
casino was collaterally estopped from contesting jurisdiction where the issue had been litigated
and decided in a prior case and the facts had not changed); Allied Mechanical Services, Inc.,
352 NLRB 662, 664 (2008), reconsideration denied 356 NLRB 2 (2010) (respondent was
collaterally estopped from alleging that its bargaining relationship with a union was based on
Section 8(f) rather that Section 9(a) because a prior Board decision involving the same parties
was necessarily premised on the existence of a Section 9(a) relationship and a prior settlement
agreement confirmed such a relationship); Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 300 NLRB 1024, 1025,
155
nn. 3 and 4 (1990) (respondent was collaterally estopped from relitigating facts relating to its duty
to bargain as a successor, which were fully and fairly litigated and necessarily decided in a prior
proceeding involving the same parties), enfd. 967 F.2d 624 (D.C. Cir. 1992); and Harvey’s
Resort, 271 NLRB 306 (1984) (respondent was collaterally estopped from relitigating whether
floormen were supervisors as the issue had been fully litigated and decided in a prior Board case
and there had been no significant change in the job). See also Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating
Corp., 365 NLRB No. 55 (2017) (the burden is on the party asserting preclusion to demonstrate
that the identical issue was fully litigated, and on the party opposing preclusion to show that
circumstances have changed materially).
With respect to issues fully litigated before another judge but still pending before the
Board on exceptions to the judge’s decision, see § 13–300, Reliance on Prior Findings of Another
Judge, above.
Application of res judicata or collateral estoppel to General Counsel and Board. With
respect to the application of res judicata or collateral estoppel to the General Counsel or Board,
see Precision Industries, 320 NLRB 661, 663 (1996), enfd. 118 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 1997), cert.
denied 523 U.S. 1020 (1998). In that case, the Board rejected the respondent’s argument that the
complaint was barred by res judicata because respondent had prevailed in an ERISA suit brought
by the charging party union and certain former employees and retirees. The Board cited “the
general rule that the Government is not precluded from litigating an issue involving the
enforcement of Federal law that a private party has litigated unsuccessfully, when the
Government was not a party to the private litigation.” Ibid., citing Field Bridge Associates, 306
NLRB 322, 322–323 (1992) (declining to give collateral estoppel effect to state court proceedings
that the Board was not a party to), enfd. sub nom. Service Employees Local 32B–32J v. NLRB,
982 F. 2d 845 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 509 U.S. 904 (1993).
The Board in Precision Industries also held that prior age and race discrimination
charges filed with the EEOC by several discriminatees did not judicially estop the General
Counsel from asserting that the failure to hire them was based on antiunion animus. The Board
noted that neither the GC nor the Charging Party Union were parties in the EEOC proceeding,
and that, “in any event,” there was “nothing inconsistent in alleging race or age discrimination in
one forum and discrimination based on union membership in another,” as the discriminatees
“may have believed in good faith that the Respondent had more than one illegal motive for
declining to hire them.” Ibid.
See also Roadway Express, 355 NLRB 197 (2010), enfd. 427 Fed. Appx. 838 (11th Cir.
2011), where the respondent employer argued that a court’s dismissal of the alleged
discriminatee’s hybrid Sec. 301/DFR claim against the employer and union collaterally estopped
the General Counsel from subsequently opposing deferral of the related 8(a)(3) allegations
against the employer on the ground that the union had breached its DFR in the prior grievance
proceeding. Relying on the same “general rule” above, the Board rejected the respondent’s
argument as the GC was neither a party to the unsuccessful lawsuit nor in privity with the alleged
discriminatee (since the Board acts in the public interest) and the court dismissed the DFR claim
on the ground that the discriminatee had waived it, rather than on the merits.
The Board’s application of its general policy has been rejected by two circuit courts. See
NLRB v. Donna-Lee Sportswear, 836 F.2d 31 (1st Cir. 1987); and NLRB v. Heyman, 541 F.2d
796 (9th Cir. 1976) (holding that where the existence of a contract has been decided by a district
court in actions brought under ERISA or Sec. 301, the Board is precluded from relitigating that
issue in a later 8(a)(5) case). However, in subsequent cases, the Board has distinguished these
two circuit court decisions based on their particular facts. See Field Bridge Associates, above,
156
306 NLRB at 323 n. 2 (the existence of the contract was “the essence of the unfair labor practice
charge,” rather than just one aspect of the allegations, and did not have “implications concerning
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act”); Precision Industries, above, 320 NLRB at 663, n. 13 (“the issue in
the unfair labor practice case—the existence, vel non, of a contract—was the same as the one
that had been decided in the court proceeding”); and Roadway Express, above (the Board’s
unfair labor practice findings depended “entirely” on the existence of a contract, and the courts’
prior findings on that issue represented “a minimal intrusion into the Board’s jurisdiction” as “no
broad policy question” was implicated in that determination). See also Galaxy Towers
Condominium Assn., 361 NLRB 364 n. 3 (2014) (“We adhere to the general rule not to apply
judicial estoppel where the Government was not a party to the prior proceeding.”).
§ 13–700 Judicial Estoppel
Judicial estoppel is a doctrine distinct from the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion.
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748–749 (2001). As summarized by the D.C. Circuit,
The doctrine of judicial estoppel is that “where a party assumes a certain
position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may
not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary
position . . .” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. at 749. The doctrine “protects
the integrity of the judicial process,” Davis v. D.C., 925 F.3d 1240, 1256 (D.C.
Cir. 2019), by “prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according
to the exigencies of the moment,” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. at 750
(quoting U.S. v. McCaskey, 9 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 1993)). The Supreme
Court has said there is no “exhaustive formula for determining the applicability of
judicial estoppel.” Id. at 751. Nevertheless, the Court has set forth three key
factors that “inform the decision” whether “the balance of equities” favors
applying the doctrine in a particular case: (1) whether the party’s later position is
“clearly inconsistent” with its earlier position; (2) “whether the party has
succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position, so that
judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create
the perception that either the first or the second court was misled”; and (3)
“whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an
unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not
estopped.” Id. at 750–751.
Temple University Hospital, Inc. v. NLRB, 929 F.3d 729, 733 (D.C. Cir. 2019), granting review
and remanding 366 NLRB No. 88 (2018).
It is unclear whether or when judicial estoppel applies in NLRB proceedings. In Temple
University Hospital, above, a representation case, the Board found it unnecessary to decide the
issue because, even “assuming arguendo” the doctrine applies, the union was not estopped from
filing an election petition with the Board by the fact that it had successfully taken the position in a
prior proceeding before the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) that the PLRB rather
than the NLRB had jurisdiction. The Board noted that there was no evidence the union had
misled the PLRB and no adequate basis to believe the PLRB would have reached a different
result had the union taken some contrary position. See the Board’s unpub. Order dated Dec. 29,
2016 (2016 WL 7495062), at 1 n. 2.
On appeal from the Board’s subsequent bargaining order, the D.C. Circuit likewise did not
address whether the doctrine applies in NLRB proceedings. However, the court concluded that
157
the Board had misapplied the doctrine. Specifically, the court held that the second factor above
does not require that the party’s inconsistent position be a “but-for cause” of the first tribunal’s
decision or that the party misled the first tribunal. The court also noted that, unlike with issue
preclusion, it did not matter that the Board was not a party to the prior proceeding. Accordingly,
the court remanded for the Board to address whether judicial estoppel is available in NLRB
proceedings, and if so, whether the respondent hospital made a sufficient showing of unfair
advantage or unfair detriment and whether the balance of equities favors its application to the
facts of the case. 929 F.3d at 734–736.
On remand, the Board held that judicial estoppel is not available in Board proceedings
“where the Board’s jurisdiction is at issue,” i.e., “where application of that doctrine could compel
the Board to surrender its jurisdiction.” 370 NLRB No. 106, slip op. at 1–2 (2021). Accordingly,
the Board reaffirmed its original decision asserting jurisdiction. However, the Board found it
unnecessary to address the court’s second question whether, if judicial estoppel is available in
such circumstances, the balance of equities favored applying it on the facts presented. Slip op. at
4 n. 12. The Board also did “not foreclose the possibility that a future case may present
circumstances under which judicial estoppel may be appropriately applied.” Slip op. at 2.
158
CHAPTER 14. SUPPLEMENTAL OR RELATED PROCEEDINGS
§ 14–100 Compliance Proceedings
“[I]n compliance matters the General Counsel does not act on his own initiative as he
does in the issuance of complaints but as the Board’s agent in effectuating the remedy ordered.”
Ace Beverage Co., 250 NLRB 646, 648 (1980). As discussed below, the Board has adopted
certain special procedural rules governing such compliance/backpay proceedings.
§ 14–110 Compliance Specification
Section 102.54(a) of the Board’s Rules provides that, if a controversy exists regarding
compliance with the Board’s order that cannot be resolved informally, the Regional Director “may
issue and serve on all parties a compliance specification in the name of the Board.”
Contents of Specification. With respect to the alleged backpay amount due, the
specification
will specifically and in detail show, for each employee, the backpay periods
broken down by calendar quarters, the specific figures and basis of computation
of gross backpay and interim earnings, the expenses for each quarter, the net
backpay due, and any other pertinent information.
Sec. 102.55(a). With respect to other compliance matters, the specification
will contain a clear and concise description of the respects in which the
Respondent has failed to comply with a Board or court order, including the
remedial acts claimed to be necessary for compliance by the Respondent, and,
where known, the approximate dates, places, and names of the Respondent’s
agents or other representatives described in the specification.
Sec. 102.55(b).
Amendments to Specification. The Regional Director may amend the specification before
the hearing opens. However, after the hearing opens, the specification may be amended only
“upon leave of the Administrative Law Judge or the Board, upon good cause shown.” Sec.
102.55(c). See, e.g., ILWU (Pacific Crane Maintenance Co.), 370 NLRB No. 104, slip op. at 1
n. 3 (2021) (judge properly exercised her discretion in allowing the General Counsel to amend the
specification during and after the hearing, as the respondent was put on notice of the GC’s
intended changes, the GC’s delay was the result of an oversight, and all issues were fully litigated
by the parties).
Consolidated Complaint and Specification. Sec. 102.54(c) of the Board’s Rules
states:
Whenever the Regional Director deems it necessary to effectuate the purposes
and policies of the Act or to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, the Regional
Director may consolidate with a complaint and Notice of Hearing issued pursuant
to §102.15 a compliance specification based on that complaint. After opening of
the hearing, the Board or the Administrative Law Judge, as appropriate, must
approve consolidation.
159
Where consolidation occurs, it is usually done by the Regional Director before the hearing opens,
and, consistent with 102.54(c), the consolidated specification sets forth the backpay due for the
same allegations set forth in the complaint. See, e.g., Airgas USA, LLC, 366 NLRB No. 92
(2018), enfd. 760 Fed. Appx. 413 (6th Cir. 2019). But see Airport Bus Service, 273 NLRB 561
n. 4 (1984) (judge properly granted the General Counsel’s motion to consolidate the unfair labor
practice cases with a backpay specification in prior cases since both proceedings involved the
alleged responsibility of a successor employer to remedy unfair labor practices committed by
respondent). For a discussion of consolidation and severance generally, see § 3–400, et seq.,
above.
Note that Section 102.54(c) of the Board’s rules further provides that “issuance of a
compliance specification is not a prerequisite or bar to Board initiation of proceedings in any
administrative or judicial forum which the Board or the Regional Director determines to be
appropriate for obtaining compliance with a Board order.” See also Section 101.16 of the
Board’s Statements of Procedure, which states that the Regional Director “has discretion” to
issue a backpay specification, or “in the alternative . . . a notice of hearing only, without a
specification,” containing “a brief statement of the matters in controversy.”
§ 14–120 Answer to Compliance Specification
Section 102.56(b) of the Board’s rules states:
As to all matters within the knowledge of the respondent, including but not limited
to the various factors entering into the computation of gross backpay, a general
denial shall not suffice. As to such matters, if the respondent disputes either the
accuracy of the figures in the specification or the premises on which they are
based, the answer shall specifically state the basis for such disagreement,
setting forth in detail the respondent's position as to the applicable premises and
furnishing the appropriate supporting figures.
The failure to do so is an admission. Sec. 102.56(c).
For a case applying the above rule to a respondent employer, see M&M Affordable
Plumbing, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 49 (2017). In that case, the Board granted the General Counsel‘s
motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the gross backpay and excess tax figures in
the compliance specification as the respondent’s answer failed to explain the basis for the
respondent’s disagreement with those figures or set forth any proposed alternative figures.
However, the Board remanded for hearing on the issues of interim earnings and expenses as
such information was not within the respondent’s knowledge and its general denials to those
allegations were therefore sufficient.
See also Tito Contractors, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 133, slip op. at 3 (2021) (respondent’s
answer insufficient insofar as it failed to adequately support respondent’s general denials with
specific alternative formulas, supporting figures, or calculations); Swyear Amusements,Inc., 370
NLRB No. 82, slip op. at 2 n. 10 (2021) (respondent’s denials of the key allegations of the
compliance specification, including that it employed the named employees and that they worked
12 hours each scheduled day, were entirely unsubstantiated); Rogan Bros. Sanitation, Inc., 369
NLRB No. 53, slip op. at 4 (2020) (respondent’s denial of the GC’s gross backpay calculations on
the ground that there were unidentified “offsets” to those calculations was insufficient because
respondent did not provide alternative gross backpay calculations); Santa Barbara News-Press,
368 NLRB No. 65, slip op. at 2–3 (2019) (respondent’s general denial of the GC’s merit-increase
backpay calculations was insufficient as the unit employees’ performance evaluations and records
160
demonstrating the amount of work performed were within the control of the respondent); Ace
Unlimited, 360 NLRB 197 (2014) (respondent’s answer failed to propose alternative dates
constituting the backpay period, provide a position as to the compliance specification’s premises
or computations of backpay, or furnish alternative figures); and Flaum Appetizing Corp., 357
NLRB 2006, 2007 (2011) (respondent’s answer failed to specify the basis of its disagreement with
the compliance specification’s backpay computation or offer any alternative formula, furnish
supporting figures for the amounts owed, or offer an explanation for its failure to provide an
adequate answer).
For cases applying the rule to a respondent union, see Operating Engineers Local 627,
368 NLRB No. 39, slip op. at 3 n. 5 (2019) (respondent union’s general denial of the backpay
period, without providing alternative dates, was insufficient); and Mine Workers Local 1575
(Peabody Coal), 295 NLRB 873 (1989) (respondent union’s general denials of the allegations in
the backpay specification regarding amounts claimed for wages and expenses were sufficient
because there was no evidence that the union was in any position to know the actual wages
earned by the discriminatees or the expenses they incurred).
Note that the Board also applies the rule to pro se respondents. See Edwards Painting,
Inc., 370 NLRB No. 69, slip op. at 2 (2021). There, the Board granted the GC’s motion for default
judgment with respect to gross backpay figures as the respondent’s answer did not deny those
allegations. The Board noted that, while it “grants a degree of leniency to pro se litigants” it “has
found that a general denial of an allegation in a compliance specification is not sufficient under
Section 102.56(b) for a pro se litigant concerning any matter within that party’s knowledge, as
figures for calculating gross backay would typically be,” citing SK USA Cleaners, Inc. 365 NLRB
No. 20, slip op. at 3 (2017). The Board, however, denied the GC’s motion with respect to the
discriminatees’ interim earnings, as the respondent’s answer had questioned whether the
discriminatees had adequately mitigated their damages.
As discussed in § 13–600, Relitigation of Issues, above, a respondent may not seek to
relitigate in a compliance proceeding matters decided in the underlying unfair labor practice
proceeding. A respondent’s answer may therefore be struck to the extent it attempts to do so.
See, e.g., Tito Contactors, above, slip op. at 4; Rogan Bros. Sanitation, above; Operating
Engineers Local 627, above, slip op. at 1 n. 2; and G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., 368
NLRB No. 1, slip op. at 2 (2019), and cases cited there.
§ 14–130 Rights of Charging Parties and Discriminatees
The initial determination regarding a respondent’s compliance obligations under the
Board’s order is made by the Regional Director. See Sec. 102.52 of the Board’s Rules (“As
appropriate, the Regional Director will make a compliance determination and notify the parties of
that determination”). If the charging party disagrees with any aspect of the Regional Director’s
determination, it may file an appeal with the General Counsel in Washington, D.C., and, if the
appeal is denied, a request for review with the Board. See Sec. 102.53 of the Board’s Rules, and
53 FR 37754-01 (Sept. 28, 1988) (Sec. 102.53 specifies an appeals process which implements
Ace Beverage Co., 250 NLRB 646, 647 (1980), where the Board granted the individual charging
party-discriminatee’s motion challenging the backpay formula adopted by the General Counsel,
and extends to any aspect of a compliance determination). For an example where the Board
granted a request for review under 102.53, see Page Litho, Inc., 325 NLRB 338, 338–339 (1998)
(granting the charging party union’s request for review and remanding for a hearing on whether
the respondent made a valid offer of reinstatement and whether certain employees waived their
right to reinstatement).
161
The Board’s rules and regulations do not address whether a non-charging party
discriminatee or other employee beneficiary under the Board’s make-whole order may likewise
seek Board review of the General Counsel’s compliance determination. However, the Board in at
least one case has considered and granted such a request for review. See Port Printing Ad and
Specialties, 15–CA–17976, unpub. Board order issued Dec. 30, 2011 (2011 WL 6936390)
(Board granted request for review filed by one of the employees who was entitled to a backpay
remedy under the Board’s order and remanded for issuance of an amended compliance
determination addressing the appropriate date for calculating his vacation and sick pay and the
basis for the Region’s overtime calculations, recalculating his interim expenses, and making
further computation revisions). See also PCMC/Pacific Crane Maintenance Co., 32–CA–
021925, unpub. Board order issued Sept. 20, 2017 (2017 WL 4179867) (discussing and
distinguishing Port Printing).
With respect to the compliance hearing, Section 102.59 of the Board’s Rules provides that
“the procedures provided in §§ 102.24 through 102.51” regarding complaints “will be followed
insofar as applicable” after issuance of the compliance specification and notice of hearing. This
includes Section 102.38, which addresses the rights of parties to appear and participate in
hearings on a complaint (see § 6–400, above), as well as the other sections governing such
hearings (Secs. 102.34–102.44). The procedure in Section 102.53 for appealing Regional
Director compliance determinations, discussed above, does not apply to compliance
specifications. ILWU (Pacific Crane Maintenance Co.), 370 NLRB No. 104, slip op. at 1 n. 5
(2021).
As for whether a charging party may assert and present evidence at the compliance
hearing in support of a position that is inconsistent with the General Counsel’s position, see Mike-
Sells Potato Chip Co., 366 NLRB No. 29 (2018), enfd. 761 Fed. Appx. 5 (D.C. Cir. 2019). In
that case, the charging party union sought to introduce evidence at the compliance hearing in
support of its theory that the respondent’s backpay obligations relating to commission-based pay
should account for drivers working additional hours due to the respondent’s unlawful unilateral
change. The union’s theory had been rejected by the Regional Director and by the General
Counsel on the union’s appeal. However, the union did not thereafter file a request for review
with the Board as provided in Section 102.53 of the Board’s Rules. The judge ruled that the
union was precluded from presenting evidence at the hearing in support its different theory, as
one of the purposes of the appeal and request-for-review procedure in Section 102.53 was to
resolve such disputes between the charging party and the GC before the hearing. Slip op. at 6;
Tr. 28. The union subsequently filed exceptions to the judge’s ruling, but the Board affirmed it.
§ 14–140 Burdens of Proof and Production
General Presumptions
The finding of an unfair labor practice is “presumptive proof” that the respondent owes
some backpay. Teamsters Local 25, 366 NLRB No. 99, slip op. at 1 (2018); St. George
Warehouse, 351 NLRB 961, 963 (2007); Cobb Mechanical Contractors, 333 NLRB 1168
(2001), enfd. in part 295 F.3d 1370 (D.C. Cir. 2002), and Arlington Hotel Co., 287 NLRB 851,
855 (1987), enfd. 876 F.2d 678 (8th Cir. 1989).
Where there is dispute over the amount of backpay owed or other compliance issues,
uncertainties or ambiguities in the evidence are resolved against the respondent whose unlawful
actions created the dispute. See Teamsters Local 25, above, slip op. at 2; Lucky Cab Co., 366
NLRB No. 56, slip op. at 6 (2018), enfd. mem. 818 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th Cir. 2020); and Total
Security Management Illinois 1, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 106, slip op. at 15 n. 41 (2016), overruled
162
on other grounds, River Road Operating Co., 369 NLRB No. 109 (2020), and cases cited there.
But see Domsey Trading Corp., 351 NLRB 824, 833 (2007) (declining to apply this general rule
where the doubt about the discriminatee’s interim earnings was “created not by the Respondent
but by the discriminatee’s own social security records—the very evidence relied on by the
General Counsel to establish backpay liability,” and “neither the General Counsel nor [the
discriminatee] sought to resolve the discrepancy prior to trial.”), enf. denied on other grounds, 636
F.3d 33 (2nd Cir. 2011); and Parts Depot, 348 NLRB 152,154 (2006) (General Counsel failed to
establish that the discriminatee’s second resignation from his interim job was reasonable, as the
discriminatee was aware of the transportation difficulties when he returned to work, and his only
explanation for resigning was that it was hard to get to work with the vehicle he had at the time,
which “fail[ed] to clarify whether he was forced to quit for reasons beyond his control or merely
chose to terminate his employment by his own choice”). enfd. 260 Fed. Appx. 607 (4th Cir. 2008).
Gross Backpay
The General Counsel has the burden of proving the amount of gross backpay due the
discriminatee. Teamsters Local 25, above; and St. George Warehouse, above, 351 NLRB at
963. The GC is not required to establish the exact amount due, but only that the gross backpay
formula used and the resulting amounts in the compliance specification are reasonable and not
an arbitrary approximation. The Lorge School, 355 NLRB 558, 560 (2010). But see New York
Party Shuttle, LLC v. NLRB, 18 F.4th 753 (5th Cir. 2021) (reversing Board’s gross backpay
determination as arbitrary where it disregarded compliance manual and “engaged in impermissible
speculation” by extrapolating a one-year period of pay across a four-year span of the discriminatee’s
employment). However, if the respondent offers an alternative formula, the judge must determine
the “most accurate” formula. Performance Friction Corp., 335 NLRB 1117 (2001). In doing so,
the judge may borrow elements from each of the suggested formulas. Ibid.
The General Counsel often relies on the testimony of compliance officers to show the
reasonableness of the gross backpay formula and amounts set forth in the specification. See,
e.g., Cobb Mechanical Contractors, above, 333 NLRB at 1168; and Cibao Meat Products, 348
NLRB 47, 52 (2006). See also NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 3), Secs. 10660.1 and 10664.1.
However, a compliance officer’s testimony is subject to the Board’s usual policies regarding
uncorroborated hearsay. See, e.g., Performance Friction Corp., above, 335 NLRB at 1122,
1139–1141; and A-1 Schmidlin Plumbing & Heating Co., 312 NLRB 191, 199 (1993). See also
§ 16–802, below.
If a respondent refuses to cooperate in efforts to ascertain the amount of gross backpay,
this may also be relied on to establish that the backpay calculations in the specification are
reasonable. Gimrock Construction, Inc., 356 NLRB 529, 538-539 (2011), enfd. in relevant part
695 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2012).
Unreported Tips
A discriminatee’s admitted failure to report tip income to the IRS while employed by the
respondent employer does not preclude such tips from being considered and included in
calculating his/her gross backpay. Further, the amount of the unreported tips may be established
solely by the discriminatee’s testimony where it appears to be a reasonable approximation. See
New York Party Shuttle, 370 NLRB No. 19, slip op. at 11 (2020), affd. in relevant part, 18 F.4th
753, and cases cited there.
163
Interim Earnings
Interim earnings are deducted from gross backpay only where the violation resulted in
cessation of the discriminatee’s employment. See, e.g., Mimbres Memorial Hospital, 361 NLRB
333 (2014) (interim earnings are not properly deducted where a respondent unlawfully reduced
the hours of the discriminatees but did not terminate them), affd. 812 F.3d 768 (10th Cir. 2016).
Further, only those interim earnings derived from working the same number of hours the
discharged discriminatee would have worked for the respondent are counted; earnings from
additional or extra hours worked during the backpay period are not deducted from gross backpay.
See Lou’s Transport, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 140, slip op. at 5 (2018), enfd. 945 F.3d 1012 (6th Cir.
Dec. 26, 2019), and cases cited there. See also § 14–140, Specific Remedial Issues, below.
The net backpay due (gross backpay minus interim earnings) is computed on a quarterly
basis. Lucky Cab, above, 366 NLRB No. 56, slip op. at 14 n. 59. The respondent has the burden
to prove the amount of interim earnings that should be deducted in each quarter. Id., slip op. at 7.
Where interim earnings are derived from self-employment, the respondent’s burden includes
establishing that any claimed business expenses should not be deducted in calculating the total
net amount earned. Although the General Counsel generally provides respondents with
information in its possession regarding the interim earnings of discriminatees, this is done only as
a matter of “administrative courtesy.” Ibid.
Social Security records may provide reliable information regarding interim earnings. Cobb
Mechanical Contractors, above, 333 NLRB at 1190. See also Domsey Trading, above, 351
NLRB at 833 (discriminatee’s bare denial that he performed interim work for an employer did not
trump SSA records showing otherwise; the mere possibility that someone else might have used
the discriminatee’s social security number was not a sufficient basis to disregard the official
records), enf. denied on other grounds 636 F.3d 33 (2nd Cir. 2011).
Tax records likewise may be a good source of information regarding interim earnings.
See, e.g., New York Party Shuttle, LLC, above, slip op. at 12; J.J. Cassone Bakery, Inc., 356
NLRB 951, 963 (2011); and Parts Depot, above, 348 NLRB at 154. They are especially useful in
determining net interim earnings where the discriminatee engaged in self-employment during the
backpay period. See Lucky Cab, above, 366 NLRB No. 56, slip op. at 7 and passim.
A discriminatee’s job applications may also be a good source of determining interim
earnings, particularly from jobs where the discriminatee may have been paid cash that was not
reported to the SSA or IRS. See, for example, Parts Depot, above, 348 NLRB at 153, where the
ALJ discredited the discriminatee’s denial that she worked on a cash basis at a laundry, given her
subsequent job application listing the laundry as prior employment.
Fraudulent Concealment.
Discriminatees are expected to cooperate with efforts to determine interim earnings. See
Iron Workers Local 373 (Building Contractors), 295 NLRB 648, 655–656 (1985), enfd. mem.
70 F.3d 1256 (3rd Cir. 1995). The Board will deny backpay in those quarters for which the
discriminatee intentionally concealed interim earnings from the Board, American Navigation
Co., 268 NLRB 426 (1983), and will deny backpay entirely if the claimant’s willful deception
makes it impossible to ascertain the amount of interim earnings, Ad Art, Inc., 280 NLRB 985
(1986).
It is the respondent’s burden to show fraudulent concealment. Lucky Cab, above, slip op.
at 7. And this burden is generally not met merely by showing that the discriminatee engaged in
164
poor recordkeeping. See ibid and cases cited there. See also Marquez Brothers Enterprises,
21–CA–039581, unpub. Board order issued Sept. 7, 2017 (2017 WL 3953408) (discriminatees’
failure to produce all responsive documents regarding their interim earnings did not warrant
evidentiary sanctions where there was no indication that their failure to fully comply with the
respondent’s subpoenas was willful).
Failure to Mitigate
A discriminatee is not entitled to backpay, i.e., backpay is tolled, for any period where
he/she failed to seek interim employment and thereby incurred a willful loss of earnings. As the
failure to mitigate is an affirmative defense, the respondent has both the initial burden of
production and the ultimate burden of persuasion. Thus, the respondent must produce evidence
and prove that there were substantially equivalent jobs available in the relevant geographic area
and that the discriminatee’s job search was unreasonable. St. George Warehouse, above, 351
NLRB at 961, 964. This burden is not met merely by producing evidence that some jobs were
available; the respondent must produce evidence and prove that the available jobs were
substantially equivalent in terms of pay, hours, job duties, required qualifications or skills, and/or
working conditions. Teamsters Local 25, above, 366 NLRB No. 99, slip op. at 2–3; and Lucky
Cab, above, slip op. at 5 (finding that the respondents failed to meet this burden).
However, once the respondent has produced evidence that there were substantially
equivalent jobs available to the discriminatee, the General Counsel has the burden to produce
evidence concerning the reasonableness of the discriminatee’s job search, including the nature
and extent of the discriminatee’s efforts to obtain the substantially equivalent available jobs
identified by the respondent or the reasons for not applying for the jobs. St. George Warehouse,
above.
The General Counsel can meet this burden solely by producing the discriminatee to testify
about his/her efforts to find employment, or by introducing other competent documentary or
testimonial evidence regarding the discriminatee’s job search. Teamsters Local 25, above, slip
op. at 2 n. 4; and St. George Warehouse, above. See also M.D. Miller Trucking, 365 NLRB
No. 57, slip op. at 4 (2017) (receipt of unemployment benefits is prima facie evidence of a
reasonable search where state eligibility rules require a recipient to actively seek work), enfd.
mem. 728 Fed. Appx. 2 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The GC is not required to additionally produce evidence
that the other jobs the discriminatee applied for were substantially equivalent to his/her job with
respondent. Lucky Cab, above.
In determining the reasonableness of the discriminatee’s job search, the Board examines
“the entire circumstances” to determine whether the discriminatee made an “honest, good faith
effort” to mitigate losses. Lucky Cab, above. Compare also G4S Solutions (USA ) Inc., 368
NLRB No. 1, slip op. at 4–5 (2019) (discriminatee’s temporary cessation of filing any job
applications during the holiday season would not be sufficient to toll backpay), with Grosvenor
Resort, 350 NLRB 1197, 1201-1202, 1208 (2007) (discriminatees’ failure to begin searching for
work until more than 2 weeks after their discharge was not justified under all the circumstances).
If a discriminatee refuses an interim job offer, the respondent has the burden to show that
the refusal was a “clearly unjustifiable refusal to take desirable new employment,” to establish a
willful loss of earnings. Moran Printing, Inc., 330 NLRB 376 (1999). See also Gimrock
Construction, above, 356 NLRB at 539 (respondent failed to satisfy its burden where the
evidence showed that the two job offers the elderly discriminatee turned down required operating
equipment that he had never used, and one involved high climbing).
165
If a discriminatee takes a job that pays less than his/her job with respondent, the
respondent has the burden to show that the jobs were not substantially equivalent and that the
discriminatee could have done better with the exercise of reasonable diligence. Moran Printing,
above; and E & L Plastics Corp., 314 NLRB 1056, 1057 (1994). See also Santa Barbara
News-Press, 370 NLRB No. 70, slip op. at 9 n. 5 (2021) (employer failed to show that the
discriminatees should have obtained an interim job that provided health insurance and vacation
time).
The same is true if a discriminatee accepts a job that is only part-time or offers fewer
hours than his/her job with respondent. See G4S Solutions (USA), above, slip op. at 5 (rejecting
the respondent’s contention that the discriminatee’s backpay should be reduced because his
interim job employed him for less than the 50 hours a week he had worked for respondent), and
cases cited there.
If a discriminatee is terminated from an interim job, the respondent must show that the
termination was the result of “deliberate or gross misconduct” by the discriminatee to establish a
willful loss of earnings. Gimrock Construction, above, 356 NLRB at 540. See, for example,
G4S Solutions (USA), above, slip op. at 4 (respondent failed to meet its burden where the
discriminatee was fired from an interim job for placing funds in a wrong account, as he did not
attempt to steal, was never charged with theft, never placed the funds in his own name, and gave
unrebutted testimony that a former supervisor had told him to handle transactions that way); and
California Gas Transport, Inc., 355 NLRB 465, 471 (2010) (respondent failed to satisfy its
burden where the discriminatee was terminated by an interim employer for a work-related truck
accident, as the respondent failed to show that the accident was the result of deliberate or gross
misconduct).
However, where a discriminatee voluntarily quit an interim job, it is the General Counsel’s
burden to show that the decision to quit was reasonable. Lucky Cab, above, slip op. at 13. See
also Gimrock Construction, above, 356 NLRB at 539 (General Counsel met the burden by
presenting the discriminatee’s unrebutted testimony that he quit because of unsafe working
conditions and harassment); and Parts Depot, above, 348 NLRB at 154 (General Counsel met
the burden with respect to the discriminatee’s first resignation, because it was the result of
immediate transportation difficulties caused by the company’s relocation, but not with respect to
his second resignation, as the discriminatee was well aware of the transportation difficulties when
he returned to work and his only explanation for resigning was that it was hard to get to work with
the vehicle he had at the time, which “fail[ed] to clarify whether he was forced to quit for reasons
beyond his control or merely chose to terminate his employment by his own choice.”).
Leaving an interim job to seek self-employment is not considered equivalent to voluntarily
quitting, and the General Counsel has no obligation to show that doing so was reasonable.
California Gas Transport, above, 355 NLRB at 470. The Board has found self-employment to
be a proper way to mitigate damages, even if it is less lucrative. Grosvenor Resort, above, 350
NLRB at 1202, citing Fugazy Continental Corp., 276 NLRB 1334, 1338–339 (1985), enfd. 817
F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1987).
Duration of Backpay Period
The backpay period generally runs from the date of the discrimination until the
discriminatee accepts or rejects a valid offer of reinstatement or, if the discriminatee fails to
respond, within a reasonable time after the valid offer was made. See Cliffstar Transportation
Co., 311 NLRB 152, 154–155 (1993); and Esterline Electronics Corp., 290 NLRB 834 (1988).
See also Lou’s Transport, Inc., above, 366 NLRB No. 140, slip op. at 3 (discriminatee’s
166
testimony at the underlying unfair labor practice hearing, in response to respondent’s questioning,
that he did not want to return to work for respondent, did not toll the backpay period because the
respondent had not made an unconditional offer of reinstatement and allowed him a reasonable
time to respond).
There is a rebuttable presumption that a discriminatee would have remained employed
with the respondent during the entire backpay period absent the discrimination. Diamond
Walnut Growers, Inc., 340 NLRB 1129, 1132 (2003). The respondent bears the burden of
establishing that backpay should be tolled during all or part of that period because of the
discriminatee’s unavailability or abandonment of the work force, respondent’s elimination of the
position, or for some other reason unrelated to the discrimination. Mastro Plastics Corp., 136
NLRB 1342, 1346 (1962). See also Weldon International, Inc., 340 NLRB 666, 680 (2003)
(respondent failed to establish that the discriminatee had a period of incapacity during the
backpay period); 1849 Sedgwick Realty LLC, 337 NLRB 245, 255–256 (2001) (respondents
failed to show that the discriminatee retired from the workforce); and Fort Vancouver Plywood
Co., 252 NLRB 1009, 1011–1012 (1980) (respondent failed to prove that it would have eliminated
any of the discriminatees’ jobs due to a decline in the industry).
Where a discriminatee is incapacitated due to disabling injuries sustained at an interim
job, backpay will generally be tolled during the period of incapacity if the interim job was similar to
the job with the respondent. Compare City Disposal Systems, 290 NLRB 413 n. 2 (1988)
(tolling backpay during the period of the discriminatee’s work-related disabling injury as the
General Counsel failed to show that “the nature of the interim employment that [the discriminatee]
was performing [over-the-road truckdriving] was so unusual or dissimilar from work he performed
for the Respondent [driving a tractor-trailer 37 miles back and forth between two cities] that [his]
injury would not have occurred in the absence of the Respondent’s discrimination against him.”);
with Coronet Foods, Inc., 322 NLRB 837, 843 (1997) (declining to toll backpay during the period
of the discriminatee’s work-related disabling injury as the discriminatee’s interim employment
[working as a “miscellaneous driver” for a concrete company] was “so dissimilar from his job as
an over-the-road driver for Respondent that his disabling injury would not have occurred had not
Respondent terminated him.”), enfd. denied in part on other grounds 158 F.3d 782, 801 (4th Cir.
1998). See also J.J. Cassone Bakery, Inc., 356 NLRB 951, 956, 962 (2011) (declining to toll
backpay where the discriminatee, who worked as a laborer for the respondent bakery, was
injured at an interim job performing yardwork).
If the discriminatee is a striker, the respondent must present “unequivocal evidence of an
intent to permanently sever [the striker’s] employment relationship,” to establish that the striker
abandoned his/her employment during the strike. KSM Industries, 353 NLRB 1124 n.5, 1129
(2009), reaffd. 355 NLRB 1344 (2010), enfd. 682 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2012). The fact that the
striker resigned to accept another job or obtain pension or retirement funds during the strike is not
sufficient by itself to establish abandonment. See ibid, and cases cited there.
The presumption of continued employment applies even in the construction industry,
Dean General Contractors, 285 NLRB 573 (1987), unless the discriminatee was a union salt,
Oil Capitol Sheet Metal, Inc., 349 NLRB 1348, 1351 (2007), rev. denied 561 F.3d 497 (D.C. Cir.
2009). The General Counsel has the burden to show that a union salt would have remained for
the portion of the backpay period set forth in the compliance specification. Such evidence may
include, inter alia, the discriminatee's personal circumstances, contemporaneous union policies
and practices with respect to salting campaigns, specific plans for the targeted employer,
instructions or agreements between the discriminatee and the union concerning the anticipated
duration of the assignment, and historical data regarding the duration of employment of the
167
salt/discriminatee and other salts in similar salting campaigns. Ibid. See also Lederach Electric,
Inc., 359 NLRB 616 n.2, 624 (2013), reaffd. 361 NLRB 242 (2014).
Validity of Reinstatement Offer
A reinstatement offer must be “specific, unequivocal, and unconditional.” Midwestern
Personnel Services, 346 NLRB 624, 624 (2006), enfd. 508 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2007). It is the
respondent’s burden to establish that it made a valid reinstatement offer to the discriminatee, i.e.,
that its offer was sufficiently specific to apprise the discriminatee that he/she was being offered
unconditional and full reinstatement to his/her former or a substantially equivalent position. Ibid
(finding that the respondent failed to do so because the positions offered were not substantially
equivalent; the positions paid 20–30 percent less and the offer stated that the discriminatees
would not retain their seniority). If the respondent does not offer reinstatement to the same
position, respondent must show that the position is not available. KSM Industries, above, 353
NLRB at 1151 n. 60.
The Respondent must also show that it made a good faith attempt to communicate the
valid offer to the discriminatee. Compare Performance Friction, above, 335 NLRB at 1118–1119
(tolling backpay where the respondent made a good faith attempt to communicate the offer to the
discriminatee by mailing it to her last known address, notwithstanding that the discriminatee had
moved and never received it), with G & T Terminal Packaging Co., 356 NLRB 181, 182 (2010)
(distinguishing Performance Friction and declining to toll backpay where the respondent had the
discriminatee’s last known address, but mailed the reinstatement offer to the wrong employee at
the wrong address and made no effort to verify the accuracy of the mailing), enfd. 459 Fed. Appx.
19 (2d Cir. 2012).
Job-Search and Employment Expenses
The General Counsel has the burden of establishing a discriminatee’s search-for-work
expenses and interim-employment expenses that exceed what would have been incurred working
for the Respondent. King Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93, slip op. at 8 (2016), enfd. in
pertinent part 859 F.3d 23, 36 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Such expenses are awarded if they are “both
reasonable and actually incurred,” “regardless of the discriminatees’ interim earnings and
separately from taxable net backpay, with interest.” Ibid. Accord: Advanced Masonry Systems,
366 NLRB No. 57, slip op. at 6 (2018), enfd. 781 Fed. Appx. 946 (11th Cir. 2019). See also
Lou’s Transport, Inc., above, 366 NLRB No. 140, slip op. at 6 (respondent was liable for the
discriminatee’s additional commuting expenses to and from his interim employer regardless of his
interim earnings).
Burdensomeness of Compliance
It is respondent’s burden to show that compliance with the Board’s order would be unduly
burdensome. See, e.g., Lear Siegler, Inc., 295 NLRB 857, 861–862 (1989) (respondent may
present evidence in the compliance proceeding that was unavailable at the time of the merits
hearing to establish that compliance with the Board’s order requiring restoration of the unlawfully
transferred work would be unduly burdensome). See also Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB 835
n. 2 (1999), enf. denied in part 233 F.3d 831 (4th Cir. 2000).
A perfectly clear successor that unlawfully imposed new terms of employment on the
employees it hired must restore the predecessor’s terms until it bargains with the union in good
faith to agreement or impasse. It is not permitted to present evidence in the compliance
168
proceeding purporting to show what terms the parties would, or would not, have reached if it had
met its bargaining obligations. Pressroom Cleaners, 361 NLRB 643, 647-648 (2014).
§ 14–150 Specific Remedial Issues
Supplemental earnings. As discussed in § 14–130 above (interim earnings), if a
discriminatee worked more hours during the backpay period than he/she would have worked for
the respondent, any regular or overtime pay received for those additional hours is not deducted
from the discriminatee’s gross backpay. See Lou’s Transport, above, 366 NLRB No. 140, slip
op. at 5 (overtime hours in excess of those the discriminatee would have worked at respondent);
and EDP Medical Computer Systems, 293 NLRB 857, 858 (1989) (hours in excess of the 32-
hour week the discriminatee worked at respondent), enfd. mem. 959 F.2d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
See also Regional Import and Export Trucking Co., 318 NLRB 816, 818 (1995).
Similarly, if a discriminatee worked a second job (“moonlighted”) while working for
respondent, subsequent earnings derived from that job during the backpay period are not
deducted from gross backpay. See, e.g., Cumberland Farms Dairy, 266 NLRB 855 (1983).
See also New York Party Shuttle, LLC, 370 NLRB No. 19, slip op. at 11 (2020), affd. in relevant
part 18 F.4th (5th Cir. 2021). However, if a discriminatee increased the hours he/she worked at
the second job during the backpay period to mitigate damages, the income from those extra
hours would be considered interim earnings. U.S. Telefactors Corp., 300 NLRB 720 n. 1 (1990).
Fringe benefit contributions. Fringe benefit contributions made by an interim employer are
generally not counted as interim earnings or deducted from the discriminatee’s gross backpay.
See G4S Solutions (USA) Inc., 368 NLRB No. 1, slip op. at 5 (2019) (interim employer’s
contributions to a retirement fund), and citations there.
Unemployment compensation. The amount of unemployment compensation received by
a discriminatee is likewise not deducted from gross backpay. See, e.g., Lou’s Transport, above,
slip op. at 1 n. 2; and Ji Shiang, Inc., 357 NLRB 1292, 1293 n. 5 (2011), citing NLRB v. Gullet
Gin Co., 340 U.S. 361, 364 (1951).
Workmen’s compensation. As discussed in § 14–130 above (duration of backpay period),
a discriminatee’s eligibility for backpay may continue, even during periods where he/she is
unavailable to work due to a disabling injury, if the injury was sustained at an interim job that was
dissimilar to the job held at the respondent. In that event, any worker’s compensation received by
the discriminatee as temporary disability benefits to compensate for lost wages is considered
deductible interim earnings. American Mfg. Co., 167 NLRB 520, 522–523 (1967).
Strike benefits. Strike benefits a discriminatee received from the union are considered
interim earnings deductible from gross backpay if they were in exchange for or contingent upon
services provided to the union, rather than collateral benefits flowing from his/her association with
the union. Domsey Trading Corp., 351 NLRB 824, 825 (2007), enf. denied and remanded on
other grounds 636 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2011). As with other interim earnings, the burden is on the
respondent to show that the strike benefits are interim earnings. The Board will consider all the
circumstances, including what the picketers were told about the benefits, the picketers
understanding of what was required to qualify for the benefits, whether the benefits were tied to
time spent on the picket line, and whether the benefits were paid from a fund to which the
picketers contributed. Ibid.
169
Consequential damages. Discriminatees are not reimbursed for “consequential damages”
or “collateral losses” such as the distress sale of a home, automobile, tools, or other personal
assets. See, e.g., Advanced Masonry Systems, above, 366 NLRB No. 57, slip op. at 1 n. 4.
Missing discriminatees. If a discriminatee cannot be located to determine whether gross
backpay should be reduced to account for interim earnings, the respondent should be ordered to
pay the specified backpay to the Regional Director to be held in escrow for a period not
exceeding 1 year from the date the respondent deposits the backpay into escrow or the date the
Board’s supplemental decision and order becomes final, including enforcement thereof,
whichever is later. In the event the discriminatee has not been located at the end of the 1-year
escrow period, the award will lapse and the backpay amount will be returned to the respondent.
Starlite Cutting, 280 NLRB 1071 (1986), as clarified 284 NLRB 620 (1987). See also G & T
Terminal Packaging, above, 356 NLRB at 182.
Deceased discriminatees. Where a discriminatee dies during the backpay period,
backpay ceases to accrue as of the date of death. U.S. Service Industries, 325 NLRB 485, 487
(1998). Backpay for the period prior to death is payable to the legal administrator of the
individual’s estate or to any person authorized to receive such payment under applicable state
law. Gimrock Construction, above, 356 NLRB at 541 n. 45.
Derivative liability. The General Counsel may elect to litigate derivative liability at the
compliance stage rather than in the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding. See, e.g.,
Rogan Bros. Sanitation, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 53, slip op. at 5 n. 6 (2020); and 2 Sisters Food
Group, Inc., 361 NLRB 1380 (2014) (Golden State successors).
Additional or modified remedies. It is generally inappropriate to order additional or
modified remedies in the compliance proceeding. See ILWU (Pacific Crane Maintenance Co.),
370 NLRB No. 104, slip op. at 1 n. 5 (2021) (“[A] party cannot seek to add, at the compliance
stage, remedies that were not included in the Board’s Order at the merits stage.”); and 2 Sisters
Food Group, Inc., 361 NLRB 1380 (2014) (judge should not have considered the charging
party’s request for numerous additional notice remedies in the compliance proceeding where the
additional remedies could have been but were not sought at the unfair labor practice stage of the
case). See also G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., 368 NLRB No. 1, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2019)
(the Board is “powerless to modify a court-enforced remedy”); Whole Foods Market, Inc., 366
NLRB No. 77, slip op. at 1 and n.4 (2018) (“The Board has no jurisdiction to modify an order that
has been enforced by a court of appeals.”); and NLRB v. Gimrock Construction, Inc., 695 F.3d
1188, 1193 (11th Cir. 2012) (the Board cannot modify an order that the court has enforced in a
final judgment, but must petition the court to either modify the order due to changed
circumstances or hold the respondent in contempt and enter a modified order to purge itself of the
contempt).
It is likewise inappropriate to approve, over the charging party’s objection, a compliance
settlement that provides less of a remedy than the Board’s court-enforced order. See Dupuy v.
NLRB, 806 F.3d 556, 563–565 (D.C. Cir. 2015), which the Board also cited in Whole Foods
Market, above. The court there held that the General Counsel and the Board improperly rejected
the individual charging party-discriminatee’s objections to the terms of the compliance/backpay
settlement accepted by the Regional Director, including the settlement’s waiver of interest during
the installment payment period. The court stated that “the “Board has no power to deal away
particular elements of [a court enforced remedial order], even if [the Board] sincerely believes that
deal-making would be in the charging party’s best interest.”
170
Other remedial issues. For a discussion of other issues that may arise in the compliance
proceeding, including instatement of applicants in refusal-to-hire cases, discriminatee
misconduct/after-acquired evidence, and immigration status, see § 16–402.5, Evidence Affecting
Remedy, below.
§ 14–200 Consolidated Representation Cases
Section 102.69(c)(1)(ii) of the Board’s Rules specifically provides that the regional director
“may consolidate the hearing concerning [postelection] objections and challenges with an unfair
labor practice proceeding before an administrative law judge.” Consolidating such “C & R” cases
is a longstanding and customary procedure used to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. See
Fruehauf Corp., 274 NLRB 403, 405 (1985); and Brescome Distributors Corp., 179 NLRB 787
n. 4 (1969), enfd. 452 F.2d 1312 (D.C. Cir. 1971), and cases cited there. Examples of such
consolidated proceedings are legion. See, e.g., Pacific Coast Sightseeing Tours & Charters,
365 NLRB No. 131 (2017) (8(a)(1) allegations consolidated with union’s election objections);
Oberthur Technologies of America Corp., 362 NLRB 1820 (2015), enfd. 865 F.3d 719 (D.C.
Cir. 2017) (8(a)(1) and (3) allegations consolidated with union’s election objections and
challenges); Neises Construction Corp., 365 NLRB No. 129 (2017) (8(a)(1) and (3) allegations
consolidated with union’s objections and employer’s and union’s challenges); Imperial Sales,
Inc., 365 NLRB No. 95 (2017), enfd. mem. 740 Fed. Appx. 216 (2d Cir. 2018) (8(a)(1) and (3)
allegations consolidated with employer’s election objections); Greenbrier Rail Services, 364
NLRB No. 30 (2016) (pre and postelection 8(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5) allegations consolidated with
union’s election objections); and Big Ridge, Inc., 358 NLRB 1006 (2012), reaffd. 361 NLRB 1372
(2014), enfd. 808 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2015) (pre and postelection 8(a)(1) and (3) allegations
consolidated with employer’s election objections). For a discussion of consolidation and
severance generally, see § 3–400 et seq., above.
Role of administrative law judge. In such a consolidated proceeding, the ALJ assumes
the same role as a hearing officer with respect to postelection representation issues. The ALJ’s
powers and duties in that role are similar to those exercised with respect to unfair labor practice
issues. See the Board’s Rules, Secs. 102.69(c)(1)(iii) and, by reference, 102.64–102.66; and
NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 2), Secs. 11424.3 and 11428.1, regarding the role of the
hearing officer in a postelection representation proceeding.
Role of counsel for the General Counsel. Unlike an unfair labor practice hearing, a
postelection hearing on challenges and/or objections is investigatory rather than adversarial, at
least as far as the Agency is concerned. See NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 2), Sec. 11422.
Nevertheless, where C & R cases have been consolidated for hearing, counsel for the General
Counsel in the unfair labor practice case typically also serves as the Region’s representative with
respect to the representation case. As discussed in § 6–220, above, it is not a disqualifying
conflict of interest for counsel to do so.
With respect to those representation issues that do not coincide or overlap with the
consolidated unfair labor practice allegations, the procedures applicable to representation
hearings apply, i.e., the employer and union are expected to carry the burden of ensuring that a
full record is made, and the Region’s representative, while authorized to participate to the same
extent as the parties (e.g., to call, examine, cross-examine, and impeach witnesses), is expected
to be impartial.
However, where representation and unfair labor practice issues overlap (such as where
an employee’s discharge during the critical preelection period is both an alleged unfair labor
171
practice and an asserted objection warranting a rerun election), the procedures applicable to
unfair labor practice hearings apply, i.e., counsel for the General Counsel is expected to be an
advocate and prove the allegations by making a persuasive record. See NLRB Casehandling
Manual (Part 2), Secs. 11420.1, 11424, and 11424.4(b). See also NLRB Casehandling Manual
(Part 1), Secs. 10380 and 10380.4.
Applicability of rules of evidence. In unfair labor practice hearings, administrative law
judges are required to follow the federal rules of evidence “so far as practicable.” See § 16–100,
below. However, the federal rules of evidence are not controlling in representation hearings. See
Secs. 102.66(a) and 102.69(c)(1)(iii) of the Board’s Rules. Nevertheless, in a consolidated
C & R proceeding, it is appropriate for the ALJ to be guided by those rules in making rulings with
respect to representation issues. See Vitek Electronics, 268 NLRB 522, 549 (1984), enfd. 763
F.2d 561 (3d Cir. 1985). See also NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 2), Sec. 11216 (although
the rules of evidence are not controlling, “they should be followed whenever possible.”)
Order of receiving evidence. In postelection representation hearings, the party that filed
the objections or made the challenges normally proceeds first. See NLRB Casehandling Manual
(Part 2), Sec. 11428.4. In consolidated C & R cases, it is usually more efficient for the General
Counsel to proceed first, putting in evidence with respect to the unfair labor practice issues,
including those that overlap with representation issues. However, the judge has the discretion to
determine the order of presentation considering all the circumstances, including the degree of
overlap between the unfair labor practice and representation issues and the availability of
witnesses. See § 16–611, Mode and Order of Examining and Presenting Evidence, below. This
is something that should be discussed with the parties during a prehearing conference call.
Issuance of decision. The judge usually addresses both the unfair labor practice and the
representation issues in a single decision. However, the judge has discretion to sever the cases
for decision if the judge believes it would expedite final resolution of the representation case. See
Independence Residences, Inc., 355 NLRB 724, 725 n. 14 (2010) (ALJ did not commit
prejudicial error by severing the C & R cases for decisional purposes, even though the ALJ had
previously denied the employer’s motion to sever them for hearing purposes). For an example of
an order severing cases for decisional purposes, see PVM I Associates, Inc., 12–CA–16368,
unpub. ALJ order issued July 26, 1995 (1995 WL 1918042).
If the election was held pursuant to a consent election agreement, upon issuance of the
decision the judge should sever the representation case (assuming it was not previously severed
for decision as above) and transfer it to the Regional Director for further processing. Sec.
102.69(c)(1)(ii) of the Board’s Rules, and NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 2), Secs. 11420.1
and 11432. See, e.g., Hartz Mountain Corp., 260 NLRB 323 (1982), enfd. mem. 738 F.2d 422
(3d Cir. 1984). Otherwise, the judge’s recommendations on objections and challenges are ruled
on by the Board along with the judge’s unfair labor practice findings if exceptions are filed. Ibid.
§ 14–300 Remands
Generally, the judge should limit a hearing on remand to the issues included in the
Board’s remand order. See, e.g., Wye Electric Co., 348 NLRB 61, 93 (2006) (judge declined to
reconsider issues that were not included in the Board’s remand order); Cassis Mgt. Corp., 324
NLRB 324, 325 n. 5 (1997) (judge properly declined to address issue outside scope of Board’s
remand order), enfd. 152 F.3d 917 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied 525 U.S. 983 (1998). See also
Monark Boat Co., 276 NLRB 1143 n. 3 (1985) (ALJ in the post-certification refusal-to-bargain
case properly denied the employer’s request to expand the scope of the hearing on remand
172
beyond the employer’s election objections that the circuit court had specifically remanded for a
hearing and further consideration by the Board), enfd. 800 F.2d 191 (8th Cir. 1986).
However, the judge may revisit the appropriate remedy on remand even if not directed to
do so in the remand order. See Shamrock Foods Co., 369 NLRB No. 140, slip op. at 1 n. 4, and
8–9 (2020) (holding that, following the Board’s remand to reconsider various handbook rules
under a new legal standard, the ALJ’s supplemental decision properly required respondent to
post the remedial notice at all of its locations, even though the judge’s original decision did not do
so, no exceptions were filed to that portion of the decision, and the issue was not included in the
Board’s remand order, as the respondent’s former HR manager testified at the hearing on
remand that the handbook was applicable at all facilities). But see Kava Holdings, LLC, 371
NLRB No. 27, slip op. at 1–2 (2021) (judge on remand erred in omitting modifications the Board
had previously made to her order because doing so exceeded the scope of the Board’s remand,
which was limited to a specific remedial issue, and that order was currently within the court of
appeals’ exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to the parties’ cross-petitions for review or enforcement).
§ 14–400 Bankruptcy Proceedings
“It is well established that the institution of bankruptcy proceedings does not deprive the
Board of jurisdiction or authority to entertain and process an unfair labor practice case to its final
disposition. Board proceedings fall within the exception to the automatic stay provision for
proceedings by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory powers.” Consumer
Product Services, LLC, 357 NLRB No. 87, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2011) (citing cases). See also
NLRB v. Evans Plumbing Co., 639 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1981). Collection of backpay,
however, requires a separate application to the bankruptcy court. NLRB v. Continental Hagen
Corp., 932 F.2d 828, 832–833 (9th Cir. 1991); and NLRB v. 15th Avenue Iron Works, 964 F.2d
1336, 1337 (2d. Cir. 1992).
§ 14–500 Injunction Proceedings
Section 10(j) of the Act authorizes the Board, upon issuance of a complaint, to file a
petition in federal district court “for appropriate temporary relief or restraining order.” 29 U.S.C.
§ 160(j). The usual process is for the Regional Office to submit a 10(j) recommendation to the
General Counsel’s Office in Washington, D.C., which, if it agrees with the recommendation, will
forward it to the Board along with a cover memorandum summarizing and further supporting the
recommendation and requesting the Board’s approval. If the Board approves the request, the
Regional Director will then file the petition “for and on behalf of the Board” with the federal district
court, which, after due notice, may grant such temporary relief or restraining order as it deems
“just and proper.” See the GC’s Section 10(j) Manual User’s Guide.
Section 102.94 of the Board’s rules provides that, whenever such relief or order “has been
procured by the Board,” the case “will be heard expeditiously and . . . given priority by the Board
in its successive steps . . . over all other cases except cases of like character and cases under
10(l) [boycotts and strikes to force recognition of uncertified labor organizations] and (m) [priority
of cases] of the Act.” It is not unusual, however, for the administrative hearing to be held even
before the 10(j) petition has been filed with the district court. Indeed, the Region may prefer to
wait until after the hearing has been completed so that the administrative record can be filed with
the court. See, e.g., Fernbach ex rel. NLRB v. Recycling, 2017 WL 4286327 (S.D. N.Y. Sept.
26, 2017).
173
In such circumstances, the Region may specifically request that the ALJ permit the parties
to put on evidence at the hearing regarding the chilling effect of the respondent’s alleged unfair
labor practices. Although such evidence is generally irrelevant in the administrative proceeding, it
is considered by some courts in evaluating whether temporary injunctive relief is appropriate to
prevent irreparable harm. Thus, some ALJs have permitted such evidence to be introduced in the
interests of administrative efficiency and to assist the court, at least where no party has objected.
However, other ALJs have declined to do so. This appears to be a matter of ALJ discretion.
The ALJ’s prompt issuance of a decision after reviewing the hearing record and
posthearing briefs may also benefit the parties and the court. In evaluating whether injunctive
relief is appropriate, the courts consider several factors, including whether the General Counsel is
likely to succeed on the merits. And the courts may “give some measure of deference to the view
of the ALJ” in assessing this factor. Harrell ex rel. NLRB v. American Red Cross, 714 F.3d
553, 556 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 571 U.S. 954 (2013). See also Silverman ex rel. NLRB v.
J.R.L. Food Corp., 196 F.3d 334, 335 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that, in denying a 10(j) injunction,
the district court failed to give appropriate deference to the well-supported credibility
determinations and factual findings by the ALJ); and Garcia ex rel. NLRB v. Fallbrook Hospital
Corp., 952 F.Supp.2d 937, 956 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (considering the relevant findings and legal
determinations of the ALJ in granting a 10(j) injunction).
In the event the court’s decision in the ancillary 10(j) injunction proceeding issues before
the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ is not bound by the court’s findings. See International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 150 (Donegal Services, LLC), 371 NLRB No. 28, slip op. at n. 1
(2021) (district court’s finding in 10(l) injunction proceeding not binding), citing Chefs, Cooks,
Pastry Cooks & Assistants, Local 89, 135 NLRB 1173, 1176 (1962); Santa Barbara News-
Press, 357 NLRB 452, 455 n. 12 (2011) (district court judge in 10(j) proceeding not binding),
citing Coronet Foods, Inc. v. NLRB, 981 F.2d 1284, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the
argument that “a district court finding in a section 10(j) auxiliary proceeding would later bind the
NLRB when ruling, definitively, on the unfair labor practice charge”).
174
CHAPTER 15. OPENING AND CLOSING STATEMENTS,
BRIEFS, AND DECISIONS
§ 15–100 Opening Statements
Section 102.35(a)(12) of the Board’s Rules provides that ALJs have authority “to request
the parties at any time during the hearing to state their respective positions concerning any issue
in the case or supporting theory(ies).” Pursuant to this provision, judges typically request the
parties to make opening statements before the first witness is called, as they can be very helpful
in understanding the parties’ positions and theories in the case and evaluating relevance and
other evidentiary objections during the hearing. See NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 1), Sec.
10386. However, given the Board’s liberal pleading rules and lack of pretrial discovery,
occasionally a respondent may request, and the ALJ may permit, deferring its opening statement
until after the General Counsel and charging party have presented their evidence.
§ 15–200 Pretrial or Trial Briefs
The Board’s Rules do not specifically provide for pretrial or trial briefs. However, the Board
has held that ALJs have the discretion to require such briefs. See Bunge Milling, Inc., 33-CA-
15997, unpub. Board order issued Dec. 30, 2011 (2011 WL 6886297) (ALJ did not abuse his
discretion by requiring the parties to submit prehearing briefs on whether the Board should defer
to an arbitrator’s decision and award). See also Mullins, Manual for Administrative Law Judges,
Admin. Conf. of the U.S. 3rd ed. (1993) at 47, available at https://www.acus.gov/report/manual-
administrative-law-judges, which states:
Some cases, particularly complex ones, can be facilitated by trial briefs stating
the principal contentions of the parties, the evidence to be presented and the
purposes for which it is submitted. [The] briefs may also present the results of
research the judge has requested on legal or technical problems. The judge may
instruct each party to include in the brief any procedural motions and requests,
such as provisions to bar proposed written evidence.
§ 15–300 Closing Arguments
Section 102.42 of the Board’s Rules specifically provides that “any party is entitled, upon
request, to oral argument, for a reasonable period at the close of the hearing, . . . [which] will be
included in the transcript of the hearing.” However, in practice, most parties request an
opportunity to file posthearing briefs in lieu of closing arguments.
§ 15–400 Posthearing Briefs
Section 102.42 of the Board’s Rules provides that the filing of posthearing briefs is “in the
discretion of the Administrative Law Judge.” See also K.O. Steel Foundry & Machine, 340
NLRB 1295 (2003) (rejecting the dissent’s assertion that a remand was warranted because the
judge refused the General Counsel’s request to file a posthearing brief, as no party was permitted
to file a brief; the judge permitted each party to present oral argument; and “whether to permit the
parties to file posthearing briefs is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the
administrative law judge” under Section 102.42 of the Board’s Rules).
175
However, Section 102.42 further provides that the judge must give the parties notice “at
the opening of the hearing or as soon thereafter as practicable” if they will not be given an
opportunity to file posthearing briefs.
Further, in the vast majority of cases, judges will allow parties to file posthearing briefs as
they can be quite helpful. The relatively infrequent exceptions are discussed in § 15–600,
Expedited Decision Without Briefs; and § 15–700, Bench Decision, below.
Time to File. Section 102.42 provides that the judge may fix a reasonable time for filing
the briefs, but not in excess of 35 days from the close of the hearing (counting intermediate
weekends and holidays, see Sec. 102.2(a)). Requests for extension of time must be filed with the
Chief, Deputy Chief, or Associate Chief Judge, as appropriate.
Parties should be informed that the Board and its chief judges will not lightly grant
postponements for the submission of briefs and that motions for extension of time should, on their
face, explain the reason for the request and indicate whether the other parties object to the
proposed extension. See § 1–200, Closing Statement by Judge, above.
Where Briefs Are to be Filed. The judge should inform the parties at the beginning of the
hearing that briefs should be filed in the office to which the judge is assigned.
Filing and Service Requirements. See CHAPTER 4, “Filing and Service of Documents,”
above.
Reply or Answering Briefs. There is no provision in the Board’s Rules for the filing of
posthearing reply or answering briefs. However, the trial judge has the discretion to ask for them,
or grant a motion for leave to file them, in an appropriate case. See Gallup, Inc., 349 NLRB
1213, 1217 (2007), and cases cited there.
NOTE: The judge should not use excerpts from the parties’ briefs as a substitute for
his/her own findings and legal analysis in the written decision. Extensive and verbatim copying
from the brief of the prevailing party in the judge’s decision not only creates the appearance of
partiality, but also gives the impression that the judge failed to conduct “an independent analysis
of the case’s underlying facts and legal issues.” Dish Network Service Corp., 345 NLRB 1071
(2005). See also § 2–410, Grounds Asserted for Disqualification, above.
§ 15–500 Briefs Not Part of Official Record
Briefs to the judge do not normally become part of the official record in the case. See Sec.
102.45(b) of the Board’s Rules. See also Stagehands Referral Service, LLC, 356 NLRB 1221
(2011); and Vanguard Fire & Security Systems, 345 NLRB 1016, 1020 (2005).
§ 15–600 Expedited Decision Without Briefs
Section 102.42 of the Board’s Rules permits an ALJ to issue an expedited decision,
without waiting for the filing of posthearing briefs, provided the ALJ notifies the parties “at the
opening of the hearing or as soon thereafter as practicable that [he/she] may wish to hear oral
argument in lieu of briefs.” Thus, after giving the required notice and hearing oral arguments, the
judge may proceed to review the record and prepare and issue a written decision in the usual
manner.
176
An expedited decision may be preferred as an alternative to a bench decision, discussed
below in §15–700. It avoids the sometimes hurried approach and potential pitfalls of a bench
decision, which must be delivered orally at the close of the trial.
§ 15–700 Bench Decision
§ 15–710 In General
Section 102.35(a)(10) of the Board’s Rules provides that administrative law judges shall
have authority “to make and file decisions, including bench decisions delivered within 72 hours
after conclusion of oral argument, in conformity with Public Law 89–554, 5 U.S.C. § 557.” This
procedure has received court approval. See NLRB v. Beverly Manor Nursing Home, 174 F.3d
13, 35 (1st Cir. 1999), enfg. 325 NLRB 598 (1998).
§ 15–720 Deciding to Issue Bench Decision
Whether to issue a bench decision is within the informed discretion of the trial judge.
However, bench decisions should not be issued in complex cases. Des Moines Register and
Tribune Co., 339 NLRB 1035 n. 1 (2003) (cautioning that judges should not issue bench
decisions in complex cases but should invite briefs and conduct a more thorough analysis in a
written decision), pet. for rev. denied, 381 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2004). Rather, they should be
rendered only in those cases that “turn on a very straightforward credibility issue; cases involving
one-day hearings; cases involving a well-settled legal issue where there is no dispute [over] the
facts; short record single-issue cases; or cases in which a party defaults by not appearing at the
hearing . . . [I]n more complex cases, including cases with lengthy records, [the bench decision
procedures] would likely not be appropriate.” Proposed Board Guidelines on Bench Decisions, 59
Fed. Reg. 65942, 65943 (Dec. 22, 1994), adopted as a final rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 6940 (Feb. 23,
1996).
As indicated above, Sec. 102.42 of the Board’s Rules states that the judge must put the
parties on notice “at the opening of the hearing or as soon thereafter as practicable” that
posthearing briefs are unnecessary. Thus, the ALJ should be sure to provide such notice if
he/she intends to issue a bench decision. See NLRB v. Beverly Manor Nursing Home, above,
174 F.3d at 36 (approving mid-trial notice where the determination and announcement to the
parties had been made by the judge as soon as practicable as the case evolved).
§ 15–730 Procedures for Issuance of Bench Decisions
Oral argument should be heard following the presentation of all evidence. The parties may
request a brief time to outline and finalize their oral argument.
The judge’s bench decision is delivered orally on the record. As indicated above, under
Section 102.35(a)(10) of the Board’s Rules the decision may be issued up to 72 hours after the
conclusion of oral argument. See E-Z Recycling, 331 NLRB 950 n. 1 (2000). However, the
decision should ordinarily be delivered immediately following oral argument.
The court reporter prepares the transcript of the proceedings, including the transcription of
the orally delivered bench decision. Section 102.45(a) of the Board’s Rules provides, in part:
If the Judge delivers a bench decision, promptly upon receiving the transcript the
Judge will certify the accuracy of the pages of the transcript containing the
177
decision; file with the Board a certified copy of those pages, together with any
supplementary matter the Judge may deem necessary to complete the decision;
and serve a copy on each of the parties. Upon the filing of the decision, the
Board will enter an order transferring the case to the Board, setting forth the date
of the transfer and will serve on all the parties copies of the decision and the
order. Service of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and of the order
transferring the case to the Board is complete upon mailing.
The judge should be very attentive to the time restrictions of these provisions and comply
with them.
The certification may include corrections of the transcript. Although the judge should avoid
wholesale revision of the oral decision, some correction or clarification of the decision is also
permitted. In addition, if the judge concludes in reviewing the transcript that the oral decision was
inadequate, the certification process provides opportunity for inclusion of “supplementary matter
the judge may deem necessary to complete the decision.” Thus, the certification process may be
utilized as necessary to eliminate faults or inadequacies in the oral decision. For example, the
certification might include a formal order and notice that had been described only in summary
fashion in the oral decision, or may include omitted case citations.
Judges must always be mindful of the potential for errors in bench decisions. Transcripts
of bench decisions often contain numerous and critical typographical errors. The errors
necessitate substantial corrections. To eliminate the need for extensive corrections, judges have
made their prepared remarks a record exhibit or have provided the court reporter a copy of their
remarks for guidance.
Under section 102.46 of the Board’s Rules, the time for filing exceptions to a bench
decision runs from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board. Thus, the
date of the transfer shown on the Order Transferring the Case to the Board (which accompanies
the judge’s certification of the bench decision and supplement)—not the date of oral delivery of
the bench decision—controls the submission of exceptions to the bench decision.
§ 15–800 Contents of Judge’s Decision
Section 102.45(a) of the Board’s Rules requires that decisions “will contain findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and the reasons or grounds for the findings and conclusions, and
recommendations for the proper disposition of the case.” See also NLRB Statements of
Procedure, Sec. 101.11(a). Decisions which fail to make specific factual findings regarding
issues raised by complaints, and which fail to include analysis of contentions, do not satisfy the
obligations imposed on judges and may be remanded. See Webb Furniture Enterprises, 272
NLRB 312 (1984).
A bench decision should contain all the elements that would appear in a regular written
decision, including appropriate credibility determinations, necessary findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and adequate rationale on all relevant issues. Every effort should be made to
render the decision complete and unabbreviated. The Board will remand bench decisions that do
not make necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law, do not properly deal with relevant
contested testimony or other evidence, or fail to consider the contentions of the parties or present
sufficient legal analysis. See, e.g., Dynatron/Bondo Corp., 326 NLRB 1170 (1998).
After a decision issues, the judge may issue an erratum. Daniel Construction Co., 239
NLRB 1335 n. 2 (1979), enfd. mem. 634 F.2d 621 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied 450 U.S. 918
178
(1981). But an erratum may not be used as a means for making substantive changes in a
decision. “Under Sections 102.35 and 102.45 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, [the] judge is
authorized to issue post-decisional errata to correct material typographical errors, but not to
change matters of substance, such as findings on the merits.” Wilco Business Forms, 280
NLRB 1336 n. 2 (1986). An erratum may also be utilized to correct obvious omissions, but only
ones explicitly encompassed by what has been said in the decision, such as correcting a notice
so that it conforms to the remedy and recommended order. An erratum may not be utilized to add
names of discriminatees who were never mentioned in the decision. For those changes, parties
“should seek correction . . . either through exceptions . . . or by motions to the Board.” Ibid.
179
CHAPTER 16. EVIDENCE
2
§ 16–100 Federal Rules Apply “So Far as Practicable”
Section 10(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b), states: “Any [unfair labor practice]
proceeding shall, so far as practicable, be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence
applicable in the district courts of the United States.” See also NLRB Rules and Regulations, Sec.
102.39, and Statements of Procedure, Sec. 101.10(a).
The Board holds that it is not required to apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)
strictly. Times Union, Capital Newspapers, 356 NLRB 1339, n. 1 (2011); Conley Trucking, 349
NLRB 308, 310 (2007), enfd. 520 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2008); International Business Systems,
258 NLRB 181 n. 6 (1981), enfd. mem. 659 F.2d 1069 (3d Cir. 1981). In general, the courts
agree. See NLRB v. St. George Warehouse, 645 F.3d 666, 674 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[W]e have
recognized the Board’s power to construe the rules of evidence liberally.”); and 3750 Orange
Place Ltd. Partnership v. NLRB, 333 F.3d 646, 666 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he ALJ was not obliged
to strictly adhere to the Federal Rules of Evidence.”), and cases cited there.
Further, “it is well established that the Board will affirm an evidentiary ruling of a judge
unless that ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Novelis, 364 NLRB No. 101, slip op. at 1
n. 3 (2016), enf. denied in part 885 F.3d 100, 107 (2d Cir. 2018), citing Aladdin Gaming, LLC,
345 NLRB 585, 587 (2005), petition for review denied sub nom. Local Joint Executive Board of
Las Vegas v. NLRB, 515 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008). Appellate courts likewise will review an
ALJ’s evidentiary rulings only for abuse of discretion and will require prejudice to set them aside.
See e.g., Cadillac of Naperville, Inc. v. NLRB, 14 F.4th 703, 712 (D.C. Cir. 2021); NLRB v.
Bakers of Paris, 929 F.2d 1427, 1434 (9th Cir. 1991).
However, where the ALJ and/or the Board purports to rely on the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the reviewing court may evaluate whether it did so correctly. See NLRB v. Augusta
Bakery Corp., 957 F.2d 1467, 1479 (7th Cir. 1992) (Board correctly applied FRE 804(a)(5) to
exclude an affidavit because the respondent failed to show that the declarant was unavailable to
testify); and NLRB v. United Sanitation Service, 737 F.2d 936, 940–941 (11th Cir. 1984) (Board
incorrectly relied on the residual hearsay exception in FRE 804(b)(5) [now 807] to admit the
affidavit of a deceased alleged discriminatee, as the General Counsel failed to demonstrate the
requisite guarantees of trustworthiness).
The Board also holds that it is not bound by state rules of evidence. R. Sabee Co., 351
NLRB 1350 n. 3 (2007). See also § 8–475 (State Confidentiality Rules); § 16–402.7 (State
Wiretapping Laws); and §§ 16–501 (FRE 501), and 16–804.2 (Deceased Declarant).
§ 16–102 FRE 102. Purpose
FRE 102 states that the Federal Rules of Evidence:
should be construed so as to administer every proceeding fairly, eliminate
unjustifiable expense and delay, and promote the development of evidence law,
to the end of ascertaining the truth and securing a just determination.
2
The organization of this chapter follows the Federal Rules of Evidence. All of the evidentiary rules are
included except certain rules (302, 409–415, 606, and 1008) or provisions (indicated by ellipses) that are
applicable only to criminal, tort, or jury trials.
180
§ 16–102.1 Taut Record
Ideally, the judge will receive evidence that is competent, relevant, and material, and
exclude that which is not, resulting in a taut record. This may be accomplished by promptly and
properly ruling on the parties’ motions in limine and evidentiary objections, or on the judge’s own
motion. See § 10–100, above, and § 16–103.1, below.
The judge may also be presented with circumstances where the evidence is relevant but
could result in significant delay in the hearing. In these circumstances, the judge should refer to
FRE 403, which states that relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing
the issues . . . undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” See
§16–403, below.
§ 16–103 FRE 103. Rulings on Evidence
FRE 103 states in relevant part:
(a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or
exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and:
(1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record:
(A) timely objects or moves to strike; and
(B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or
(2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by
an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context.
(b) Not Needing to Renew an Objection or Offer of Proof. Once the court rules
definitively on the record — either before or at trial — a party need not renew an
objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.
(c) Court’s Statement About the Ruling; Directing an Offer of Proof. The court
may make any statement about the character or form of the evidence, the
objection made, and the ruling. The court may direct that an offer of proof be made
in question-and-answer form.
. . . .
(e) Taking Notice of Plain Error. A court may take notice of a plain error affecting
a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved.
§ 16–103.1 Timing of Objections
An objection (or a motion to strike) should be made as soon as the ground for it becomes
apparent. See Graham, 2 Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 103:3 (9th ed. Nov. 2021 Update); and
Wright & Miller et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5037.1 (2d ed. April 2021 Update). Under
FRE 103, the failure to do so forfeits or waives a claim of error on review or appeal. See, e.g.,
U.S. Ecology Corp., 331 NLRB 223, 225 (2000) (employer waived argument on exceptions that
union vice president’s testimony was hearsay by failing to object to the testimony at the hearing),
enfd. 26 Fed. Appx. 435 (6th Cir. 2001). See also Salem Hospital Corp., 363 NLRB No. 56, slip
op. at 1 n. 1 (2015) (union assistant director’s testimony that some of the hospital’s nurses told a
union organizer that the hospital was planning to close certain units was not hearsay because it
was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and was admissible “in any event”
because the respondent did not object to the testimony at the hearing).
However, the trial judge retains discretion whether to sustain an untimely objection. See
Belmont Industries, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 512 F.2d 434, 437 (3d Cir. 1975). In that
181
case, the court held, consistent with several other circuits, that “[w]hen evidence has been
admitted without objection, the district court has discretion in deciding whether or not to grant a
motion subsequently made to strike the testimony on hearsay or best evidence grounds.”
However, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
plaintiff’s motion to strike certain allegedly hearsay and secondary evidence after the close of
evidence as the possibility of confusion to the jury, prejudice to the defendant, and undue delay of
the case outweighed the detriment to the plaintiff from receiving the evidence. See also U.S. v.
Achiekwelu, 112 F.3d 747, 753–754 (4th Cir. 1997) (district court in criminal case did not commit
reversible error by striking an unauthenticated defendant exhibit after the defendant’s closing
argument, which heavily relied on it, even though the government had failed to timely object to its
admission before the close of evidence, where the government asserted that it had not previously
objected because it thought the defendant would testify and authenticate the exhibit), cert. denied
522 U.S. 901 (1997). But see Jerden v. Amstutz, 430 F.3d 1231, 1235–1238 (9th Cir. 2005)
(trial court abused its discretion by granting the defendant’s untimely motion to strike key portions
of expert’s testimony for lack of foundation and limiting the jury’s consideration of that testimony
without providing the plaintiff an opportunity to cure the defect by laying a proper foundation).
Indeed, it is generally held that a trial judge has the authority to exclude improper
evidence even in the absence of an objection. See Arthur and Hunter, Federal Trial
Handbook: Civil § 10:20 (Oct. 2021 Update); and Larsen, Navigating the Federal Trial § 7:7
(July 2021 Update), citing Haynes v. American Motors Corp., 691 F.2d 1268 (8th Cir. 1982)
and Alquero v. Duenas, 319 F.2d 40 (9th Cir. 1963). See also U.S. v. Del Llano, 354 F.2d 844,
847 (2d Cir. 1965); and Chapman v. Ensco Offshore Co., 463 Fed. Appx. 276, 280 (5th Cir.
2012). But see Mosteller, et al., 1 McCormick on Evid. § 55 (8th ed.) (Jan. 2020 Update)
(“[M]any types of technically inadmissible evidence such as reliable affidavits or copies of writings
can be probative and trustworthy. When the evidence falls into this category, absent an objection,
the trial judge would be unjustified in excluding the evidence. The judge should exercise her
discretionary power to intervene only when the evidence is irrelevant, unreliable, misleading, or
prejudicial as well as technically inadmissible.”)
The trial judge also has discretion to grant a standing (a/k/a continuing, running, or
durable) objection to avoid repeated objections on the same previously overruled grounds to
questions along the same specific line of inquiry. See Graham, above, § 103:2; and Wright &
Miller et al., above, § 5037.5.
Note that some courts recognize “vicarious objections,” finding that a proper objection or
offer of proof by one party will act to preserve the question for review on appeal when raised by a
co-party aligned in interest. Graham, 2 Handbook of Federal Evidence § 103.2 (9th ed. Nov.
2021 Update), citing cases. See also U.S. v. Irving, 665 F.3d 1184, 1206–1207, 86 Fed. R.
Evid. Serv. 1647 (10th Cir. 2011) (“[w]hen one co-party objects [to an evidentiary issue] and
thereby brings the matter to the attention of the court, further objections by other co-parties are
unnecessary”), cert. denied 566 U.S. 928 (2012). Other courts, however, have disagreed. See,
e.g., United States v. Harris, 104 F.3d 1465, 1472 (5th Cir. 1997) (“[h]aving chosen not to
object or at least to join his codefendant’s objection, the appellant did not preserve the issue for
appeal”), cert. denied 104 F.3d 1465 (1997). Because the Board has not weighed in on this
issue, the ALJ, to avoid multiple, “me-too” objections, may instruct the parties that, unless
otherwise indicated, an objection by one party will be received as an objection by any of its co-
parties in interest.
182
§ 16–103.2 Offers of Proof
When the judge sustains an objection to a question propounded to a witness, the
proponent may make an offer of proof to show the substance of the excluded evidence. FRE
103(a)(2). See also F.W. Means & Co., 157 NLRB 1434 n. 1 (1966) (Board granted the General
Counsel’s special appeal and directed the trial examiner to permit the GC to make offers of proof
regarding proposed testimony that the trial examiner had excluded as irrelevant), enf. denied on
other grounds 377 F.2d 683 (7th Cir. 1967).
However, the judge may inquire of counsel (usually outside the presence of the witness)
regarding the basis for anticipating an answer, particularly if the offer of proof is made on cross-
examination or on direct examination of an adverse witness. The judge will then be able to
determine whether the offer of proof is genuine or a mere speculative declaration by counsel.
See Union Electric Steel Corp., 140 NLRB 138 n. 1 (1962); and Auto Workers v. NLRB, 231
F.2d 237, 242-243 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 352 U.S. 908 (1956) (finding that offers of proof based
on anticipated testimony by adverse witnesses were properly rejected under the circumstances).
See also Duncan Foundry & Machine Works v. NLRB, 458 F.2d 933, 937 (7th Cir. 1972)
(Board properly rejected proffer that “consisted of argument and conclusory matter, rather than
evidence”).
At the request of a party, documents offered as part of a rejected offer of proof should be
placed in the rejected exhibits file. Crown Corrugated Container, Inc., 123 NLRB 318, 320
(1959). See also Omaha World-Herald, 357 NLRB 1870, 1872 n. 13 (2011) (judge erred in not
placing rejected exhibits in a rejected exhibits file).
Narrative or Q & A offers of proof. Counsel normally makes a narrative offer by stating
what the witness would testify if permitted to answer. See NLRB v. Augusta Bakery Corp., 957
F.2d 1467, 1479–1480 (7th Cir. 1992). However, consistent with FRE 103(c), the judge may also
direct that the offer be made by questions and answers (Q & A). See, e.g., Smithfield Packing
Co., 344 NLRB 1, 13 (2004) (judge properly permitted the General Counsel to elicit testimony as
an offer of proof about communications between respondent’s managers and respondent’s
attorney in support of the GC’s contention that the crime/fraud exception applied to the attorney-
client communications), enfd. 447 F.3d 821 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
The Q & A procedure can be useful if the judge is doubtful about his or her ruling.
Sometimes the questions and answers will suggest that a different ruling should be made. In that
event, the evidence will already be in the record if the judge reverses himself or is later reversed
by the Board. For another example where a judge permitted an offer of proof in question and
answer form, see Metropolitan Transportation Services, 351 NLRB 657, 670 (2007).
However, the negatives associated with a Q & A offer of proof usually outweigh the
benefits. First, it will usually take more time than a simple narrative and the record may be
unnecessarily expanded. Second, the parties are likely to be encouraged to litigate a “shadow”
record through a series of offers of proof. The opponent will then seek to make offers rebutting
the other party’s offers of proof, arguing that the judge should allow the rebuttal offers so that the
Board can see that there is no merit to the offers of the proponent.
Waiver of objection to offer of proof. If a party opposing the offer of proof later enters the
same area as covered by the offer of proof, the objection is considered waived and the proffered
matter may be considered as evidence. See Goski Trucking Corp., 325 NLRB 1032 (1998),
183
where the charging party, in the absence of an objection from the General Counsel, cross-
examined the witness on the same subject addressed in the respondent’s offer of proof.
§ 16–104 FRE 104. Preliminary Questions
FRE 104 states in relevant part:
(a) In General. The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a
witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so deciding,
the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege.
(b) Relevance That Depends on a Fact. When the relevance of evidence
depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a
finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the
condition that the proof be introduced later.
. . . .
Under FRE 104(a), hearsay and other non-privileged material that generally would be
excluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence may be considered in determining whether other
proffered evidence is admissible. See Graham, 2 Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 104:1 (9th ed. Nov.
2021 Update); and Wright & Miller, et al., 21A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5055 (2d ed. April
2021 Update). See also In re International Management Associates, LLC, 781 F.3d 1262,
1268 (11th Cir. 2015) (court may properly consider hearsay testimony in deciding whether
proffered documents are admissible as business records under the FRE 803(6) hearsay
exception for such records); Doali-Miller v. SuperValue, Inc., 855 F.Supp.2d 510, 520 n. 11 (D.
Md. 2012) (same); and Bestland, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Co., 2021 WL 3163800, *2 n.1 (C.D.
Cal. Jul. 22, 2021) (same).
Note that the authenticity of a document is considered a question of relevance governed
by FRE 104(b). This is because evidence can only have a tendency to make the existence of a
disputed fact more or less likely if the evidence is what its proponent claims. See U.S. v. Browne,
834 F.3d 403, 409 (3d Cir. 2016), cert. denied 137 S.Ct. 695 (2017); U.S. v. Branch, 970 F.2d
1368, 1370 (4th Cir. 1992); U.S. v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 497–499 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied 470
U.S. 1058 and 471 U.S. 1137 (1985); and Doali-Miller v. SuperValue, above.
See also § 16–1101 (Applicability of the Rules), and § 16–901 (Authenticating or
Identifying Evidence), below.
§ 16–104.1 Voir Dire Examination
A party may request an opportunity to conduct voir dire examination of a witness before
the witness testifies to determine if testimony or documentary evidence proffered by another party
is admissible. The questions on voir dire should be limited to the relevant preliminary or
foundational facts. See 1 McCormick on Evidence § 53 (8th ed. Jan. 2020 Update) (“In effect,
the voir dire is a mini cross-examination. During the voir dire, the opponent questions the witness
solely about the foundational fact which the proponent attempted to establish, not the historical
merits.”); and 45 Am. Jur. Trials 1, § 62 (Dec. 2021 Update) (“[T]he scope of voir dire
examination is severely limited. The voir dire is not intended to permit a wide-ranging cross-
examination of the witness on the merits of the case.”).
Voir dire is often used to examine the qualifications of a proffered expert witness. See
U.S. v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1184 n. 15 (1993) (“When uncertainty attends a proffer of
opinion evidence, voir dire screenings are standard fare”) (citations omitted), cert. denied 512
184
U.S. 1223 (1994). Such questions may support a motion to exclude proffered expert testimony
based on FRE 702. See § 16–702 (FRE 702 Testimony by Expert Witnesses).
§ 16–105 FRE 105. Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other
Parties or for Other Purposes
FRE 105 states in relevant part:
If the court admits evidence that is admissible against a party or for a purpose —
but not against another party or for another purpose — the court, on timely
request, must restrict the evidence to its proper scope . . .
§ 16–106 FRE 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements
FRE 106 states:
If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party
may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part — or any other writing
or recorded statement — that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.
See, for example, Baker Hotel of Dallas, 134 NLRB 524 n. 1 (1961) (where the
respondent on cross-examination of a General Counsel witness cited a particular statement in the
witness’s prehearing affidavit to attack her credibility, the trial examiner properly allowed the GC
to introduce the entire affidavit into evidence to show the context in which the statement was
made), enfd. 311 F.2d 528 (5th Cir. 1963). See also J. G. Braun Co., 126 NLRB 368, 369 n. 3
(1960) (holding that where the respondent on cross-examination of a GC witness had read
portions of the witness’s prehearing affidavit into the record to refresh his recollection, it was error
for the judge to reject the GC’s offer of the affidavit into evidence).
“The Rule, however, does not require evidence to be excluded simply because it is not
available in its complete form.” Kumho Tires Georgia, 370 NLRB No. 32, slip op. at 3 (2020)
(judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the General Counsel to introduce an audiotape of a
manager’s speech, even though it did not include the beginning, as there was no dispute the
beginning was not recorded; moreover, the respondent did not call the manager or any other
witness to testify about the missing portion or explain how it would demonstrate that the recorded
portion was lawful).
See also RHCG Safety Corp., 365 NLRB No. 88, slip op. at 2 (2017). There, the
respondent contended that the judge erred in receiving a screenshot of a text message
containing an alleged interrogation without requiring the General Counsel to move into evidence
10 additional text messages that were exchanged between the employee and the supervisor.
The Board rejected the respondent’s contention, noting that the text message itself was not
incomplete, the GC did not have possession or access to the additional text messages, and the
respondent could have questioned the employee about his communications with the supervisor at
the hearing.
§ 16–201 FRE 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
FRE 201 states in relevant part:
(a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a
legislative fact.
(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially
notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:
185
(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or
(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned.
(c) Taking Notice. The court:
(1) may take judicial notice on its own; or
(2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with
the necessary information.
(d) Timing. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding.
(e) Opportunity to Be Heard. On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on
the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed. If the
court takes judicial notice before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still
entitled to be heard.
. . . .
Under FRE 201, adjudicative facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute may be
given judicial notice (sometimes referred to as “official” or “administrative” notice) at any stage of
the proceedings, with or without a request by one of the parties.
For examples where an ALJ or the Board took judicial notice, see Pacific Green
Trucking Inc., 368 NLRB No. 14, slip op. at 9 n. 25 (2019) (state agency website materials
regarding unemployment compensation claims); MCPc, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 137, slip op. at 1 n. 5
(2019) (the contents of a web page available through the Wayback Machine); Lucky Cab Co.,
366 NLRB No. 56 (2018) (BLS unemployment rate data and various IRS publications and
reports), enfd. mem. 818 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th Cir. 2020); Postal Service, 365 NLRB No. 51, slip
op. at 2 n. 5 (2017) (the Postal Service’s administrative structure as set forth on its website);
Laborers Local 872 (Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino), 363 NLRB No. 168, slip op. at 4
n. 9 (2016) (the width of a driveway entrance to the facility based on Google map and satellite
images of the location); Bud Antle, Inc., 359 NLRB 1257 n. 3 (2013), reaffd. 361 NLRB 873
(2014) (distances between cities based on Google Maps); Atelier Condominium, 361 NLRB
966, 967 n. 12 (2014) (subsequent developments in a related state lawsuit based on a website
operated by the state court system); San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, 341 NLRB 1055 n.
3 (2004) (the casino’s location on the tribal reservation based on two federal agency publications
and a court decision), enfd. 475 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2007); and Drummond Coal Co., 277
NLRB 1618 n. 1 (1986) (an arbitral award issued after close of hearing, despite party’s objection).
The Board may also take administrative notice of its own proceedings. Metro Demolition
Co., 348 NLRB 272 n. 3 (2006). See also National Assoc. of Broadcast Employees and
Technicians, 371 NLRB No. 15, slip op. at 3 (2021) (Board took administrative notice of
evidence preservation letter sent by General Counsel to charging party); Registry of
Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 18, slip op. at 4 and n. 11 (2020) (Board, in a
stipulated-record case, took administrative notice of the Regional Director’s initial letter dismissing
the underlying charge, noting that its reasoning for dismissing the complaint tracked the RD’s
analysis); and Shamrock Foods Co., 366 NLRB No. 117, slip op. at 3 n. 14 (2018) (Board took
administrative notice of a settlement agreement between the discriminatee and the respondent in
another case that was pending on exceptions before the Board), enfd. per curiam 779 Fed. Appx.
752 (D.C. Cir. July 12, 2019). Compare Longshoremen ILWU Local 12 (Southport Lumber
Co.), 367 NLRB No. 16, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2018) (Board granted the union’s request to take
administrative notice of a charge filed against it by the employer in another case and the General
Counsel’s letter sustaining dismissal of the charge “because the documents are official records of
the Board,” but denied the union’s request to also take administrative notice of the underlying
Division of Advice Memo in the case as such memos “have no precedential value or dispositive
effect before the Board”); and Wyman Gordon Pennsylvania, LLC, 4–CA–182126, unpub.
186
Board order issued Jan. 11, 2019 (2019 WL 656326) (Board held that it could not take judicial
notice of two letters to and from the Regional Director that were not offered or admitted into
evidence at the hearing “because the facts asserted therein are facts in dispute”).
ALJs and the Board have also routinely taken judicial notice of relevant federal and state
statutes and regulations. See, e.g., Taylor Mfg. Co., Inc., 83 NLRB 142 n. 5 (1949) (affirming
the ALJ’s taking judicial notice of applicable statutes and regulations issued by the Veterans
Administration); and Yellow Cab Co., 229 NLRB 1329 n. 2 (1977) (granting the charging party’s
request to take judicial notice of certain new Chicago regulations affecting the taxicab industry).
The courts have too. See, e.g., Martinez v. Welk Group, Inc., 2011 WL 90313, *2 (S.D. Cal.
Jan. 11, 2011) (“Courts routinely take judicial notice of state or federal statutes and regulations”).
However, it may be unnecessary to take judicial notice of such materials. See St.
Vincent Medical Center, 338 NLRB 888 (2003), where the Board ruled that it was “not
necessary” to take judicial notice of California State statutory authority, as the Respondent’s
citation to that authority in its brief in opposition to the General Counsel’s exceptions “was
sufficient to draw it to [the Board’s] attention.” See also Romero v. Bestcare, Inc., 2017 WL
1180518, *3 n. 5 (E.D. N.Y. March 23, 2017) (noting that it is unclear if judicial notice of such
materials is required as the facts contained therein are legislative rather than adjudicative facts
covered by FRE 201).
It may depend on what the statute or regulation is being used for. See Toth v. Grand
Trunk Railroad, 306 F.3d 335, 349 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hether a fact is adjudicative or legislative
depends upon the manner in which it is used. A legal rule may be a proper fact for judicial notice
if it is offered to establish the factual context of the case, as opposed to stating the governing
law.”) (citation omitted). See also Robinson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 958 F.3d 1137,
1142 (11th Cir. 2020) (“Dictionary definitions are legislative facts when used to answer a question
of law, such as how to interpret contractual terms”).
For a full discussion of the difference between adjudicative facts and legislative or
“background” facts that are not subject to the requirements of FRE 201, as well as other
considerations, including the applicability of the hearsay rules, see Goode & Wellborn,
Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid. Rule 201 (March 2021 Update); and Wright & Miller et al.,
21B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. §§ 5103.2 and 5104 (2d ed. April 2021 Update). See also ABA
Formal Op. 478 (Dec. 8, 2017) (Independent Factual Research by Judges Via the Internet),
available at: https://www.abajournal.com/images/main_images/FO_478_FINAL_12_07_17.pdf;
and Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. McDonnell, 287 F.Supp.3d 213, 230 (E.D.
N.Y. 2018) (discussing the ABA rule).
§ 16–301 FRE 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally
FRE 301 states:
In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party
against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to
rebut the presumption. But this rule does not shift the burden of persuasion, which
remains on the party who had it originally.
§ 16–400 Relevancy
§ 16–401 FRE 401. Test for Relevant Evidence
187
FRE 401 states:
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be
without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
§ 16–402 FRE 402. General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence
FRE 402 states:
Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:
the United States Constitution; a federal statute; these rules; or other rules
prescribed by the Supreme Court. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
§ 16–402.1 Parol Evidence
Evidence outside or extrinsic to an agreement is inadmissible to vary or contradict its clear
and unambiguous terms. Orchids Paper Products Co., 367 NLRB No. 33, slip op. at 22 (2018);
and Church Square Supermarket, 356 NLRB 1357, 1359 (2011). See also NLRB v. Electrical
Workers Local 11, 772 F.2d 571, 575 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Where contractual provisions are
unambiguous, the NLRB need not consider extrinsic evidence. Parol evidence is therefore not
only unnecessary but irrelevant.”), enfg. 270 NLRB 424 (1984).
However, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the meaning of an ambiguous contract.
Doubletree Guest Suites Santa Monica, 347 NLRB 783, 784 n. 7 (2006); and Commonwealth
Communications v. NLRB, 312 F.3d 465, 468 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Parol evidence is also admissible to show that no agreement was reached in the first
place. Dex YP, 371 NLRB No. 23, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2021). See also Apache Powder Co., 223
NLRB 191 (1976) (a unilateral mistake may be grounds for rescission if it is “so obvious as to put
the other party on notice of the error”).
Parol evidence is likewise admissible to show past practices inconsistent with an expired
contract. See Church Square Supermarket, above, and cases cited there.
For a case addressing a respondent’s argument that parol evidence should be admitted to
show “fraud in the execution” of an agreement, see Sheehy Enterprises, Inc., 353 NLRB 803
(2009), reaffd. 355 NLRB 478 (2010) (Board found it unnecessary to decide whether parol
evidence is admissible under Board law to prove the defense, since, even if the evidence were
considered and credited, it failed to establish the defense). See also Horizon Group of New
England, 347 NLRB 795 (2006) (same).
§ 16–402.2 Evidence of Animus and Unlawful Motive
Unalleged statements. Evidence of an employer’s coercive statements may properly be
received and considered to establish union animus even if they are not alleged in the complaint.
See, e.g., DH Long Point Mgt. LLC, 369 NLRB No. 18, slip op. at 13 n. 37 (2020) (relying on
testimony regarding a manager’s coercive statement as evidence of the employer’s union animus
even though the testimony was elicited by the charging party and the manager’s statement was
not alleged in the General Counsel’s complaint), enfd. mem. per curiam 858 Fed. Appx.366 (D.C.
Cir. 2021).
188
The Board has also historically relied on unalleged noncoercive statements of opposition
to unions or unionization as evidence of animus and an unlawful motive. However, in United Site
Services of California, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 137 (2020), the Board overruled such decisions and
agreed with those reviewing courts that have rejected reliance on such noncoercive statements.
The Board held that Section 8(c) of the Act (the so-called “free speech” provision) “precludes
reliance on statements of opinion that neither threaten nor promise as evidence in support of any
unfair labor practice finding.” See slip op. at 14 n. 68. See also Truck Drivers Local 100 (Beta
Productions LLC), 370 NLRB No. 36, slip op. at 2–3 (2020); and District Hospital Partners,
L.P., 370 NLRB No. 118, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2021).
Events over 6 months before the alleged unlawful conduct (background evidence). It is
well established that evidence of events occurring more than 6 months before the charge may be
considered as background to shed light on a respondent’s motivation for conduct within the
Section 10(b) limitations period. See, e.g., CSC Holdings, LLC, 365 NLRB No. 68, slip op. at 4
(2017); Wilmington Fabricators, 332 NLRB 57 n. 6 (2000); and Douglas Aircraft Co., 307
NLRB 536 n. 2 (1992), enfd. 66 F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 1995). See also § 3–620, above, regarding
admission of evidence concerning events outside the 10(b) period.
Events after the alleged unlawful conduct. Events occurring after the alleged
discriminatory conduct may be relevant to whether that conduct was motivated by animus. See
Con-Way Freight, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 183, slip op. at 3 n. 10 (2018) (employer’s post-discharge
violations were relevant to whether the discharge was motivated by animus); and Dresser-Rand
Co., 362 NLRB 1100 (2015) (employer’s post-lockout violations were relevant to whether the
lockout was unlawfully motivated), enf. denied in relevant part 838 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2016).
Circumstantial evidence. Animus or discriminatory motive may be inferred from
circumstantial evidence. See Tschiggfrie Properties, Ltd., 368 NLRB No. 120, slip op. at 8
(2019) (clarifying General Counsel’s Wright Line burden where motive is at issue), and cases
cited there. See also East End Bus Lines, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 180, slip op. at 1 n. 7 (2018),
citing Laro Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 56 F.3d 224, 229 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“In most cases only
circumstantial evidence of motive is likely to be available.”); and CC1 Limited Partnership v.
NLRB, 898 F.3d 26, 32–33 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Frequently cited examples include the timing of the
alleged unlawful employment action in relation to the union or protected employee conduct, the
respondent’s shifting, false, or exaggerated reasons offered for the action, the respondent’s
failure to conduct a meaningful investigation, and the respondent’s disparate treatment of the
employee. See, e.g., Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC, 371 NLRB No. 16, slip
op. at 4 (2021); BS&B Safety Systems, LLC, 370 NLRB No. 90, slip op. at 1–2 (2021); Wendt
Corp., 369 NLRB No. 135, slip op. at 4 (2020); Mondelez Global, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 46, slip
op. at 2-3 (2020), enfd. 5 F.4th 759 (7th Cir. 2021); and Shamrock Foods Co., 366 NLRB No.
117, slip op. at 27–28 (2018), enfd. per curiam 779 Fed. Appx. 752 (D.C. Cir. July 12, 2019).
Employee’s subjective belief or uncertainty. With respect to the ultimate issue of whether
a respondent’s alleged actions against an employee were discriminatory, it is irrelevant whether
the employee personally believes that he/she was discriminated against because of union or
protected concerted activity. Professional Medical Transport, Inc., 362 NLRB 144, 152 n. 25
(2015). See also Napleton Cadillac of Libertyville, 367 NLRB No. 6, slip op. at 16 n. 23 (2018)
(finding that “nothing is to be gleaned” from the fact that the alleged discriminatee/ charging party
in the unfair labor practice case also filed a parallel charge against the employer alleging disability
discrimination), enfd. 976 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 6, 2020); and Staffing Network Holdings, LLC,
362 NLRB 67, 73 (2015) (rejecting the employer’s argument that the alleged discriminatee/
charging party should be discredited because she also filed ancestry and age discrimination
charges against the employer over her discharge), enfd. 815 F.3d 296 (7th Cir. 2016).
189
Similar conduct against other employees. The Board has repeatedly held that an
otherwise well-supported showing of a discriminatory motive is not disproved by evidence that the
employer did not take similar actions against other union supporters. See, e.g., Fresh & Green's
of Washington, D.C., LLC, 361 NLRB 362 n. 1 (2014); Igramo Enterprise, Inc., 351 NLRB
1337, 1339 (2007), rev. denied 310 Fed. Appx. 452 (2d Cir. 2009); and Volair Contractors, Inc.,
341 NLRB 673, 676 n. 17 (2004).
See also Temp-Masters, Inc. v. NLRB, 460 F.3d 684, 690 (6th Cir. 2006) (fact that
employer’s president was a former union member and that employer has historically hired union
workers had “little relevance” to whether employer’s transfer of four employees to another jobsite
was motivated by antiunion animus), affg. 344 NLRB 1188 (2005); and, with respect to alleged
8(a)(1) statements or threats, UNF, West, Inc. v. NLRB, 844 F.3d 451, 464 (5th Cir. 2016) (ALJ
did not abuse his “wide discretion” to exclude irrelevant evidence by refusing to allow the
respondent to present testimony from four employees that they had never been threatened by the
respondent’s agents, as they were not present when the alleged unlawful statements to two other
employees were made, and their testimony about their own experience with respondent’s labor
consultants was not probative of what happened to the other two employees), enfg. 363 NLRB
No. 96, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2016).
Note, however, that where the evidence presented was insufficient to establish union
animus, the Board has cited the absence of similar actions against other union supporters as
additional support for dismissing discrimination allegations. See Electrolux, 368 NLRB No. 34,
slip op. at 5 n. 16 (2019), citing Wackenhut Corp., 290 NLRB 212, 214–215 (1988). Also, the
presence or absence of evidence of similar conduct may be relevant in assessing the credibility of
witnesses, and the judge may allow and consider such evidence for that purpose. See Sutphin
Car Wash, 365 NLRB No. 106, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2017) (ALJ did not err in discussing absence of
evidence that other employees were subjected to the same alleged 8(a)(1) conduct in assessing
credibility), and cases cited there.
§ 16–402.3 Evidence of Coercion
The test to determine coercion under Section 8(a)(1) is an objective test, not a subjective
one. See, e.g., Multi-Ad Services, 331 NLRB 1226, 1228 (2000), enfd. 255 F.3d 363 (7th Cir.
2001). Thus, testimony about what an employee understood or subjectively interpreted the
supervisor's statement to mean may not be relied on and is normally not admissible. FDRLST
Media, LLC, 370 NLRB No. 49, slip op. at 1 n. 3 (2020); and Miami Systems Corp., 320 NLRB
71 n. 4 (1995), enfd. in relevant part 111 F.3d 1284 (6th Cir. 1997). See also UNF West, above,
844 F.3d at 464 (“whether Union support was in fact chilled by a Section 8(a)(1) violation—i.e.,
whether the problematic conduct in fact coerced anyone or interfered with a campaign—is
inconsequential in an 8(a)(1) case, and so cannot serve as a predicate to establish the relevance
of evidence.”) Rather, the “full context” in which the alleged unlawful conduct occurred should be
evaluated to determine if it would tend to coerce a reasonable employee. Westwood Health
Care Center, 330 NLRB 935, 940 n. 17 (2000).
The Board likewise applies an objective test in evaluating whether an employer’s unfair
labor practices tainted a decertification petition, i.e., in performing a so-called Master Slack
analysis. See Coserv Electric, 366 NLRB No. 103, slip op. at 3 n. 10 (2018) (judge did not
abuse his discretion by refusing to allow testimony from 23 employees about why they signed a
decertification petition, as the test of whether an employer’s unfair labor practices tended to
undermine the union in the eyes of employees and tainted a decertification petition is an objective
one), enfd. in relevant part sub nom. Denton County Electrical Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRB, 962
190
F.3d 161, 170 (5th Cir. 2020). See also Veritas Health Services, Inc. v. NLRB, 895 F.3d 69, 84
(D.C. Cir. 2018) (the Board’s “objective focus of its test . . . makes good sense.”)
Similarly, in determining the appropriateness of a Gissel bargaining order, the Board does
not rely on the subjective reaction of individual bargaining unit members to determine the cause
of employee dissatisfaction with the union. See § 16–402.5, Evidence Affecting Remedy.
§ 16–402.4 Evidence of Presettlement Conduct
Under well-established Board law, presettlement conduct may properly be considered as
background evidence to establish the motive for the Respondent’s postsettlement conduct. See
Ambrose Auto, 361 NLRB 931 n. 2 (2014), and cases cited there.
For example, in Monongahela Power Co., 324 NLRB 214, 214–215 (1997), the Board
held that, in determining whether settlements of alleged discrimination had been breached by the
postsettlement suspension and reassignment of two union supporters, the judge could consider
evidence of presettlement statements by the respondent reflecting union animus as “shedding
light” on the respondent’s motivation. The Board cited its decision in Special Mine Services, 308
NLRB 711, 720–721 (1992), enfd. in part 11 F.3d 88 (7th Cir. 1993), where it agreed with the
judge that the respondent’s presettlement conduct evidenced “strong union animus” for the
alleged unlawful subcontracting.
Presettlement conduct can be used to show motive even without a reservation-of-rights
clause in the settlement. See St. Mary’s Nursing Home, 342 NLRB 979, 979–980 (2004), affd.
240 Fed. Appx. 8, 12–13 (6th Cir. 2007). Further, if the settlement agreement does specifically
reserve the General Counsel’s right to use the evidence obtained in the settled case for any
purpose in the litigation of any other case, the GC may present that evidence, and the Board may
make findings and conclusions thereon, in a subsequent case. Thus, for example, in Coserv
Electric, above, the settlement’s “Scope of the Agreement” clause stated:
The General Counsel reserves the right to use the evidence obtained in the
investigation and prosecution of the above-captioned cases for any relevant
purpose in the litigation of this or any other cases, and a judge, the Board and
the courts may make findings of fact and/or conclusions of law with respect to
said evidence.
Based on this language, the Board held that the settled conduct in a prior case could be litigated,
found unlawful, and used to establish that the employer thereafter unlawfully withdrew recognition
from the union based on a decertification petition that was tainted by the employer’s prior unlawful
conduct. However, the Board did not order a remedy for the prior unlawful conduct given that it
had previously been settled. 366 NLRB No. 103, slip op. at 1–2. See also Outdoor Venture
Corp., 327 NLRB 706, 708–709 (1999) (holding that the settled conduct in a prior case could be
used to establish that a strike was prolonged by unfair labor practices and thereby converted to
an unfair labor practice strike).
§ 16–402.5 Evidence Affecting Remedy
Gissel bargaining orders. The Board applies an objective test in evaluating the
appropriateness of a remedial Gissel bargaining order based on the union’s preelection card
majority; specifically, whether the employer’s unfair labor practices would “tend to undermine the
union’s majority and make a fair election an unlikely possibility.” NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co.,
191
395 U.S. 575, 579 (1969). The Board considers the seriousness of the violations and their
pervasiveness, the size of the unit, the number of affected employees, the extent of
dissemination, and the position of the persons committing the violations. The Board does not
consider or rely on the subjective responses of the unit employees to the employer’s unfair labor
practices. See RAV Truck & Trailer Repairs, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 36, slip op. at 15 (2020), enfd.
in relevant part 997 F.3d 314, 329 (D.C. Cir. 2021). See also Altman Camera Co., 207 NLRB
940, 941 (1973) (Board “disavowed” the ALJ’s “reliance on subjective considerations to determine
why many employees repudiated the Union,” and refused to “read the minds of employees in an
effort to ascertain whether, as found by the [ALJ], any loss of their support for the Union was
attributable to the ‘organizing tactics of the union representatives.’”), enfd. 511 F.2d 319 (7th Cir.
1975).
The Board has also traditionally considered the appropriateness of a Gissel bargaining
order as of the time the employer’s unfair labor practices were committed. See A.S.V., Inc., 366
NLRB No. 162, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2018). Thus, evidence regarding subsequent events, including
the passage of time and turnover among unit employees or management officials, is irrelevant.
However, some courts, including the D.C. Circuit and Second Circuit, have disagreed with
the Board and required consideration of such changed circumstances. Accordingly, the Board
has sometimes considered such evidence and issued alternative special remedies in recognition
that a Gissel bargaining order would likely be unenforceable in the courts. See Sysco Grand
Rapids LLC, 367 NLRB No. 111, slip op. at 1–3 (2019) (Board found that the passage of 4 years
and 30 percent employee turnover since the employer’s preelection unfair labor practices likely
rendered a Gissel bargaining order unenforceable and instead issued various other “special”
remedies), enf. denied in relevant part 825 Fed. Appx. 348, 359–360 (6th Cir. 2020) (denying
enforcement of the Board’s special notice-reading and union-access remedies); and Audubon
Regional Medical Center, 331 NLRB 374, 377–378 (2000) (same, where approximately 6 years
had passed and there had been 100 percent management turnover since the unfair labor
practices began).
Compare PCMC/Pacific Crane Maintenance Co., 32–CA–021925, unpub. Board order
issued March 1, 2016 (2016 WL 806825) (rejecting the employer’s argument that court decisions
requiring consideration of passage of time and turnover in Gissel situations also require
considering such changed circumstances in withdrawal-of-recognition situations).
Instatement of applicants. In FES, 331 NLRB 9, 12 (2000), supplemental decision 333
NLRB 66 (2001), enfd. 301 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 2002), the Board provided “guidance to all parties
litigating refusal-to-hire and refusal-to-consider violations;” specifically “[to make] clear the
elements of the violation, the respective burdens of the parties, and the stage at which issues are
to be litigated.”
Regarding the hearing on the merits, the Board adopted the traditional analysis set forth in
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S.
989 (1982), for evaluating unfair labor practice allegations that turn on employer motivation. Thus,
the General Counsel must show that the employer’s animus towards union or other protected
activity contributed to the refusal to hire or consider for hire. FES, 331 NLRB at 12. But see
Gross Electric, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 81, slip op. at 2 (2018) (Wright Line analysis does not apply
and animus need not be shown where the employer acknowledged that it refused to hire the
applicant because of his protected activity).
With respect to refusal-to-hire allegations, the General Counsel must also show that the
employer was actually hiring or had concrete plans to hire at the time of the alleged unlawful
192
conduct, i.e., that there were openings for the applicants, and that the applicants met the
announced or known requirements for the positions (or that the employer did not uniformly
adhere to the announced requirements, or that the requirements were pretextual or pretextually
applied). FES, 331 NLRB at 12–13. See also Hard Hat Services, LLC, 366 NLRB No. 106, slip
op. at 7–8 (2018) (finding that the General Counsel satisfied this burden); and Allstate Power
Vac, Inc., 354 NLRB 980, 981–982 (2009) (finding that the General Counsel failed to meet this
burden), reaffd. 357 NLRB 344 n. 1 (2011). But see Planned Building Services, Inc., 347
NLRB 670, 672 (2006) (holding that the General Counsel need not establish these additional
facts in cases alleging that an alleged successor discriminatorily refused to hire the predecessor’s
employees), overruled on other grounds Pressroom Cleaners, 361 NLRB 643 (2014). See also
W & M Properties of Connecticut, Inc. v. NLRB, 514 F.3d 1341 (D.C. Cir. 2008), affg. 348
NLRB 162 (2006) (upholding the Board’s holding in Planned Building Services).
With respect to refusal-to-consider allegations, the General Counsel must show that the
employer excluded the applicants from the hiring process. FES, 331 NLRB at 15. See also
Allstate Power Vac, above, 354 NLRB at 982 (finding that the General Counsel failed to satisfy
this burden with respect to the employer’s alleged refusal to consider union salts for field
technician positions because the GC established neither that the employer was hiring field
technicians at the time nor that it had a policy of accepting applications when it was not hiring;
furthermore, the employer’s receptionist told the only salt who asked to file such an application
that he could do so.).
As in Wright Line, once the General Counsel’s burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the
employer to show at the merits hearing that it would not have hired or considered the applicants
even absent their union or protected activity. FES, 331 NLRB at 12. See also Wismettac Asian
Foods, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 35, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2020) (employer failed to meet its defense
burden where it did not establish it would have refused to consider rehiring employee for using
profanity in absence of his union activity); Allstate Power Vac, above, 354 NLRB at 982 (finding
that the employer met this burden with respect to its alleged refusal to consider union salts for
driver positions by showing that it would not have considered the union salts for those positions
because none of them possessed CDLs and HAZMAT endorsements).
With respect to the compliance proceeding, the Board held that in refusal-to-hire cases
where the “number of applicants exceeds the number of available jobs,” the compliance
proceeding may be used “to determine which of the applicants would have been hired.” It may
also be used in construction industry cases to determine whether “the discriminatees would have
been transferred to other worksites upon the completion of the project at which the unlawful
conduct occurred.” FES, 331 NLRB at 14.
In refusal-to-consider cases where an opening arose after the merits hearing began—or
where the General Counsel neither knew nor should have known of an opening that arose before
the hearing began— the compliance proceeding is appropriately used to determine “whether the
applicant would have been offered that job had he been given nondiscriminatory consideration.”
Id. at 16.
Reinstatement. In an 8(a)(3) case in which denial of reinstatement is affirmatively alleged
in the complaint, the better practice is to admit the respondent’s proffered evidence of
unconditional offers of reinstatement because the Board must fashion a remedy. Kelley Bros.
Nurseries, 145 NLRB 285 n. 2 (1963), enf. denied 341 F.2d 433 (2d Cir. 1965). However, where
evidence regarding offers of reinstatement has not been proffered or admitted in the merits
hearing, the Board has found no prejudice by deferring the matter to the compliance proceeding.
See Baker Mfg. Co., 269 NLRB 794 n. 2, 813 (1984), enfd. in part 759 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1985).
193
See also Charles E. McCauley Assoc., Inc., 266 NLRB 649 (1983) (on remand), affd. 760 F.2d
279 (11th Cir. 1985).
For additional cases where the Board deferred reinstatement issues to compliance, see
Wismettac Asian Foods, Inc., above, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (ordering reinstatement and backpay
remedy, but deferring to compliance whether respondent was required to rehire these
discriminatees directly, as opposed to through a temporary employment agency); and Solutia, Inc.,
357 NLRB 58, 65 n. 20 (2011) (ordering a reinstatement and backpay remedy, but deferring to
compliance whether individual employees who opted to retire after the employer unilaterally
transferred their work were entitled to the remedy where all parties agreed to defer litigation of the
issue), enfd. 699 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2012).
With respect to reinstating strikers, see Napleton Cadillac of Libertyville, 369 NLRB No.
56, slip op. at 12 (2020) (leaving to compliance whether any of the strikers were entitled to
immediate reinstatement as of the date they offered to return, rather than just placement on a
preferential hiring list, because the evidence presented at trial “was, at best, sparse” regarding
whether the employer hired permanent replacements before or after the date the strike converted
from an economic to an unfair labor practice strike).
Restoration. Where a respondent employer is on notice in the merits proceeding that the
General Counsel is seeking a restoration order, it has “the opportunity and responsibility of
adducing any relevant evidence [that such an order would be unduly burdensome] that was
available to it at the time of the Board hearing.” Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB 835 n.2 (1999),
enf. denied in part 233 F.3d 831 (4th Cir. 2000). See also Mountaineer Petroleum, 301 NLRB
801, 801–802, 816 (1991) (finding that an order requiring the employer to reinstitute its unlawfully
subcontracted operations would be unduly burdensome based on evidence the employer
introduced at the unfair labor practice hearing that it did not have the capital or credit standing to
purchase, operate, insure, and maintain the tractors needed to do so). Any such evidence that
became available only after the hearing closed may be introduced at the compliance stage. San
Luis Trucking, 352 NLRB 211, n.5 (2008), reaffd. 356 NLRB 168 (2010), enfd. 479 Fed. Appx.
743 (9th Cir. 2012); Dorsey Trailers, above, citing Lear Siegler, Inc., 295 NLRB 857, 861–862
(1989).
Note that reviewing courts may be reluctant to uphold restoration orders in the absence of
a record supporting the feasibility of reopening a closed operation, particularly where reopening
involves the repurchase of assets and/or the lease of new premises. See, e.g., RAV Truck and
Trailer Repairs, Inc., 997 F.3d 314, 330–331 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (collecting court and Board cases).
Discriminatee misconduct/after-acquired evidence. If an employer establishes that the
discriminatee engaged in unprotected conduct for which the employer would have refused to hire
or discharged any employee, instatement or reinstatement is not ordered and backpay is
terminated on the date that the employer first acquired knowledge of the misconduct. See
Aerotek, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 94, slip op. at 1 (2019), and cases cited there. To invoke the after-
acquired evidence doctrine, the employer must demonstrate that it was unaware of the alleged
misconduct at the time of the employee’s discharge. Somerset Valley Rehabilitation &
Nursing Center, 362 NLRB 961, 962 (2015), enfd. 825 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2016) (finding that
respondent could not rely on an incident that occurred over a year before employee’s discharge
because respondent was fully aware of it at the time). Cf. Frontier Telephone of Rochester,
Inc., 344 NLRB 1270, 1277 (2005) (declining to order reinstatement and a full backpay remedy
where the employer discovered during the hearing that the discriminatee had forwarded company
records that included customers’ personal and financial information to his home email account),
enfd. 181 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2006).
194
Thus, if the issue arises at or before the merits hearing, the judge should normally receive
and consider evidence on the issue, including the nature of the misconduct, when the respondent
first learned of it, and whether the respondent would have discharged or refused to hire the
employee had respondent known of it earlier. See Tel Data Corp., 315 NLRB 364, 366–367
(1994) (judge erred in failing to consider whether the discriminatee’s falsification of a timecard,
which the employer discovered after his discharge, warranted denial of reinstatement and full
backpay), enfd. in part 90 F.3d 1195 (6th Cir. 1996). See also Bob’s Ambulance Service, 183
NLRB 961 (1970), where the Board granted the respondent’s motion to reopen the record and
remanded the proceeding to the judge to decide if reinstatement was an appropriate remedy in
light of the discriminatee’s post-termination criminal record, noting that “the issue of employee
misconduct which may warrant forfeiture of reinstatement goes to the remedy and not to the issue
of compliance with the remedy.”
But see Tschiggfrie Properties, Ltd., 365 NLRB No. 34, slip op. at 2–3, 14 (2017) (judge
recommended, and the Board agreed, that the respondent employer be allowed to establish in a
subsequent compliance proceeding that the discharged discriminatee should not be reinstated
and/or that his backpay should be tolled based on evidence the employer obtained during its
post-discharge investigation of the discriminatee’s conduct), enf. denied in part and remanded
896 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2018), reaffirmed 368 NLRB No. 120, slip op. at 9 n. 27 (2019).
For a case where the misconduct was first discovered in the compliance proceeding, see
First Transit, Inc., 350 NLRB 825 (2007). In that case, the discriminatee admitted during the
compliance hearing that she had a prior felony conviction for second degree robbery. The Board
found that this warranted denying her reinstatement, as she had failed to disclose the prior felony
conviction on her original employment application, and the employer would not have hired her if it
had known she was a felon and had lied on the application. Nevertheless, the Board awarded her
full backpay because the employer did not discover the misconduct until after the end of the
backpay period covered by the compliance specification).
Note, however, that a respondent employer should not be permitted to use the unfair
labor practice or compliance hearing as a “fishing expedition” to discover possible misconduct
that would support an after-acquired evidence defense. See Santa Barbara News-Press, 357
NLRB 452 n. 3 and 502 (2011), enf. denied on other grounds 702 F.3d 51 (D.C. Cir. 2012). See
also Barger v. First Data Corp., 2018 WL 6591883, *10 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 14, 2018) (“Federal
courts are wary of allowing ‘fishing expedition discovery’ by employers to find evidence of
wrongdoing. Instead, they ‘must have some preexisting basis to believe that after-acquired
evidence exists before it can take on additional discovery.’) (citations omitted); Bahrami v. Maxie
Price Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc., 2013 WL 3800336, *4 (N.D. Ga. June 19, 2013) (quashing
the employer’s subpoenas of plaintiff’s pre- and post-termination employment records); and Perry
v. Best Lock Corp., 1999 WL 33494858 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 21, 1999) (same), and cases cited there.
Undocumented workers. Although undocumented workers are employees entitled to
exercise their rights under the Act, they are not entitled to backpay or reinstatement during the
period when they are not authorized to be present in the United States. See Domsey Trading
Corp., 351 NLRB 824, 825 (2007), citing Hoffman Plastics Compounds v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137
(2002). This is true regardless of whether the employee or the employer violated the immigration
laws. Mezonos Maven Bakery, Inc., 357 NLRB 376 (2011), supplemental proceedings 362
NLRB 360 (2015).
Nevertheless, it is appropriate to issue a backpay and unconditional reinstatement order
at the merits stage, leaving to the compliance stage whether backpay and reinstatement or
conditional reinstatement is actually warranted consistent with Hoffman. See Tuv Taam Corp.,
195
340 NLRB 756, 760-761 (2003). See also Mezonos Maven Bakery, above; Farm Fresh Co.,
Target One, LLC, 361 NLRB 848 n. 1 (2014); and Concrete Form Walls, 346 NLRB 831, 835
(2006), enfd. 225 Fed. Appx. 837 (11th Cir. 2007). Thus, evidence regarding an employee’s
immigration status is normally irrelevant at the merits stage of the proceeding. Tuv Taam Corp.,
above. See Concrete Form Walls, above (undocumented status is not a defense to an alleged
discriminatory discharge if it was not the moving cause of the discharge or was used as a pretext
for discrimination); and Farm Fresh Co., above (judge did not abuse his discretion in preventing
the respondent employer from questioning the alleged discriminatees about their immigration
status in the merits proceeding, even though the employer contended that they voluntarily quit to
avoid going through the E-Verify process, because the respondent was permitted to ask them
questions about why they resigned). See also § 16–608.1, Impeachment on Collateral Matters,
below.
In the backpay proceeding, if the employer fails on request to articulate a factual basis for
its affirmative defense that a discriminatee lacks immigration status, the defense should be
stricken. See Flaum Appetizing Corp., 357 NLRB 2006 (2011). In that case, the employer
asserted, as an affirmative defense to the compliance specification, that the discriminatees (who
had Hispanic surnames) were undocumented aliens, and it served trial subpoenas on each of
them seeking various documents relating to that defense. The Board struck the employer’s
affirmative defense as applied to most of the discriminatees on the ground that, in response to the
General Counsel’s motion for a bill of particulars, the employer “had articulated no factual support
(or reason to believe it could obtain such factual support)” for applying the defense to those
individuals. The Board stated that “a reasonable belief that evidentiary support exists and can be
obtained through . . . trial subpoenas . . . requires some articulable reason to believe that is the
case.” Id. at 2010–2011.
See also Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1070–1072 (9th Cir. 2004) (rejecting
employer’s argument that the after-acquired evidence doctrine required the court to approve its
request for discovery into the plaintiffs’ immigration status, as the employer failed to come forward
with any evidence that would justify limiting the plaintiffs’ remedies, the requested discovery
would therefore be a “fishing expedition,” and such discovery could have a substantial chilling
effect on bringing civil rights actions), rehearing en banc denied 384 F.3d 822 (2004), cert. denied
544 U.S. 905 (2005);
For a discussion of what limits, if any, the ALJ and Board may properly place on
employers in questioning employees about their immigration status in the compliance proceeding,
see NLRB v. Domsey Trading Corp., 636 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2011) (employer was entitled to ask
discriminatees direct questions in the compliance proceeding about their immigration status and
to introduce testimony of its immigration expert).
§ 16–402.6 Stolen Evidence
The Board admits allegedly stolen documents unless it is established that an agent of the
Government acted in collusion with the individual who stole the document. See NLRB v. South
Bay Daily Breeze, 415 F.2d 360, 363–365 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 915 (1970)
(discussing the reasons for the policy and upholding it); and Air Line Pilots Assn., 97 NLRB 929,
933 (1951). See also U.S. v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976).
§ 16–402.7 Tape Recordings
General Rule. Tape recording issues most often arise in Board proceedings when an
employee has secretly taped remarks of a company manager or supervisor during a meeting.
196
Such recordings are generally admissible even if the taping violated state law. Cadillac of
Naperville, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 3, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2019), enfd. on point 14 F.4th 703 (D.C. Cir.
2021); Times Herald Record, 334 NLRB 350, 354 (2001), enfd. 27 Fed. Appx. 64 (2d Cir. 2001);
Williamhouse of California, Inc., 317 NLRB 699 n. 1, JD n. 2 (1995); and Wellstream Corp.,
313 NLRB 698, 711 (1994).
However, a different result possibly might obtain if the manner of the recording violated
the federal wiretapping statute (18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.); for example, if the person who secretly
made the recording was not present during the meeting but recorded the remarks by
“intercepting” them. See Earley v. Smoot, 846 F.Supp. 451 (D. Md. 1994) (issuing a preliminary
injunction barring a union member from using a tape recording in a disciplinary proceeding
against a union officer, as the manner of the tape recording arguably violated the federal
wiretapping statute, which provides for such injunctive relief). See also Earley v. Executive
Board of United Transportation Union, 957 F. Supp. 997 (N.D. Ohio 1996) (issuing permanent
injunction).
Collective-Bargaining Exception. As a policy matter, the Board excludes secret tape
recordings of negotiations because they “would inhibit severely the willingness of parties to
express themselves freely.” Carpenter Sprinkler Corp., 238 NLRB 974, 974–975 (1978), affd. in
relevant part 605 F.2d 60, 65–66 (2d Cir. 1979). See also NLRB v. Maywood Do-Nut Co., 659
F.2d 108, 110 (9th Cir. 1981) (Board acted within its discretion by excluding from evidence the
secret tape recordings of bargaining session).
Credibility of Person Making Recording. In McAllister Bros., 278 NLRB 601 n. 2 (1986),
enfd. 819 F.2d 439 (4th Cir. 1987), the Board expressly disavowed the judge’s statement that the
Board historically has taken a dim view of personnel who tape-record meetings with their
employer. Indeed, citing cases, the Board stated that it “has sometimes found tape recordings of
employee meetings to be the best evidence of what was said.” Ibid. See also Fleming
Companies, 336 NLRB 192 n. 2 (2001) (Board stated that it did not rely on a witness’s
surreptitious taping of a conversation with management representatives as a basis for discrediting
the witness’s testimony), enfd. in part 349 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2003); and Hawaii Tribune-Herald
v. NLRB, 677 F.3d 1241 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (rejecting the employer’s argument that secretly
recording a meeting is “so fundamentally dishonest and deceitful that it should be deemed
categorically unprotected” even in the absence of any company policy or law prohibiting secret
audiotaping), enfg. 356 NLRB 661 (2011).
Authentication of recordings is discussed in § 16–901.2, below.
§ 16–402.8 State Agency Decisions
The Board receives into evidence and considers decisions in State unemployment
compensation proceedings but does not give the decisions controlling weight on unfair labor
practice issues. See Cardiovascular Consultants of Nevada, 323 NLRB 67 n. 1 (1997)
(reversing the judge, the Board received a State unemployment compensation decision into
evidence because established Board law holds them to be admissible but not controlling). See
also Voith Industrial Services, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 109, slip op. at 12 n. 11 (2016) (state agency
decisions presented by the parties were admitted into evidence but were not found controlling or
persuasive because the decisions did not show they were reached after hearings in which the
parties had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence, and did not reference the standards of
proof applied, the specific evidence relied on, or the nature of any credibility determinations that
may have been made); and Whitesville Mill Service Co., 307 NLRB 937, 945 n. 6 (1992) (a
197
state agency decision that the employee was not fired for union activities was considered but
found not to be persuasive because, at the state hearing, the plant manager refused to answer
questions concerning his knowledge of union activity).
§ 16–403 FRE 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion,
Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
FRE 403 states:
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing
the issues . . . undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence.
FRE 403 creates a balancing test, and necessarily involves the exercise of discretion.
Although the rule generally favors admission, evidence that has scant probative value may be
excluded under the rule. See Stroehmann Bros. Co., 268 NLRB 1360, 1361 n. 10 (1984) (noting
that ALJs are authorized to exclude such evidence under FRE 403 and affirming the judge’s
ruling doing so). See also Mueller & Kirkpatrick, 1 Federal Evidence § 4:12 (4th ed. May 2021
Update); and Goode & Wellborn, Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid. Rule 403 (March 2021
Update).
For additional Board cases upholding the judge’s exclusion of evidence under FRE 403,
see, e.g., Dupont Specialty Products USA, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 117, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2020)
(judge did not abuse his discretion by rejecting the respondent’s request to admit a document
under seal and to seal the hearing room during its admission, as the probative value of the
document was slight and the judge reasonably determined that its marginal relevance was
outweighed by the administrative burden associated with a seal), enfd. 2021 WL 3579384 (3d Cir.
Aug. 13, 2021); Dickens, Inc., 355 NLRB 255, 257 (2010) (judge properly exercised his
discretion in terminating the unrepresented respondent’s cross-examination of the alleged
discriminatee, directing him to present his own testimony at that time, and subsequently cutting
off his narrative testimony after several hours); J.S. Troupe Electric, Inc., 344 NLRB 1009, 1010
(2005) (Board cited both FRE 403 and FRE 608(b) in upholding the judge’s exclusion of primary
and secondary evidence of the alleged discriminatee’s false claim for unemployment or workers
compensation benefits, notwithstanding that the judge broadly credited the discriminatee);
University Medical Center, 335 NLRB 1318 n. 1, 1342–1343 (2001) (upholding judge’s
imposition of time limits on the presentation of the respondent’s case), enfd. in part 335 F.3d
1079 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Teamsters Local 122 (August A. Busch & Co. of Massachusetts), 334
NLRB 1190, 1193, 1255 (2001) (same), enfd. by consent order 2003 WL 880990 (D.C. Cir.
2003); and NLRB v. Champa Linen Service, 324 F.2d 28, 30 (10th Cir. 1963) (endorsing the
judge’s refusal to permit cross-examination of the truth of a statement, which was alleged to be
an 8(a)(1) violation, that a union official “stole a million dollars”).
The judge also has discretion under 403 whether to receive so-called “demonstrative” or
“illustrative” evidence (e.g., photos, videos, maps, drawings, or models) that does not have an
actual connection to the events but is offered as a visual aid to understanding testimony or other
evidence. A foundation should be established that the item depicts relevant information that is or
will be proven by other, real evidence; that it is accurate; and that it will help the judge to
understand the evidence. Like real evidence, it must also be authenticated under FRE 901 and
902. See Goode & Wellborne, Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid., Rules 401, 403 (March 2021
Update); and Graham, 2 Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 401.2 (9th ed. Nov. 2021 Update).
198
Note, there is some authority that evidence should not be excluded in a bench trial based
solely on “unfair prejudice” under FRE 403. The rationale is that “a trial judge is able to discern
and weigh the improper inferences, . . . balance those improprieties against probative value and
necessity . . . [and] exclude those improper inferences from his mind in reaching a decision.”
Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Ecodyne Corp., 635 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1981). Accord: Schultz v.
Butcher, 24 F.3d 626, 632 (4th Cir. 1994).
See also §§ 2–300 (Duties of Trial Judge) and 16–102 (FRE 102), above.
§ 16–404 FRE 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts
FRE 404 states in relevant part:
(a) Character Evidence.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not
admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance
with the character or trait.
. . . .
(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be
admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not
admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular
occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such
as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,
absence of mistake, or lack of accident. . . .
Compare Sunshine Piping, 351 NLRB 1371, 1375 (2007) (evidence that two of the
General Counsel’s witnesses had engaged in drug-related activity and other misconduct while
employed by respondent was not admissible under Rule 404(b) as their prior conduct was not “a
material issue in the case”) and T.K. Productions Inc., 332 NLRB 110, 112 n. 3 (2000) (Rule
404 prohibited the GC from using respondent’s prior settled conduct as evidence that respondent
was likely to behave in the same manner in the current cases); with Overnite Transportation
Co., 336 NLRB 387, 387–388 (2001) (judge did not violate FRE 404 by considering respondent’s
prior unfair labor practices as the judge did so only in the course of rejecting respondent’s
arguments that its witnesses would never collude to testify falsely and that it trained its
supervisors not to become involved in decertification efforts) and Kenworth Trucks of
Philadelphia, 236 NLRB 1299 n. 2 (1978) (Rule 404 does not bar use of prior unfair labor
practice violations as “background evidence showing [employer’s] strong and continuing union
animus”), enfd. mem. 595 F.2d 1213 (3d Cir. 1979). See also §§ 16–607, 608, and 609, below.
§ 16–405 FRE 405. Methods of Proving Character
FRE 405 states:
(a) By Reputation or Opinion. When evidence of a person’s character or
character trait is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person’s
reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination of the
character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of
the person’s conduct.
199
(b) By Specific Instances of Conduct. When a person’s character or character
trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or trait
may also be proved by relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.
See, e.g., Ponderosa Granite Co., 267 NLRB 212 n. 1 (1983) (judge in 8(a)(3) discharge
case erred in admitting testimony by an employee of another store that the alleged discriminatee
had written a bad check for supplies and then returned the supplies for cash, as the
discriminatee’s character was not an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense as required
by FRE 405(b)).
§ 16–406 FRE 406. Habit; Routine Practice
FRE 406 states:
Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted
to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in
accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence
regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.
To qualify as evidence of a person’s “habit,” the evidence must show a regular semi-
automatic practice of meeting a specific situation with specific conduct. See, e.g., Zubulake v.
UBS Warburg LLC, 382 F.Supp.2d 536, 541–542 (S.D. N.Y. 2005). In that case, the defendant-
employer asserted that the plaintiff was terminated for insubordination rather than for
discriminatory reasons in violation of Title VII as she alleged. In support, the employer sought to
introduce evidence that she had been insubordinate at her previous employment. The employer
argued that the evidence was admissible under FRE 406 to show that she had a habit of acting
insubordinately. The court rejected the employer’s argument, both because the prior instance did
not involve the same specific circumstances and because it was insufficient to establish the type
of frequent semi-automatic conduct envisioned under the rule.
To qualify as evidence of an organization’s “routine practice,” the evidence must show
“that the organization acted with ‘regularity over substantially all occasions or with substantially all
other parties with whom the [organization] has had similar business transactions.’” S.E.C. v.
Lyon, 605 F.Supp.2d 531, 543 (S.D. N.Y. 2009), quoting Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S.,
Inc. v. Cajun Construction Services, Inc., 45 F.3d 96, 100 (5th Cir. 1995).
FRE 406 is often used when a witness has no present recollection of a particular event or
action but can testify about the habit or routine practice. The rule allows the testimony as
affirmative evidence of what actually occurred. See, e.g., Johnson v. Cook, Inc., 587 F.Supp.2d
1020, 1026 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (HR generalist who reviewed applications for the employer, but did not
specifically recall reviewing plaintiff’s application, was properly allowed to testify that his rejection
of the application was in conformity with his usual habit or practice of rejecting overqualified
candidates for the START training program), affd. 327 Fed. Appx. 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2009), cert.
denied 558 U.S. 1155 (2010).
§ 16–407 FRE 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures
FRE 407 states:
When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less
likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
• negligence;
• culpable conduct;
• a defect in a product or its design; or
200
• a need for a warning or instruction.
But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment
or—if disputed—proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary
measures.
As indicated in the Advisory Committee Notes to FRE 407, subsequent remedial
measures may include, not only repairs, but also rule or policy changes and disciplinary actions
against employees. See also Wright & Miller et al., 23 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5283 (2d ed.
April 2021 Update); and additional court cases cited in DH Long Point Mgt., LLC, 369 NLRB No.
18, slip op. at 14 n. 40 (2020), enfd. mem. per curiam 858 Fed. Appx. 366 (D.C. Cir. 2021). And
at least some courts have applied FRE 407 in cases involving alleged employment discrimination
or disparate treatment. See, e.g., Estate of Hamilton v. City of New York, 627 F.3d 50, 53 (2d
Cir. 2010) (plaintiffs who alleged that they were discriminatorily denied promotions because of
their national origin were properly barred under FRE 407 from presenting a supervisor’s
statement indicating that management subsequently decided to involve more individuals in the
promotion process to prevent unsuccessful candidates from feeling that they were unfairly passed
over); and Stahl v. Board of Commissioners of Wyandotte County, 244 F.Supp.2d 1181 (D.
Kan. 2003) (gender-discrimination plaintiff who was denied a promotion because she failed a
physical fitness test was barred by FRE 407 from presenting evidence, as proof of her claim that
the test was used as a pretext for discrimination, that defendant subsequently suspended its use
of the test), affd. 101 Fed. Appx. 316, 321–322 (10th Cir. 2004). See also Lust v. Sealy, Inc.,
383 F.3d 580, 585 (7th Cir. 2004) (“there is no basis in the language or rationale of [Rule 407] for
confining it to nonintentional torts, though they are the usual occasion for its invocation”).
However, FRE 407 does not bar evidence of a respondent’s inconsistent discipline or
actions as evidence of a discriminatory motive. See Grewcock v. Yale-New Haven Health
Servs. Corp., 2018 WL 1156224, *3 (D. Conn. March 4, 2018) (“Importantly, the rule does not
purport to bar a plaintiff from introducing any evidence at all about a defendant’s inconsistent
positions or conduct after it has engaged in the action that forms the basis for a plaintiff’s
lawsuit.”). Indeed, such disparate treatment evidence is routinely admitted and considered in
evaluating whether a respondent discriminated against an employee because of union or other
protected concerted activity. See, e.g., DH Long Point Mgt., above, slip op. at 14, and cases
cited there.
With respect to the impeachment exception, it should be read narrowly and applied only
when the subsequent remedial measure directly contradicts a witness’s testimony. See Minter v.
Prime Equipment Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1212–1213 (10th Cir. 2006), and cases cited there. See
also Goode & Wellborn, Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid. Rule 407 (March 2021 Update)
(courts have warned against interpreting the exception too liberally as it would swallow the rule).
§ 16–408 FRE 408. Compromise Offers and Negotiations
FRE 408 states in relevant part:
(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible—on behalf of any
party—either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to
impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:
(1) furnishing, promising, or offering—or accepting, promising to accept, or
offering to accept—a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to
compromise the claim; and
(2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the
claim . . . .
201
(b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as
proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or
proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
FRE 408 prohibits use of settlement offers or other statements during settlement
discussions as evidence regarding the merits of the underlying claim that is the subject of the
settlement. Shamrock Foods, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 5, slip op. at 3 n. 15 (2020). For example, in
St. George Warehouse, Inc., 349 NLRB 870, 874 (2007), the General Counsel sought to prove
that the employer had engaged in unlawful surface bargaining during its first-contract negotiations
with the newly certified union by, among other things, presenting evidence that the employer had
made certain statements indicative of surface bargaining at a particular mediation session.
Although the purpose of the mediation session was both to continue negotiating the first contract
and to settle the pending surface bargaining allegations, the Board held that FRE 408 barred the
GC from presenting the statements as evidence of surface bargaining because they were made
while attempting to settle the surface bargaining allegations.
Rule 408 does not apply to a statement relevant to claims other than those being settled
in the discussions. See Lenox Hill Hospital, 327 NLRB 1065, 1067 n. 4 (1999) (Rule 408 did not
bar grievance settlement discussions from being introduced in 8(a)(5) refusal-to-provide-information
case as the discussions were not offered to show that respondent had violated the contract as alleged
in the grievance, but to show that union’s information request was relevant to the grievance). See also
Westwide Winery, Inc. v. SMT Acquisitions, LLC, 511 F. Supp.3d 256, 265–267 (E.D.N.Y. 2021)
(in action for breach of settlement agreement, Rule 408 did not bar evidence of the existence of the
settlement agreement). However, FRE 408 may bar evidence of unlawful conduct committed
during settlement discussions if the conduct is “so closely intertwined with the unfair labor
practices under discussion that they cannot be separated therefrom.” Contee Sand & Gravel
Co., 274 NLRB 574 n. 1 (1985) (FRE 408 barred evidence that the respondent unlawfully refused
to execute new collective-bargaining agreements with the union as they were negotiated while
attempting to settle allegations that the respondent had unlawfully failed to abide by the existing
contract).
FRE 408 also does not bar introduction of settlement discussions or proposals for
purposes other than proving or disproving a disputed allegation or to impeach. See, e.g., El
Super, 367 NLRB No. 34, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2018) (judge did not err by including in the hearing
record his prehearing decision denying the respondent’s motion for approval of a consent order,
together with the motion and exhibits, as the judge did so to facilitate potential Board and court
review of his decision and did not rely on the proposed consent order for any purpose prohibited
by FRE 408).
Nor does FRE 408 bar evidence of independent unfair labor practices committed during
settlement discussions. See Miami Systems Corp., 320 NLRB 71 n. 2 (1995) (FRE 408 did not
bar evidence that the respondent’s managers made unlawful threats during informal grievance
settlement discussions that the company would terminate the third shift if the union pursued the
grievance), enfd. in relevant part sub nom., Uforma/Shelby Business Forms v. NLRB, 111 F.3d
1284, 1293–1294 (6th Cir. 1997). See also Shamrock Foods, Inc., above (FRE 408 did not bar
evidence that the respondent unlawfully offered the alleged discriminatee over four times his
accrued backpay in return for waiving reinstatement); and Cirker’s Moving & Storage Co., 313
NLRB 1318, 1326 (1994) (FRE 408 did not bar evidence that the respondent had unlawfully
insisted during grievance settlement discussions that the discharged employee resign from his
position as shop steward as a condition of reinstatement).
202
Note that, like other rules of evidence, FRE 408 is a rule of admissibility rather than
discoverability. Thus, many if not most courts have held that it does not prevent a party from
subpoenaing evidence relating to communications made during settlement negotiations and have
refused to recognize a settlement privilege protecting such materials from discovery. See Manzo
v. County of Santa Clara, 2019 WL 2866047, *3 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2019); and In re Subpoena
to Commodity Futures Trading Comm., 370 F.Supp.2d 201, 211 (D.D.C. 2005), affd. in part on
other grounds 439 F.3d 740 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and cases cited there. But see Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 979–982 (6th Cir. 2003)
(communications made in furtherance of settlement negotiations are privileged and protected
from third party discovery).
However, as with other subpoenaed materials, the party subpoenaing such
communications must demonstrate that they are “relevant to [the] party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case” under FRCP 26(b)(1). See §§ 8–310 and 8–330, above.
And some courts have considered the policies underlying FRE 408 in declining to compel
production of such communications under that Rule. See, e.g., Garner v. Ranka, 2020 WL
601898 (D. N.M. Feb. 7, 2020) (denying defendant’s motion to compel production of settlement
communications between the plaintiff and other defendants because the sole reason for seeking
the documents was to use them as evidence of liability, which Rule 408 prohibits, and therefore
they were not relevant to its defense); and Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement
System v. Walgreen Co., 2019 WL 6108220 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2019) (denying plaintiffs’ motion
to compel production of settlement communications between the defendant and the SEC
because, although the documents [which the court reviewed in camera] were “loaded with
assertions that [bore] upon the factual and legal issues” in the case and were therefore relevant,
“their compelled production [was] not so important to the needs of the case as to override the
burden [on the policy goals underlying Rule 408] associated with such production under a Rule
26(b)(1) proportionality analysis” as the documents “were sourced from the factual discovery
already being made available to [p]laintiffs.”).
§ 16–501 FRE 501. Privileges in General
FRE 501 states:
The common law—as interpreted by United States courts in the light of reason and
experience—governs a claim of privilege unless any of the following provides
otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; or rules prescribed by
the Supreme Court. But in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a
claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision.
As the committee and conference reports on FRE 501 indicate, in civil cases state law on
privileges chiefly applies in diversity cases, with federal law applying otherwise. Hence, in unfair
labor practice trials before the NLRB, federal law applies. See Quarles Mfg. Co., 83 NLRB 697,
699 n. 8 (1949), citing Section 10(b) of the Act in declining to apply the Texas “Dead Man’s”
statute, as discussed in § 16–804.2, below. See also R. Sabee Co., 351 NLRB 1350 n. 3 (2007);
and § 8–475 (State Confidentiality Rules), above.
For a more detailed discussion of privileges, including the attorney-client privilege, the
work-product doctrine, protections for Board agent testimony and files, and the mediator’s and
reporter’s privileges, see § 8–400 et seq., above, dealing with subpoenas. The same principles
apply where parties attempt to submit testimony or evidence involving such privileges during the
hearing.
203
Protective orders may also be appropriate when testimony or evidence is offered that may
include confidential information. For a more detailed discussion of protective orders, see § 8–600,
above.
§ 16–501.1 Fifth Amendment Claims
No requirement to stay proceeding. There is no requirement that civil or administrative
proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. The judge may therefore
properly deny a motion to stay based on a consideration and balancing of the particular
circumstances and competing interests involved, including the extent to which the defendant’s
Fifth Amendment rights are implicated; the interests in going forward expeditiously with the civil
litigation and the prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; the burden that the civil proceeding would
impose on the defendant; the convenience and efficient use of judicial resources of the civil court
or agency; the interests of nonparties to the civil litigation; and the interests of the public in the
pending civil and criminal litigation. See Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322,
325–326 (9th Cir. 1995) (ALJ did not abuse his discretion in deciding that the balance of factors
favored going forward with the hearing despite the potential implication of Keating’s Fifth
Amendment rights), cert. denied. 516 U.S. 827 (1995). See also SEC v. Dresser Industries,
Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied 449 U.S. 993 (1980); Diebold v. Civil Service
Commission of St. Louis County, 611 F.2d 697, 700–701 (8th Cir. 1979); United States v.
White, 589 F.2d. 1283, 1286 (5th Cir. 1979); and Luman v. Tanzler, 411 F.2d 164, 167 (5th Cir.
1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 929 (1969).
No duty to advise of constitutional rights. Because Board proceedings are not criminal
cases (in which witnesses or parties may be taken into custody or deprived of their freedom),
Board agents have no duty to advise or warn charged parties of their constitutional rights. F. J.
Buckner Corp. v. NLRB, 401 F.2d 910, 913–914 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied 393 U.S. 1084
(1969).
Adverse Inference may be drawn. In civil cases, the trier of fact may draw an adverse
inference from the invocation of a privilege under the Fifth Amendment, at least where there is
independent evidence of the fact sought to be elicited. See Holmes v. U.S. Postal Service, 987
F.3d 1042, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“while an employee is permitted to invoke his or her Fifth
Amendment right to remain silent, ‘an agency may still take into consideration and make an
adverse inference from the failure of the employee to respond’”) (citations omitted). See also
Doe v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir. 2000); and LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban,
54 F.3d 387, 389–391 (7th Cir. 1995).
For a Board case illustrating this principle, see Sunshine Piping, Inc., 351 NLRB 1371,
1378 n. 28 (2007) (finding that inference of respondent’s unlawful motive for disciplining and
terminating employee was supported by, among other things, supervisor’s initial invocation of the
Fifth Amendment, which showed that she sincerely believed that she had done something
wrong).
Grant of immunity. Under section 102.31(c) of the Board's Rules, if an individual has or is
likely to assert a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a Board proceeding, any
party may request an order requiring that individual to give testimony or provide other information
in the proceeding. Such requests should be filed directly with the Board prior to the hearing, and
with the judge during the hearing.
Section 102.31(c) states that such orders may only be issued by the Board with the
approval of the Attorney General. Accordingly, the rule provides:
204
If the Administrative Law Judge deems the request appropriate, the Judge will
recommend that the Board seek the approval of the Attorney General for the
issuance of the order, and the Board will take such action on the Administrative
Law Judge’s recommendation as it deems appropriate. Until the Board has
issued the requested order, no individual who claims the privilege against self-
incrimination will be required or permitted to testify or to give other information
respecting the subject matter of the claim.
In evaluating such requests, the judge should consider the factors considered by the
Attorney General in requesting use immunity from a court under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001–6005. See
*Greenwood 2, Inc., 22-CA-029249, unpub. Board order issued April 30, 2012 (2012 WL
1515342) (remanding to the judge “for the purpose of receiving and considering a proffer from the
Respondents concerning the nature and content of the testimony [the witness] would provide, if
immunity were granted, and how that testimony would support a finding that the Respondents
had not violated the [NLRA], as alleged”). A representative list of such factors may be found on
the DOJ website, at https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-23000-witness-immunity#9-23.130.
For an example of a case where the Board issued such an order upon the
recommendation of the judge and the approval of the Attorney General, see Health Care
Employees District 1199 (Frances Schervier Home), 245 NLRB 800, 801 (1979). There, the
respondent union in an 8(b)(1)(A) violence case requested a grant of immunity for several
witnesses who were named as participants in the alleged violence, and both the General Counsel
and the charging party employer concurred in the request.
For an example where the Board found that such an order was not warranted, see
Carnegie Linen Services, Inc., 2-CA-39560; 2-RC-23436. In that case, the 8(a)(1) and (3)
complaint alleged that the respondent’s owner had inflicted bodily injury on an employee and
discharged him because of his union activities. A related objection in the consolidated
representation case alleged that the owner physically assaulted the employee by throwing coffee
in his face. The respondent requested that the hearing be postponed until the related criminal
charge against the owner involving the same incident was resolved. However, at the request of
the charging party union, and over the respondent’s objection, the judge recommended to the
Board that it seek approval from the Attorney General to issue an order requiring the owner to
testify at the Board hearing. The judge reasoned that the owner’s testimony was “necessary to
the public interest” under Section 102.31(c) because of the interest in expeditiously resolving the
unfair labor practice issues and because the representation proceeding had been blocked
pending resolution of those issues.
However, by unpublished order dated Oct. 28, 2010, the Board panel summarily rejected
the judge’s recommendation. It directed the judge to “proceed to hear the case as promptly as
possible,” and stated that “all parties may present whatever admissible evidence is available to
them and make any appropriate legal arguments, including arguments concerning what, if any,
inferences should be drawn based on any assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination.”
The judge thereafter proceeded to hear the case and issued a decision finding the alleged
violations, without drawing any adverse inferences based on the owner’s failure to testify, which
the Board affirmed. See 357 NLRB 2222 n. 1, 2230 (2011)).
As indicated in Section 102.31(c), absent a Board order, a witness asserting the privilege
should not be asked or permitted to testify about the subject matter of his Fifth Amendment claim.
See Domsey Trading Corp., 351 NLRB 824, 897 n. 76 (2007). See also North Hills Office
Services, Inc., 344 NLRB 1083 n. 1 (2005).
205
§ 16–502 FRE 502. Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on
Waiver
FRE 502 states:
The following provisions apply, in the circumstances set out, to disclosure of a
communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work-
product protection.
(a) Disclosure Made in a Federal Proceeding or to a Federal Office or
Agency; Scope of a Waiver.
When the disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or
agency and waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, the
waiver extends to an undisclosed communication or information in a federal or
state proceeding only if:
(1) the waiver is intentional;
(2) the disclosed and undisclosed communications or information concern the
same subject matter; and
(3) they ought in fairness to be considered together.
(b) Inadvertent Disclosure. When made in a federal proceeding or to a federal
office or agency, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a federal or state
proceeding if:
(1) the disclosure is inadvertent;
(2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent
disclosure; and
(3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including (if
applicable) following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).
(c) Disclosure Made in a State Proceeding. When the disclosure is made in a
state proceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver,
the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if the
disclosure:
(1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it had been made in a federal
proceeding; or
(2) is not a waiver under the law of the State where the disclosure occurred.
(d) Controlling Effect of a Court Order. A federal court may order that the
privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation
pending before the court―in which event the disclosure is also not a waiver in any
other federal or state proceeding.
(e) Controlling Effect of a Party Agreement. An agreement on the effect of
disclosure in a federal proceeding is binding only on the parties to the agreement,
unless it is incorporated into a court order.
(f) Controlling Effect of this Rule. Notwithstanding Rules 101 and 1101, this rule
applies to state proceedings and to federal court-annexed and federal court-
mandated arbitration proceedings, in the circumstances set out in the rule. And
notwithstanding Rule 501, this rule applies even if State law provides the rule of
decision.
(g) Definitions. In this rule:
(1) “attorney-client privilege” means the protection that applicable law provides
for confidential attorney-client communications; and
(2) “work-product protection” means the protection that applicable law provides
for tangible material (or its intangible equivalent) prepared in anticipation of
litigation or for trial.
206
Subdivision (a) addresses when the intentional disclosure of certain privileged or
protected communications in a federal proceeding may result in subject matter waiver with
respect to other related and undisclosed communications. The Advisory Committee notes
indicate that subject matter waiver under this subdivision is limited to “those unusual situations”
where a party intentionally offers privileged or protected testimony or documents into evidence in
a federal proceeding in a “selective, misleading and unfair manner,” i.e., to gain a tactical
advantage, such that “fairness requires” further disclosure of related, privileged or protected
information. See also Rice et al., 2 Attorney-Client Privilege in the U.S. §9:30 (Dec. 2021
Update) (“Courts will not allow the attorney-client privilege to be used as both a sword and
shield.”).
Subdivision (b) addresses “inadvertent” disclosures, stating that such disclosures in a
federal proceeding or to a federal officer or agency will not operate as a waiver if “reasonable
steps” were taken to prevent disclosure and to rectify the error. The Advisory Committee Notes
indicate that several factors may be considered in applying this rule, including the number of
documents to be reviewed and the time constraints for production.
For a Board case applying subdivision (b), see Church Square Supermarket, 356 NLRB
1357, 1369 n. 40 (2011) (rejecting the employer’s contention that a document it had previously
disclosed to the General Counsel in response to a subpoena was inadmissible under FRE 502,
as the disclosure was not “inadvertent” and/or the employer had failed to take reasonable steps to
prevent disclosure).
With respect to subdivision (d), a primary purpose of such orders is to expedite discovery
and relieve the subpoenaed party from conducting a lengthy and costly privilege review. See
Arconic Inc. v. Novelis Inc., 2019 WL 911417, *3 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 2019); and the Advisory
Committee Notes to FRE 502(d) and attached Statement of Congressional Intent. For examples
of such orders, see Swank v. DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc., 2021 WL 5140262, *5 (W.D. Wash.
Nov. 4, 2021); United States v. AT&T Inc., 2017 WL 6329012, *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 2017); and
Bond v. Antero Res. Corp., 2017 WL 6397753, *6 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 14, 2017). See also The
Sedona Principles, Third Edition: Best Practices, Recommendations & Principles for Addressing
Electronic Document Production A Project of the Sedona Conference Working Group on
Electronic Document Retention and Production, 19 Sedona Conf. J. 1, 150–51 (2018); and Model
Draft of a Rule 502(d) Order, 81 Fordham L. Rev. 1587, 1588 (2013). Note, however, that it is
unclear whether administrative law judges have the authority to issue such orders. Neither the
Board nor any circuit court appears to have addressed the issue since FRE 502 was enacted in
2008.
§ 16–600 Witnesses
The general rules governing witnesses are set forth in FRE 601–706.
§ 16–601 FRE 601. Competency to Testify in General
FRE 601 states:
Every person is competent to be a witness unless these rules provide otherwise.
But in a civil case, state law governs the witness’s competency regarding a claim
or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision.
207
State law on competency of witnesses does not apply in Board proceedings because the
Act is a federal statute and Section 10(b) of the Act provides that the federal rules of evidence
shall apply to Board proceedings “so far as practicable.” See also § 16–501, above. As a result,
most objections to competency are eliminated and are properly treated instead as bearing on
credibility and weight.
§ 16–601.1 Trial Attorney for Party
Unlike the courts, the Board does not pass on, and leaves to state bar associations to
decide, questions of ethical propriety of a party’s trial attorney testifying in a Board proceeding.
Thus, when the trial attorney’s testimony is otherwise relevant and competent, judges should
overrule objections based on canons of ethics. Reno Hilton, 319 NLRB 1154, 1185 n. 18 (1995);
Page Litho, Inc., 311 NLRB 881 n. 1, 889 (1993), enfd. in part mem. 65 F.3d 169 (6th Cir. 1995);
and Operating Engineers Local 9 (Fountain Sand), 210 NLRB 129 n. 1 (1974). See also
§ 6–210, Attorney as Witness, above.
§ 16–601.2 Interested Parties
Testimony by an interested party in the case may be relied on by the judge, even if self-
serving and uncorroborated, if it is “reasonably deemed to be credible and trustworthy . . . and is
not undermined by evidence to the contrary.” Sam’s Club v. NLRB, 141 F.3d 653, 658 (6th Cir.
1998). See also Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., 355 NLRB 1121 n. 2 (2010), enfd. 2011 WL
7645787 (6th Cir. 2011).
§ 16–602 FRE 602. Need for Personal Knowledge
FRE 602 states:
A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to
support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.
Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own
testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony under Rule
703.
A witness’s personal knowledge may include inferences and opinions, provided they are
grounded in personal observation and experience. U.S. v. Flores-Rivera, 787 F. 3d 1, 28 (1st
Cir. 2015); and U.S. v. Whittemore, 776 F.3d 1074, 1082 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. denied 577 U.S.
822 (2015). See, for example, Comet Fast Freight, Inc., 262 NLRB 430, 432 n. 11 (1982). In
that case, the Board held that a witness had the requisite personal knowledge under FRE 602 to
testify that “other drivers did not mind driving the red truck like I did.” The Board found that the
record established sufficient factual predicates for the witness’s testimony; specifically, that the
witness was employed as a driver at the same terminal as the other drivers, the truck was driven
by other drivers, and none of them ever complained that it was unsafe. See also § 16–701,
Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses, below.
Where a witness lacks sufficient memory or recall of an event to establish personal
knowledge, the testimony may properly be excluded. See, for example, Warren -Higgins v.
Indiana University Health, Inc., 2021 WL 4691609, *1 (7th Cir. Oct. 7, 2021) (district court
properly excluded plaintiff-employee’s testimony that supervisor made disparaging remarks about
her, as she was unable to distinguish which comments she heard from the supervisor and which
she heard secondhand from coworkers, and thus she failed to establish personal knowledge
208
under FRE 602 sufficient to determine if her testimony was admissible nonhearsay or
inadmissible hearsay).
However, a witness’s lack of absolute certainty about the accuracy of his/her observations
(e.g. “I believe so” or “I think so”) does not require exclusion of the testimony for lack of personal
knowledge under FRE 602. See Goode & Wellborn, Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid. Rule
603 (2020 ed.), citing M.B.A.F.B. Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., 681
F.2d 930, 832 (4th Cir. 1982). See also Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 102, slip op. at 2
n.6 (2021) (ALJ properly denied respondent’s motion to strike union bargaining team member’s
testimony about bargaining meetings, notwithstanding that his memory was refreshed during the
hearing using a prehearing affidavit that he prepared after consulting the notes of another
bargaining team member and that was not placed in evidence, as he had personal knowledge of
what happened at the bargaining meetings).
Nevertheless, lack of certainty may be considered in evaluating how much weight to give
the testimony. See, e.g., Kroger Ltd. Partnership I Mid-Atlantic, 368 NLRB No. 64, slip op. at
12 n. 23 (2019), enfd. sub nom. Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 400 v. NLRB,
989 F.3d 1034 n. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2021). But see Double D Construction Group, Inc., 339 NLRB
303, 304 (2003) (ALJ erred by giving no weight to a union official’s testimony that he “believed”
the company president saw him and the alleged discriminatee sitting together at the NLRB office
following the election, while giving weight to the president’s uncertain testimony that the
discriminatee “could have been” at the NLRB office but that he did “not recall” him being there).
§ 16–603 FRE 603. Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully
FRE 603 states:
Before testifying, a witness must give an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully. It
must be in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness’s conscience.
With respect to the practice of “affirming,” the Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule
603 states:
The rule is designed to afford the flexibility required in dealing with
religious adults…. Affirmation is simply a solemn undertaking to
tell the truth; no special verbal formula is required. As is true
generally, affirmation is recognized by federal law. “Oath,”
includes affirmation, 1 U.S.C. Sec. 1; judges and clerks may
administer oaths and affirmations, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 459, 953; and
affirmations are acceptable in lieu of oaths under Rule 43(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Perjury by a witness is a
crime, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621.
See § 1–400, Witness Oath, above, for a discussion of witness oaths in Board hearings.
See also § 16–610, Religious Beliefs or Opinions, below, for a discussion of the consideration of
a witness’s religious beliefs in making credibility determinations.
See § 1–400, above, for a discussion of witness oaths in Board hearings.
§ 16–604 FRE 604. Interpreter
FRE 604 states:
209
An interpreter must be qualified and must give an oath or affirmation to make a
true translation
See § 1–500, above, for a sample interpreter's oath.
Interpreters are normally used to translate the testimony of a witness who is unable to
understand or communicate sufficiently well in spoken English. See Goode & Wellborn,
Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid. Rule 604 (March 2021 Update). This may include situations
where a witness is able to understand and speak English but has such a heavy accent that the
witness’s testimony would likely be unintelligible and result in significant errors or gaps in the
record. See, e.g., Morgan v. Protuondo, 2003 WL 21817596, *7 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); and
Spavento v. U.S., 939 F.Supp. 233 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), affd. 162 F.3d 1148 (2d Cir. 1998).
§ 16–604.1 Simultaneous or Consecutive Interpretation
The Court Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1827(k), states as follows with respect to
interpretation in federal court proceedings:
The interpretation provided by certified or otherwise qualified interpreters
pursuant to this section shall be in the simultaneous mode for any party to a
judicial proceeding instituted by the United States and in the consecutive mode
for witnesses, except that the presiding judicial officer, sua sponte or on the
motion of a party, may authorize a simultaneous, or consecutive interpretation
when such officer determines after a hearing on the record that such
interpretation will aid in the efficient administration of justice.
See also U.S. v. Heyer, 740 F.3d 284, 290–291 (4th Cir. 2014).
The Board has not passed on whether simultaneous or consecutive interpretation is
preferred or presumptively appropriate in unfair labor practice proceedings. Like other issues
relating to the method or manner of presenting testimony and other evidence, this is an issue left
to the sound discretion of the judge. See, e.g., Dickens, Inc., 355 NLRB 255, 256–257 (2010)
(judge acted within his discretion and in a commonsense manner to expedite the trial by ordering
that tape recordings of alleged incidents be played in open court with simultaneous translation).
§ 16–604.2 Objections to Interpretation
Interpreters should strive to translate exactly what was said, without comment or
embellishment. Generally, there is no objection over the use of interpreters, although sometimes
questions arise over the accuracy of the translation. In such cases, the version of the official
interpreter governs, unless the judge, after due consideration, decides otherwise. See NLRB v.
Bakers of Paris, Inc., 929 F.2d 1427, 1436 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1991) (acknowledging “the need for the
trier of fact in any judicial proceeding to consider the accuracy of the translations presented” and
suggesting that the presence of an “official” translation may not always resolve the issue). See
also Coastal Insulation Corp., 354 NLRB 495, 497 (2009), reaffd. 355 NLRB 705 (2010) (judge
advised that the interpreter’s translation would constitute the transcribed record, but allowed the
charging party an opportunity to challenge the translation).
Particular care should be given to the use of interpreters when assessing the credibility of
a witness. It may be appropriate for the judge to restrict the use of interpreters in certain
circumstances; for example, when alleged threats are made in English, the witness should be
able to recount what was said in English. See Northern Cap Mfg. Co., 146 NLRB 198, 201–204
210
(1964). See also UNF, West, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 96, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2015), enfd. 844 F.3d 451
(5th Cir. 2016); and Yaohan U.S.A. Corp., 319 NLRB 424 n. 2 (1995), enfd. mem. 121 F.3d 720
(9th Cir. 1997) (finding in both cases that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in restricting
the use of interpreters for witnesses who demonstrated some ability to converse in English).
Where interpretation is necessary, the judge should carefully monitor the translation
process to ensure that both the interpreter and the witness understood the questions asked and
that the witness’s answers were accurately interpreted. See NLRB v. Del Ray Tortilleria, Inc.,
787 F.2d 1118, 1121-1122 (7th Cir. 1986), enfg. 272 NLRB 1106, 1115 n. 21 (1984).
§ 16–604.3 Translation of Documents.
In appropriate circumstances, to avoid delay in the hearing, the official hearing interpreter
may be asked to translate documents or recordings. See Dickens, Inc., 355 NLRB 255, 256–
257 (2010) (judge acted within his discretion and in a “commonsense” manner to expedite the
progress of the trial by having the hearing interpreter translate a tape recording that the judge had
ordered the General Counsel to turn over to respondent’s counsel).
In NLRB v. Doral Building Services, 666 F.2d 432, 435 (9th Cir. 1982), the court held
that the General Counsel erroneously failed to provide an official translation of non-English
language affidavits of his witnesses. The court indicated that it is not adequate to simply provide
the original native-language affidavit and “unofficial” English translation prepared by a Board
agent to the respondent and leave it up to the respondent to provide its own translator. The case
was remanded so that the respondent could be provided with an “official” English translation of
the original foreign language statements.
What constitutes a sufficient “official” translation was subsequently addressed in
International Medication Systems, 274 NLRB 1197, 1199, n. 4 (1985). There, the Board agent
who translated the affidavits certified at the bottom that he or she was bilingual in English and
Spanish and had translated the affidavits correctly. The employer argued that this was
insufficient under Doral. However, the judge stated that the Board agent’s certification appeared
to be “as ‘official’ as the Board can get.” The judge further noted that an official translator was
present at the hearing, who could have addressed any questions as to the accuracy of the Board
agent’s translation. Accordingly, he denied the employer’s motion to strike the witness’s
testimony. The Board affirmed the judge’s rulings on exceptions. The judge’s ruling was also
later noted, without any expressed disapproval, in NLRB v. Bakers of Paris, Inc., 929 F.2d
1427, 1436 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1991). See also § 16–613 (FRE 613), below, regarding use of prior
statements for impeachment.
§ 16–604.4 Assisting Hearing Impaired Witness
A court has discretion whether to appoint an interpreter or facilitator under FRE 604 and
611(a) to assist a hearing-impaired witness. See U.S. v. Damra, 621 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 2010),
cert. denied 563 U.S. 1021 (2011).
In Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278 n. 7 (1996), the Board held that respondents were not
denied due process when the judge failed to provide or offer special auditory enhancement
devices to assist the company president who was hearing impaired. Although respondents’
counsel informed the judge of the problem, counsel made no request for the equipment. The
judge on several occasions instructed witnesses to speak louder and there were no
contemporaneous complaints that those instructions were not sufficient to reasonably
211
accommodate the president’s hearing problems. The Board also noted that neither the Act nor
the Board’s Rules require an unsolicited offer to provide this equipment.
§ 16–604.5 Appointment and Payment of Interpreter
In George Joseph Orchard Siding, Inc., 325 NLRB 252, 252–253 (1998), the Board
upheld the discretion of the judge to order the General Counsel to provide an interpreter in the
unfair labor practice proceeding. Specifically, the Board (over the dissent of two Members) found:
(1) that administrative law judges have “discretionary authority” to appoint interpreters in unfair
labor practice cases, and (2) that the GC “failed to establish that the judge abused his discretion
by ordering the Agency to provide [and pay for] an interpreter in this case.”
In a later backpay case involving about 200 unfair labor practice strikers, the Board also
upheld the discretion of the judge to decline to order the General Counsel to provide and pay for
an interpreter. Domsey Trading Corp., 325 NLRB 429, 429–432 (1998). The judge declined to
order the GC to pay an interpreter for discriminatees called by the respondent employer because
it was the respondent’s burden to establish interim earnings and failure to mitigate, and requiring
the Agency to pay the cost of interpreters would “in essence, give the Respondent a blank check
to spend the Government’s money to defend itself.” The Board (with the dissenters in George
Joseph now in the majority) found that the judge properly exercised his discretion under the
circumstances. See also Ji Shiang, Inc., 357 NLRB 1292, 1293 n. 4 (2011) (likewise rejecting
the respondent’s assertion that the General Counsel was required to pay for interpretation of its
witnesses in the backpay proceeding).
§ 16–605 FRE 605. Judge’s Competency as a Witness
FRE 605 states:
The presiding judge may not testify as a witness at the trial. A party need not
object to preserve the issue.
§ 16–607 FRE 607. Who May Impeach a Witness
FRE 607 states:
Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s
credibility.
§ 16–607.1 Impeachment Generally
There are several ways to impeach a witness, including (1) attacking the witness’s
personal knowledge or ability to perceive or recall the event; (2) contradicting the witness’s
testimony by eliciting or presenting inconsistent or contrary testimony or documents; (3) showing
that the witness is biased or interested in the outcome; (4) attacking the witness’s character for
truthfulness; and (5) showing that the witness made prior inconsistent statements about the
event. See Goode & Wellborn, Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid. Rule 607 (March 2021
Update).
Specific limitations on (4) and (5) are set forth in FRE 608–610 and 613. See §§ 16-608
(character for untruthfulness), 16-609 (evidence of criminal conviction), 16-610 (religious beliefs),
16–613 (prior inconsistent statements), below. See also § 16-607. 2, below, about protecting the
identities of prounion employees.
212
In general, a judge has discretion to also limit cross-examination of a witness “when it
degenerates into a fishing expedition, when it becomes coercive, when there is no development
of material or relevant evidence or of contradictions, where there is no reason to believe there are
inconsistent declaration[s] or matters that would impeach the witnesses credibility, and where
no foundation is laid that further inquiry would reasonably disclose some relevant new evidence.”
Bethlehem Temple Learning Center, Inc., 330 NLRB 1177, 1184 (2000). See also U.S. v.
Martínez-Vives, 475 F.3d 48, 53–54 (1st Cir. 2007) (“The court may limit cross-examination if the
defendant is unable to lay a proper evidentiary foundation. Where the theory of bias is inherently
speculative, the court may prohibit cross-examiners from mounting fishing expeditions.”).
However, the judge should be careful not to unduly restrict questions or evidence
pertaining to impeachment. See, for example, Halstead Industries, 299 NLRB 759 n. 1 (1990).
In that case, the judge, affirmed by the Board, refused to receive evidence in support of the
respondent company’s offer of proof that the General Counsel's main witness was biased against
it and favored the alleged discriminatee because of the witness’s “intimate relationship” with the
company's former employee relations director who was hostile toward the company. The
company argued that the former director was using the GC's main witness to give false testimony
to show an unlawful motive by the plant manager. The court remanded the case so that the
impeachment evidence could be considered and weighed. Halstead Metal Products v. NLRB,
940 F.2d 66, 72–73 (4th Cir. 1991). See also U.S. v. Sanabria, 645 F.3d 505, 514–15 (1st Cir.
2011) (distinguishing U.S. v. Martínez-Vives, above, and reversing the district court where it did
not give the defendant a chance to lay any evidentiary foundation and the proposed cross-
examination “was not, on its face, a speculation fueled ‘fishing expedition’” as defendant’s
counsel represented to the court personal knowledge of statements by the witness indicating
potential bias or coercion).
§ 16–607.2 Limits on Impeachment: Names of Prounion Employees
In National Telephone Directory Corp., 319 NLRB 420, 422 (1995), the Board held that
the respondent company could not obtain the identity of current employees who had signed
authorization cards or attended union meetings. The Board held that the potential chilling effect
on union activity outweighed the employer’s right to test the credibility of the General Counsel’s
witnesses during cross-examination, and that the employees’ confidentiality interests could only
be waived by the employees themselves. See also the additional cases cited in § 8–455, Identity
of Union Supporters Protected (Authorization Cards), above.
§ 16–608 FRE 608. A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness
FRE 608 states:
(a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence. A witness’s credibility may be attacked or
supported by testimony about the witness’s reputation for having a character for
truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that
character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness’s
character for truthfulness has been attacked.
(b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule
609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s
conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness. But
the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are
probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of:
(1) the witness; or
213
(2) another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has
testified about.
By testifying on another matter, a witness does not waive any privilege against
self-incrimination for testimony that relates only to the witness’s character for
truthfulness.
§ 16–608.1 Impeachment on Collateral Matters
Under FRE 608(b), a judge may disallow impeachment of a witness on a collateral matter
that is not probative of the witness’s propensity to testify untruthfully concerning a material issue.
See Erickson’s Inc., 366 NLRB No. 171, slip op. at 1 n.2, and 5 (2018) (judge precluded
respondent’s counsel from questioning a discriminatee about being terminated from a prior job as
a police officer), enfd. 929 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2019); Sunshine Piping, Inc., 351 NLRB 1371,
1374–1376 (2007) (judge could have excluded cross-examination of witness’s prior drug related
acts as it was not relevant to alleged alteration of attendance records); Operating Engineers
Local 17 (Hertz Equipment Rental), 335 NLRB 578, 583 n. 11 (2001) (judge precluded
respondent from cross-examining witness about whether she had ever been accused of stealing
from the company); Ponderosa Granite Co., 267 NLRB 212 n. 1 (1983) (judge should have
excluded testimony by a deputy sheriff that eight bad check warrants had been issued against the
alleged discriminatee, as it was not evidence of a criminal conviction and involved a mere
collateral matter). See also J.S. Troup Electric, Inc., 344 NLRB 1009, 1009–1010 (2005)
(application of FRE 608(b) is subject to Rule 403, which permits a judge to bar cross-examination
of a witness about specific bad acts if its probative value is outweighed by considerations of
undue delay or waste of time).
With respect to questioning witnesses in the merits proceeding about whether they had
made prior false statements about their immigration status and eligibility to work, see Farm Fresh
Company, Target One, LLC, 361 NLRB 848 n. 1 (2014), discussed in § 16–402.5, above (judge
did not abuse his discretion in preventing the respondent employer from questioning the alleged
discriminatees about their immigration status in the merits proceeding). See also Double D
Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303 (2003). In that case, the Board found that the judge erred
in discrediting the alleged discriminatee solely on the basis that he admitted giving the
respondent a false Social Security number to obtain employment, without considering other
credibility factors. The Board noted (id. at 305 n. 14) that the judge “arguably” could have refused
to admit the evidence under FRE 608, citing Enterprise Industrial Piping Co., 117 NLRB 995 n.
2 (1957) (trial examiner did not abuse his discretion in refusing to permit cross-examination
concerning an employee’s false statements on an unemployment insurance claim).
For a court case discussing this issue, see U.S. v. Almeida-Perez, 549 F.3d 1162, 1174–
1175 (8th Cir. 2008). The court held that the magistrate judge’s inquiry about the circumstances
under which the witnesses entered the country was not plain error, citing FRE 608(b) and two
cases where unlawful entry or other violations of immigration laws were considered admissible
because relevant to truthfulness (U.S. v. Cardales, 168 F.3d 548, 557 (1st Cir.), cert. denied 528
U.S. 838 (1999); and U.S. v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603, 633 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied
446 U.S. 940 (1980)). However, the court noted that “the use of such evidence is fraught with the
danger of prejudice to a defendant by introducing the possibility of invidious discrimination on the
basis of alienage. See FRE 403.” It added that “the relevance of an immigration violation to
character for truthfulness is at the least debatable and would depend on the facts of the particular
violation since many immigration violations do not involve a false statement.” See also Rivera v.
NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2004); and Rengifo v. Erovos Enterprises, Inc.,
2007 WL 894376 (S.D. N.Y. March 20, 2007) (quashing employer subpoenas seeking information
about the plaintiff’s immigration status, notwithstanding its asserted relevance to credibility,
214
because of the potential chilling effect it would have on the willingness of plaintiffs to bring civil
rights claims).
Note also that, as with subpoenas seeking after-acquired evidence of misconduct (see
§ 16–402.5, above), courts generally will not permit a party to engage in a “fishing expedition” to
discover evidence of collateral matters relevant to impeachment. See Taylor v. City of New
York, 2020 WL 6559412, *5 (S.D. N.Y. Nov. 9, 2020); and Alvarado v. GC Dealer Services Inc.,
2018 WL 6322188, *4 (E.D. N.Y. Dec. 3, 2018) (“Courts have required parties to establish good
cause where discovery is sought solely to unearth potential impeachment material, and have not
found such cause where the request is speculative.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
§ 16–608.2 Use of extrinsic evidence
Even if testimony on a collateral matter is allowed, the use of extrinsic evidence to prove it
in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness is generally prohibited (unless
it involves a criminal conviction, see §16–609, below). Thus, admission of extrinsic evidence of
specific acts to attack a witness’s response to questions about a collateral matter is not permitted,
unless it tends to show bias or motive to testify untruthfully. See Sunshine Piping; Ponderosa
Granite; and J.S. Troup Electric, above.
An exception may be made, however, where a witness on direct is found to have “opened
the door” for such evidence by making a broad disclaimer of misconduct. Relying on the concept
of “impeachment by contradiction,” a judge may admit extrinsic, specific instance evidence that
would be otherwise inadmissible under Rules 404 and 608(b). See, e.g., U.S. v. Antonakeas,
255 F.3d 714, 724 (2001) (trial judge properly allowed testimony by a witness that the defendant
had sold him cocaine, where the defendant on direct had made sweeping denials of having any
involvement in drugs). “This approach has been justified on the grounds that the witness should
not be permitted to engage in perjury, mislead the trier of fact, and then shield himself from
impeachment by asserting the collateral-fact doctrine.” 2A Wright & Gold, Federal Practice and
Procedure, § 6119 (2d ed. Apr. 2021 Update) (citing cases).
§ 16–608.3 Evaluating Credibility Based on Specific Acts
With respect to the appropriate weight to give specific prior acts in evaluating credibility,
see Double D Construction, above, in which the Board criticized a judge for discrediting a
witness for lying about his social security number in the past, without taking into account all of the
factors tending to support his credibility at the time of his testimony. See also Boardwalk
Regency Corp., 344 NLRB 984 n. 1 (2005) (Double D Construction stands for the proposition
that “a judge should not rely solely on a single prior act of falsification” in making credibility
determinations; if there are other factors supporting the witness’s credibility, “they too must be
considered”), pet. for rev. denied 196 Fed. Appx. 59 (3d Cir. 2006).
§ 16–609 FRE 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction
FRE 609 states in relevant part:
(a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking a witness’s character for
truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction:
(1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by
imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence:
(A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case . . . ;
. . . and
215
(2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if
the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime
required proving—or the witness’s admitting—a dishonest act or false statement.
(b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This subdivision (b) applies if
more than 10 years have passed since the witness’s conviction or release from
confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the conviction is admissible only
if:
(1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances,
substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and
(2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent
to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.
(c) Effect of a Pardon, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation. Evidence of
a conviction is not admissible if:
(1) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of
rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding that the person has
been rehabilitated, and the person has not been convicted of a later crime
punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year; or
(2) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other
equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.
(d) Juvenile Adjudications. Evidence of a juvenile adjudication is [not] admissible
under this rule [in a civil case] . . . .
(e) Pendency of an Appeal. A conviction that satisfies this rule is admissible even
if an appeal is pending. Evidence of the pendency is also admissible.
Under FRE 609(a), a witness may be impeached by reference to prior criminal convictions
(not merely arrests) within the past 10 years if: (1) they are punishable by death or imprisonment
over 1 year, or (2) the elements of the crime required proof or admission of an act of dishonesty
or false statement. However, FRE 609(a)(1) is expressly “subject to Rule 403,” which, as
discussed in § 16–403 above, provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
delay, or wasting time. For a Board case applying FRE 609(a)(1) and (2), see Erickson’s Inc.,
366 NLRB No. 171, slip op. at 1 n.2, and 5 (2018) (precluding respondent’s counsel from
introducing evidence of a discriminatee’s prior felony conviction within the last 10 years both
because exclusion was proper under FRE 403 and because the conviction was not for a crime
entailing any element of dishonesty of falsification), enfd. 929 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2019).
Under FRE 609(b), if more than 10 years have passed since the witness’s conviction or
release from confinement, whichever is later, the evidence of conviction is admissible only if “its
probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its
prejudicial effect,” and the proponent gives the adverse party “reasonable notice” of the intent to
use it. For a Board case applying FRE 609(b), see Pessoa Construction Co., 361 NLRB 1174
n. 1 and 1177 n. 6 (2014) (judge in the supplemental backpay proceeding did not abuse his
discretion in excluding evidence of the discriminatee’s prior criminal convictions given, inter alia,
the passage of time and respondents’ failure to provide reasonable written notice of its intent to
use the evidence), enfd. 632 Fed. Appx. 760, 768 (4th Cir. 2015).
The judge may, of course, still credit a witness notwithstanding such convictions. See
Franklin Iron & Metal Corp., 315 NLRB 819 n. 1 (1994) (judge considered a witness’s felony
conviction within the last 10 years for carrying a concealed weapon, but nevertheless credited the
witness’s substantially corroborated testimony), enfd. 83 F.3d 156 (6th Cir. 1996).
216
§ 16–610 FRE 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions
FRE 610 states:
Evidence of a witness’s religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or
support the witness’s credibility.
See Rike’s, 241 NLRB 240 n. 1 (1979) (citing FRE 610 in finding that the trial judge erred
by crediting a witness based in part on her “religious convictions”).
FRE 610 does not preclude evidence of religious beliefs or opinions to show motive or
bias. See Firemen’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Thien, 63 F.3d 754, 760–761 (8th Cir. 1995).
For a discussion of whether the judge should exclude evidence that a witness is a full or
part-time minister, see U.S. v. Davis, 779 F.3d 1305, 1310 (11th Cir. 2015) (FRE 610 does not
bar such evidence, but the judge has discretion to exclude it under FRE 403 where it has limited
probative value that is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice), cert denied 136 S.Ct. 97
(2015). For a discussion of witnesses “affirming” versus swearing an oath, see § 16–603, above.
§ 16–611 FRE 611. Mode and Order of Presenting Evidence
FRE 611 states:
(a) Control by the Court; Purposes. The court should exercise reasonable
control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence
so as to:
(1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth;
(2) avoid wasting time; and
(3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
(b) Scope of Cross-Examination. Cross-examination should not go beyond the
subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness’s
credibility. The court may allow inquiry into additional matters as if on direct
examination.
(c) Leading Questions. Leading questions should not be used on direct
examination except as necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily,
the court should allow leading questions:
(1) on cross-examination; and
(2) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified
with an adverse party.
§ 16–611.1 Mode and Order of Examination
Pursuant to FRE 611(a), trial judges retain broad discretion to exercise reasonable control
over the order in which litigants interrogate witnesses and present evidence. See Geders v.
U.S., 425 U.S. 80 (1976); U.S. v. Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1994) (neither
confrontation clause nor due process clause restricts trial judge’s broad discretion to exercise
reasonable control over the order in which litigants interrogate witnesses and present
evidence). See also Graham, 5 Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 611 (9th ed. Nov. 2021 Update) (“the
entire matter of order of presentation of evidence and mode of witness examination rest largely in
the discretion of the trial judge”).
Controlling the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence may
include imposing reasonable time limits on the proceedings and limiting the number of witnesses
217
who may testify about a particular fact to avoid cumulative, repetitive, or irrelevant testimony.
See Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 127 (1974); and § 2–300, above, regarding the
ALJ’s authority and duty to regulate the course of the hearing under Section 102.35(a)(6) of the
Board’s Rules. It may also include refusing to allow the recall of a witness who has already
testified. See, e.g., New York Party Shuttle v. NLRB, 18 F.4th 753, 769 (5th Cir. 2021) (ALJ in
compliance proceeding did not abuse discretion by refusing to allow respondent to recall the
Agency’s compliance officer to testify about issues that respondent had already fully cross-
examined her about). But see United States v. Edelin, 128 F.Supp.2d 23, 47 (D.D.C. 2001)
(permitting government to present case in chronological order by recalling witnesses).
For a further discussion of these and other common issues arising under FRE 611(a) and
the discretion of courts to deal with them—including common testimonial or evidentiary
objections, presenting or examining witnesses out of turn, and restricting or placing limits on the
number of witnesses or the amount of time to examine them—see Graham, 5 Handbook of Fed.
Evid. § 611 (9th ed. Nov. 2021 Update); Goode & Wellborn, Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid.
Rule 611 (March 2021 Update); and Wright & Miller et al., 28 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6164
(2d ed. April 2021 Update).
§ 16–611.2 Cross-Examination Beyond the Scope
The first sentence of FRE 611(b) states that cross-examination should not go beyond the
subject matter of direct or matters affecting the witness’s credibility. However, the courts have
generally defined “subject matter” broadly or liberally to include “reasonably related” matters.
Goode & Wellborn, above, citing e.g., U.S. v. Bozovich, 782 F.3d 814, 816 (7th Cir. 2015); See
also Graham, above, citing U.S. v. Arnott, 704 F.2d 322, 324 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied 464
U.S. 948 (1983). Further, the second sentence gives a judge discretion to “allow inquiry into
additional matters as if on direct examination,” and judges often do so (for example, to develop a
full record without recalling witnesses). The judge should use his or her best judgment in the
circumstances.
§ 16–611.3 Redirect, Recross, Rebuttal, and Surrebuttal Testimony
FRE 611 does not address redirect and recross examination or rebuttal and surrebuttal
testimony. Judges therefore have broad discretion. See Graham, above, §§ 611.11 and 611.12;
and U.S. v. Maldonado-Peña, 4 F.4th 1, 34–35 n. 20 (1st Cir.) (recognizing trial court’s extensive
discretion in controlling recross examination), cert. denied --- S. Ct ---, 2021 WL 5869518 (Dec.
13, 2021). See also Garden Ridge Management, Inc., 347 NLRB 131 n. 3 (2006) (“the
admissibility of evidence on rebuttal is within the discretion of the judge, even if the evidence is
not technically proper rebuttal evidence”), citing Water’s Edge, 293 NLRB 465 n. 2 (1989) (judge
did not abuse his discretion by admitting testimony by a General Counsel witness on rebuttal,
even though it was technically not proper rebuttal because it was not introduced to refute
evidence provided by the respondent’s witness), enfd. in part 14 F.3d 811 (2d Cir. 1994);
Bethlehem Temple Learning Center, Inc., 330 NLRB 1177 n. 1 (2000) (judge did not abuse his
discretion in rejecting, as too late, respondent’s proffer of evidence on surrebuttal that the
charging party/alleged discriminatee had a criminal conviction to attack her credibility), citing U.S.
v. Mitan, 966 F.2d 1165, 1176 (7th Cir. 1992) (trial court has broad discretion to reject rebuttal
and surrebuttal testimony and does not abuse it where the party had an opportunity to introduce
the evidence at an earlier point), cert. denied 506 U.S. 1059 (1993); and First Class
Maintenance, 289 NLRB 484 n. 4 (1988) (judge properly refused to allow certain rebuttal
testimony offered by the General Counsel, as the evidence would have been cumulative and
counsel for the GC had 9 days’ notice that he might desire the testimony but did not have the
witness available at the time he sought to introduce it).
218
However, if the judge allows a new, significant matter to be raised on redirect or rebuttal,
then recross or surrebuttal should also be permitted. See Goode & Wellborn, above; and
Wright & Miller et al., above.
§ 16–611.4 Leading Questions/Hostile Witnesses
FRE 611(c)(2) states that leading questions should not be permitted on direct examination
except when necessary to develop the witness’s testimony, or when questioning a hostile or
adverse witness or a witness identified with an adverse party.
For examples where leading questions have been allowed to develop testimony, see
W & M Properties of Connecticut, Inc., 348 NLRB 162 (2006) (judge did not err in permitting
the General Counsel to ask leading questions on direct examination “to develop the witness’s
testimony” after several nonleading questions were unsuccessful in eliciting certain testimony),
enfd. 514 F.3d 1341 (D.C. Cir. 2008); and U.S. v. Torres, 894 F.3d 305, 317 (D.C. Cir. 2018)
(district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing leading questions where the witness was
unusually hesitant and more open-ended questions had yielded lengthy delays and fragmentary
responses).
The most common, clear-cut, and uncontested example of a witness who is hostile or
adverse or identified with an adverse party in Board proceedings is a current manager or
supervisor of a respondent employer who is called by the General Counsel under FRE 611(c) to
testify about facts relevant to the employer’s alleged unlawful conduct. Whether a former
manager or supervisor qualifies may be less clear, however. It may depend on various factors,
including the reasons the manager or supervisor separated from the employer, whether he/she
was involved in the employer’s alleged unlawful conduct or had an ongoing relationship with the
employer’s key witnesses, and whether he/she exhibited hostility while testifying. See Doe by
Watson v. Russell County School Board, 2018 WL 1089277 (W.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2018);
Gibbons v. Village of Sauk Village, 2017 WL 4882334, *4 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2017); SEC v.
Goldstone, 317 F.R.D. 147, 167–169 (D.N.M. 2016); Robinson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
86 Fed. Appx. 73, 76 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2004); and Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 775 F.Supp.
1397, 1398 (D. Colo. 1991), and cases cited there.
A charging party discriminatee is also an adverse witness when called by the respondent.
Security Services, Inc., 198 NLRB 1166 (1972) (it was reversible error for the judge to preclude
the respondent from calling the charging party discriminatee as an adverse witness rather than its
own witness).
Other common examples where the courts have allowed leading questions on direct are
where the questions relate to undisputed preliminary matters or where a witness’s memory is
exhausted. Wright & Miller et al., 28 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6168 (2d ed. April 2021
Update); Graham, 5 Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 611.8 (9th ed. Nov. 2021 Update); and Goode &
Wellborn, Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid. Rule 611 (March 2021 Update).
Whether a question is leading usually depends on its phrasing and context. Typically, a
leading question suggests or hints at the answer the witness should give. For example, a
question that begins with “Isn’t it true that . . .” is clearly leading. Questions may also be leading
where they may invoke a false memory or induce the witness to testify only about certain details
that the examining party views as favorable rather than everything the witness remembers about
an event. Ibid.
219
If counsel improperly uses leading questions, the judge should caution counsel against
doing so, either on objection from opposing counsel or on the judge’s own motion. Liberty
Coach Co., 128 NLRB 160, 162 n. 7 (1960). Where a witness has already answered an
improper leading question, the answer is admissible but entitled to “minimal weight.” ODS
Chauffeured Transportation, 367 NLRB No. 87, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2019), citing H.C. Thomson,
230 NLRB 808 (1977).
No advance request or ruling is necessary before beginning examination of a hostile or
adverse witness under FRE 611(c). The test of that right comes when the opponent objects that a
question is leading. Omaha Building Trades Council (Crossroads Joint Venture), 284 NLRB
328, 329 n. 4 (1987), enfd. 856 F.2d 47 (8th Cir. 1988).
Generally, after direct examination of the adverse witness under FRE 611(c), the
nonadverse party may be prohibited from asking leading questions on cross-examination except
as necessary to focus the witness’ attention on the subject matter and further develop the
witness’s prior testimony on direct. For example, it is improper for the nonadverse party who
seeks to explain the witness’s previous testimony on direct to incorporate the explanation in the
question. See Graham, above, §§ 611.8, 611.10, and 611.12. The judge, however, retains
discretion to allow leading questions under FRE 611(a). See Alpha Display Paging, Inc. v.
Motorola Communications, 867 F.2d 1168, 1171 (8th Cir. 1989); Stahl v. Sun Microsystems,
above, 775 F.Supp. at 1398–1399; and Pendleton v. Bob Frensley Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram,
Inc., 2016 WL 1703740, *3 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 17, 2016); and cases cited there.
§ 16–611.5 Failure to Call Witness: Adverse Inference
Although not addressed in FRE 611, a judge may draw an adverse inference when a party
fails without explanation to call a witness reasonably assumed to be favorably disposed toward it.
“[T]he decision to draw an adverse inference lies within the discretion of the factfinder.” JAM
Productions, Ltd., 371 NLRB No. 26, slip op. at 16 n. 53 (2021), citing Tom Rice Buick, 334
NLRB 785, 786 (2001).
Current managers, supervisor, officers, or agents. The so-called “missing witness” rule is
most often applied to a party’s current managers, supervisors, officers, or agents. With respect to
employers, see, e.g., Sparks Restaurant, 366 NLRB No. 97, slip op. at 9–10 (2018) (drawing an
adverse inference against the employer for failing to call its manager to testify), enfd. 805 Fed.
Appx. 2 (D.C. Cir. 2020); Martin Luther King, Sr. Nursing Center, 231 NLRB 15 n. 1 (1977)
(same, where the employer failed without explanation to call its supervisors to testify); and
Dayton Newspapers, Inc., 339 NLRB 650, 664 (2003) (same, where employer failed to call a
dispatcher who attended meetings between operations director and employees), enfd. in part 402
F.3d 651, 661–662 (6th Cir. 2005). Compare Quicken Loans, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 112, slip op.
at 3 n. 9 (2019) (judge erred in finding that a missing witness was an agent of the respondent
employer simply because he was a current employee within the employer’s control).
With respect to unions, see Government Employees (IBPO), 327 NLRB 676, 699
(1999), enfd. mem. 205 F.3d 1324 (2d Cir. 1999) (drawing an adverse inference against the
respondent union where it failed to call its president to testify); and Vigo Industrial, LLC, 363
NLRB No. 70, slip op. at 5 (2015) (drawing an adverse inference from the failure of the General
Counsel or charging party union to call the individual who served as the union co-chair of the
particular labor-management committee meeting at issue), and cases cited there. See also
Global Contact Services, Inc., 29–RC–134071, unpub. Board order issued April 28, 2015 (2015
WL 1939736), at n. 1 (union’s business agent may reasonably be presumed to be favorably
disposed to union).
220
Other persons who would favor the party. The rule has also been applied to other
witnesses who would reasonably be expected to favor a party. See, e.g., Equinox Holding, Inc.,
364 NLRB No. 103, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2016) (employer’s failure to call the employees who
allegedly reported the purported objectionable preelection conduct to manager warranted an
adverse inference); and Desert Springs Hospital, 363 NLRB No. 185, slip op. at 6 (2016)
(employer’s failure to call an employee warranted an adverse inference where the employee’s
purported complaint to management was one of the reasons the alleged discriminatee was
terminated), and cases cited there. Compare Quicken Loans, Inc., above, 367 NLRB No. 112,
slip op. at 3 (judge abused his discretion by drawing an adverse inference against the respondent
employer for failing to call an employee to testify, as the employee was an alleged discriminatee
in the case and “as such would be reasonably disposed to testify against the Respondent and
favorably to the General Counsel.”).
An adverse inference is inappropriate, however, in the following circumstances.
Former managers or supervisors. No adverse inference is drawn from the failure of a
respondent to call a former manager or supervisor who is no longer under its control and cannot
reasonably be assumed to be favorably disposed toward it. See Heart and Weight Institute, 366
NLRB No. 53, slip op. at 1 n. 1 (2018), enfd. 827 Fed. Appx. 724 (9th Cir. 2020); Reno Hilton
Resorts, 326 NLRB 1421, n. 1 (1998), affd. 196 F.3d 1275, 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1999); and
Goldsmith Motors Corp., 310 NLRB 1279 n. 1 (1993) (declining to draw an adverse inference
from the respondent employer’s failure to call a former manager or supervisor), and cases cited
there. The same is true with respect to a respondent’s former agent. See Food & Commercial
Workers Local 1439 (Rosauer’s Supermarket), 275 NLRB 30, 35 n. 10 (1985) (declining to
draw an adverse inference from the respondent union’s failure to call its former representative).
Bystander employees. Bystander employees are not presumed to be favorably disposed
toward any party and no adverse inference is drawn against a party for not calling them. JAM
Productions, Ltd., above; Pacific Green Trucking, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 14, slip op. at 4 (2019);
Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622 n. 4 (2001), enfd. per curiam 56 Fed. Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003);
and Torbitt & Castleman, Inc., 320 NLRB 907, 910 n. 6 (1996), affd. on point, 123 F.3d 899, 907
(6th Cir. 1997). But cf. Spurlino Materials, 357 NLRB 1510, 1521 (2011) (fellow strikers were not
mere bystander employees), enfd. 805 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
However, the judge may weigh the General Counsel’s failure to call an identified,
potentially corroborating bystander as a factor in determining whether the GC has established by
a preponderance of the evidence that a violation has occurred. C & S Distributors, 321 NLRB
404 n. 2 (1996), citing Queen of the Valley Hospital, 316 NLRB 721 n. 1 (1995). Accord:
Stabilus, Inc., 355 NLRB 836, 840 n. 19 (2010).
Board agents. As discussed in § 8–440, above, ordinarily a Board agent cannot be
required to testify in a Board proceeding. It is also improper for the judge to draw an adverse
inference from the General Counsel's failure to call a Board agent to testify. Independent
Stations Co., 284 NLRB 394 n. 1, 412, 415 (1987).
Unnecessary witnesses. An adverse inference is improper if the missing witness’s
testimony was unnecessary. See Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center, 348 NLRB 1016, 1022
(2006) (judge abused his discretion by drawing an adverse inference from the respondent’s
failure to call a manager, as the circumstances indicated the manager was not called because his
testimony was unnecessary, not because it would have been adverse); One Stop Kosher
Supermarket, 355 NLRB 1237, 1238 n. 3 (2010) (finding, for the same reason, that no adverse
inference was warranted from the failure of the General Counsel or the charging party to call a
221
rebuttal witness); and Riley Stoker Corp., 223 NLRB 1146, 1146–1147 (1976) (finding, for the
same reason, that no adverse inference was warranted from a discriminatee’s failure to appear
and testify), enfd. mem. 559 F.2d 1209 (3d Cir. 1977). See also Aston Waikiki Beach Hotel, 367
NLRB No. 27 (2018), slip op. at 6–11 and n. 13 (finding an 8(a)(3) violation notwithstanding that
the alleged discriminatee was not called to testify).
For other circumstances where an adverse inference is improper, see Auto Workers v.
NLRB, 459 F.2d 1329, 1338 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (noting that an adverse inference for failing to
present evidence is unwarranted if the party has good reason to believe the opponent has failed
to meet the burden of proof or the opponent or the judge played a role in suppressing the
evidence); JAM Productions, Ltd., above, slip op. at 13 n. 40 (denying employer’s request for
adverse inference against union-petitioner in representation case for failing to present evidence
on particular issue where employer had the burden of proof on issue in question); Ridgewell's,
Inc., 334 NLRB 37, 42 (2001) (denying respondent's request for an adverse inference against the
General Counsel for failing to present any evidence on a particular issue, as respondent had the
burden of proof on that issue), enfd. 38 Fed. Appx. 29 (D.C. Cir. 2002); and Riverdale Nursing
Home, 317 NLRB 881, 882 (1995) (it is improper for the judge to rely on an adverse inference to
fill an evidentiary gap in the General Counsel’s case). Compare also Advocate South Suburban
Hospital v. NLRB, 468 F.3d 1038, 1048, n. 8 (7th Cir. 2006) (an adverse inference is warranted
only when the missing witness was peculiarly in the power of the other party to produce).
Effect or scope of adverse inference. An adverse inference that a nontestifying witness
would not have corroborated a party’s witness(es) does not necessarily warrant an inference that
the nontestifying witness would have corroborated the opposing party’s witness(es). The judge
may properly consider all the circumstances in evaluating the effect or scope of the adverse
inference. See Spurlino Materials, LLC, above (General Counsel’s failure to call fellow strikers
who witnessed the striker’s conversation with a supervisor warranted an adverse inference that
their testimony would not have supported the striker’s version of the conversation; however, the
circumstances did not warrant an inference that their testimony would have supported the
supervisor’s version as that version was not believable and there were reasons to question the
supervisor’s own credibility). See also Terracon, Inc., 339 NLRB 221 n. 2, 246 (2003)
(discrediting the General Counsel’s employee witness notwithstanding the respondent’s failure to
corroborate the manager’s contrary testimony by calling another manager who attended the
subject meeting), affd. 361 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2004).
§ 16–612 FRE 612. Writing Used to Refresh a Witness’s Memory
FRE 612 states in relevant part:
(a) Scope. This rule gives an adverse party certain options when a witness uses a
writing to refresh memory:
(1) while testifying; or
(2) before testifying, if the court decides that justice requires the party to have
those options.
(b) Adverse Party’s Options; Deleting Unrelated Matter. Unless 18 U.S.C. §
3500 [the Jencks Act] provides otherwise in a criminal case, an adverse party is
entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine
the witness about it, and to introduce in evidence any portion that relates to the
witness’s testimony. If the producing party claims that the writing includes
unrelated matter, the court must examine the writing in camera, delete any
unrelated portion, and order that the rest be delivered to the adverse party. Any
portion deleted over objection must be preserved for the record.
222
(c) Failure to Produce or Deliver the Writing. If a writing is not produced or is
not delivered as ordered, the court may issue any appropriate order. . . .
Refreshing memory during testimony. It is generally held that the recollection of one’s
own nonadverse witness should not be refreshed until the witness’s memory has been
exhausted. The recollection of the witness may then be refreshed by leading questions or a
document or some other item if appropriate and not improperly suggestive. The document or
item may be used to refresh recollection even if it is not itself admissible. See Wright & Miller et
al., 28 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6184 (2d ed. April 2021 Update); and Goode & Wellborn,
Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid. Rule 612 (March 2021 Update). See also Sunbelt Rentals,
Inc., 370 NLRB No. 102, slip op. at 2 n. 6, and 12 n. 26 (2021) (ALJ properly denied respondent’s
motion to strike union bargaining team member’s testimony about bargaining meetings,
notwithstanding that his memory was refreshed during the hearing using a prehearing affidavit
that he prepared after consulting the notes of another bargaining team member and that was not
placed in evidence, as he had personal knowledge of what happened at the bargaining
meetings).
However, a judge has discretion to disallow using a document to refresh recollection
where the circumstances indicate that the document might engender a false memory or be
impermissibly suggestive. Ibid. See also Drukker Communications, 277 NLRB 418, 420 n. 18
(1985) (ALJ did not abuse discretion by refusing to permit respondent to use its lawyer’s
prehearing position statement to the regional director to refresh a witness’s recollection).
As indicated in FRE 612(a)(1) and (b), when a writing has been used at the hearing to
refresh a witness’s memory, an adverse party is entitled to inspect it, cross-examine the witness
about it, and to introduce the relevant portions into evidence. For a Board case addressing this
issue, see J. G. Braun Co., 126 NLRB 368, 369 n. 3 (1960) (holding that where the respondent
on cross-examination of a General Counsel witness had read portions of the witness’s prehearing
affidavit into the record to refresh his recollection, it was error for the judge to reject the GC’s offer
of the affidavit into evidence). See also FRE 106, Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded
Statements, above. But see discussion of Jencks statements, below.
Memory refreshed before testifying. As indicated in FRE 612(a)(2), if examination reveals
that a witness’s recollection was refreshed before testifying, the adverse party is afforded the
same rights or options only if the judge determines that “justice requires” it. In evaluating what
justice requires, courts balance the interests of the adverse party against the burden imposed on
the witness, the other parties, and the court itself, considering various factors, including the
importance of the witness’s testimony, the extent to which the witness relied on the writings to
refresh memory, whether there is evidence of a calculated plan to influence the testimony of the
witness, whether production of the writings would delay or prolong the hearing because of their
large number or unavailability, whether the writings are privileged attorney-client communications
or protected work product, and whether the witness’s credibility could be tested in a less
burdensome way. It is the requesting party’s burden to establish that the balance weighs in favor
of disclosure. See Wright & Miller et al., above, § 6185.
See also *CNN America, Inc., 352 NLRB 265 (2008) (holding that the ALJ erred in
requiring the respondent to produce any documents reviewed by any witness within 6 months
prior to the hearing, without first requiring the General Counsel to establish that the documents
refreshed the witness’s memory for the purpose of testifying and evaluating whether production of
the documents is necessary in the interests of justice), supplemental proceedings 352 NLRB 448
(2008), 352 NLRB 675 (2008), and 353 NLRB 891 (2009), final decision and order issued 361
223
NLRB 439 (2014), reconsideration denied 362 NLRB 293 (2015), rev. granted in part and denied
in part 865 F.3d 740 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
In Camera inspection and redaction. In camera review may assist the judge in
determining whether “justice requires” production where the writings were reviewed to refresh
memory before testifying. In addition, as indicated in FRE 612(b), it may be necessary for the
judge to review the writings in camera to determine if unrelated matter should be redacted before
being produced to the adverse party. See, for example, Computer Sciences Corp., 258 NLRB
641, 645 n. 9 (1981).
Waiver of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. Courts differ on whether
the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection is waived when a witness has reviewed the
subject document during or before the hearing to refresh his/her memory. Some hold that the
privilege or protection is always waived. Others, however, reject such an automatic waiver, citing
the advisory committee notes to Rule 612 (“The Committee intends that nothing in the Rule be
construed as barring the assertion of a privilege with respect to writings used by a witness to
refresh his memory. House Report No. 93-650.”), and the fact that Rule 612 distinguishes
between documents reviewed during and before trial. Consistent with that distinction, these
courts usually find waiver in the former situation but apply a balancing test in the latter. See
Wright & Miller et al., above, § 6188; and Graham, 5 Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 612:2 (9th ed.
Nov. 2021 update), and cases cited there.
Jencks statements. Rule 612(b) expressly limits a party’s right to a writing used to refresh
recollection where the writing is subject to the Jencks Act, which prohibits disclosure in a criminal
proceeding of affidavits or other statements in the government’s possession that were made or
adopted by a government witness until after the witness has testified on direct. As discussed in
§ 16–613.1, below, the Board has applied the Jencks rule to prehearing affidavits and statements
in the General Counsel’s possession.
For a court case addressing the Jencks exception, see U.S. v. Jimenez, 613 F.2d 1373,
1377 (5th Cir. 1980) (where government surveillance agent had refreshed memory by report,
Jencks Act meant disclosure could be delayed until direct testimony was done, but it “also
mandates disclosure at that time” on defense request). For additional discussion of the
exception, including disagreement among commentators over its effect, see Wright & Miller, et
al., 28 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6186 (2d ed. April 2021 Update).
§ 16–613 FRE 613. Witness’s Prior Statement
FRE 613 states:
(a) Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When
examining a witness about the witness’s prior statement, a party need not show it
or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or
disclose its contents to an adverse party’s attorney.
(b) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Extrinsic evidence of
a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an
opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an
opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires. This
subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing party’s statement under Rule
801(d)(2).
FRE 613 addresses situations where a party seeks to impeach a witness using the
witness’s prior inconsistent statement. Subsection (a) of the rule requires the party in such
224
circumstances to show or disclose the statement to the adverse party’s counsel during the
examination on request, but not to the witness. However, if the impeaching party wants to admit
the inconsistent statement into evidence, subsection (b) requires that the witness be given an
opportunity to explain or deny the statement and that the opposing party be afforded an
opportunity to examine the witness about it.
Although FRE 613 does not itself place any limitations on a judge’s consideration of prior
inconsistent statements, the judge should carefully weigh the circumstances and relevance of the
alleged contradictions. See Advocate South Suburban Hospital v. NLRB, 468 F.3d 1038, 1046
(7th Cir. 2006) (“[W]here a contradiction goes to the heart of a witness’s story, belief can be error.
But crediting the witness makes sense when the impeaching statements differ only with respect
to minor aspects of the story or where the discrepancies are easily explained.” [citations omitted]).
The judge, of course, should also consider the manner in which the statement was taken—such
as whether it was recorded in the witness’s native language so that the witness could read it
before signing—in weighing the effect of the prior statement on credibility. NLRB v. Bakers of
Paris, Inc., 929 F.2d 1427, 1436 (9th Cir. 1991). See also § 16–604.3, Translation of Documents,
above.
Of course, the judge must also be evenhanded and apply the same standards in
evaluating inconsistent prior statements or testimony by General Counsel or charging party
witnesses and by respondent witnesses. See Circus Circus Casinos, Inc. v. NLRB, 961 F.3d
469, 485 (D.C. Cir. 2020), denying enf. and remanding 366 NLRB No. 110 (2018); and Alta
Bates Summit Medical Center v. NLRB, 687 F.3d 424, 437–438 (D.C. Cir. 2012), remanding
357 NLRB 259 (2011).
§ 16–613.1 Jencks Statements
The following rules apply to disclosure of prior statements given to the General Counsel,
which are subject to 18 U.S.C. § 3500, known as the Jencks Act, and Section 102.118 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations.
Disclosure required only on request after witness testifies. As discussed in § 8–445,
above, there is no general requirement in Board proceedings that the General Counsel disclose a
witness’s prior statement before the witness has testified. Under Section 102.118(e) of the
Board’s Rules, pretrial statements given by a witness called by the GC in an unfair labor practice
case need not be released or produced unless and until disclosure has been requested after the
witness has testified.
The proper time for a disclosure request is at the close of the direct examination; it is
premature to demand production earlier. U.S. v. Martinez, 151 F.3d 384, 390–391 (5th Cir.
1998), cert. denied 525 U.S. 1031 and 1085 (1998 and 1999). See also Edwards Trucking Co.,
129 NLRB 385, 386 n. 1 (1960).
Similarly, the judge may properly deny a request for production after the witness has
completed testifying and been excused. Walsh Lumpkin Wholesale Drug Co., 129 NLRB 294,
296 (1960) (upholding judge’s denial of the respondent’s request for any pretrial statements by
two witnesses after the witnesses had been fully cross-examined and excused). See also
Earthgrains Co., 336 NLRB 1119, 1122 (2001) (request for affidavits was untimely when made
immediately prior to the close of trial after the last witness had been excused); and SBC
California, 344 NLRB 243 n. 3 (2005) (request for affidavit was untimely when made at the close
of respondent’s case).
225
The Board has also upheld the judge’s discretion to deny a belated request for production
even where the witness has not yet been excused. See Raymond Engineering, 286 NLRB
1210, 1214 n. 7 (1987) (judge declined to order production of a witness’s affidavit after the
General Counsel finished questioning the witness on redirect examination), cited with approval in
SBC California, above. See also I-O Services, 218 NLRB 566 n. 1 (1975), where the Board
held that the judge did not abuse her discretion under the circumstances by denying a
respondent’s request that was made “well into” the cross-examination of the witness. The Board
noted that the respondent had failed to show prejudice, as the witness’s testimony was “in many
respects merely cumulative and fully corroborated by other witnesses, including witnesses
presented by the Respondent.”
Disclosure limited to Jencks ”statements”. Section 102.118(g) defines a Jencks
“statement” to mean:
(1) A written statement made by the witness and signed or otherwise adopted or
approved by the witness; or
(2) A stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription
thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by the
witness to an agent of the party obligated to produce the statement and recorded
contemporaneously with the making of the oral statement.
See also Rosenberg v. U.S., 360 U.S. 367, 370 (1959) (a signed letter constitutes a producible
“statement”).
Must be signed or adopted. If notes taken by a Board agent (or a memo made of an
interview with the witness) are not adopted or approved by the witness, they are not a Jencks
“statement” and are therefore not producible under Section 102.118(e). Caterpillar, Inc., 313
NLRB 626 n. 2, 627 n. 4 (1993); and Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 250 NLRB 1341, 1342 (1980).
See also National Specialties Installations, Inc., 344 NLRB 191 (2005) (a written notice from a
third party to a witness, such as a notice from a witness’s bank, is not a “statement made by said
witness” within the meaning of the Rule; and since it was not adopted by the witness, it is not
producible).
Must be a description or account of past events. As discussed in § 8–510 above, the
Board has held that contemporaneous remarks captured on an audio or video tape are not a
Jencks “statement” subject to Section 102.118(e) of the Board’s Rules because they are “not a
description of a past event” but part of the substantive event itself. See Leisure Knoll Assn., 327
NLRB 470 n. 1 (1999); and Dickens, Inc., 355 NLRB 255 n. 7 (2010).
Disclosure limited to related statements. The entire statement need not be produced
unless the entire contents relate to the subject matter about which the witness testified. Section
102.118(b)(2) of the Board’s rules sets forth the procedure to be followed where the statement
arguably contains unrelated matter, stating:
If the General Counsel claims that any statement ordered to be
produced under this section contains matter which does not relate
to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness, the
Administrative Law Judge shall order the General Counsel to
deliver such statement for the inspection of the Administrative Law
Judge in camera.
226
It further provides that, upon receipt of such a statement, the judge “will excise the portion of such
statements which do not relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness,” although the
judge may exercise discretion “to decline to excise portions which, although not relating to the
subject matter of the testimony of the witness, do relate to other matters raised by the pleadings.”
Id.
For cases applying this rule, see Caterpillar, Inc., 313 NLRB 626, 627 (1993) (judge
erred in directing production of witness statements without regard to the specific issues or cases
involved and regardless of whether the witness had testified in connection with those cases or
issues); and Tejas Electrical Services, Inc., 338 NLRB 416 n. 2 (2002) (judge erred in
summarily denying the respondent’s request for production of affidavits given by the General
Counsel’s witnesses in other cases, without making a determination, through in camera
inspection, that the affidavits were not relevant to issues raised in the case).
Regarding notes passed by a witness to counsel during trial, see Wabash Transformer
Corp., 215 NLRB 546 n. 3 (1974), enfd. 509 F.2d 647 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 423 U.S. 827
(1975). In that case, the respondent requested all notes that a witness had passed to the
General Counsel during the trial. The GC produced the notes in his possession but stated on the
record that he had probably discarded the others because he did not consider them to be Jencks
“statements” and the respondent had not previously shown any interest in them. Assuming
arguendo that the notes constituted “statements,” the Board found no basis for rejecting the
witness’s testimony under the circumstances.
Limitations apply to copies in possession of others. No waiver results from the General
Counsel’s witnesses giving copies of their confidential Board affidavits to the charging party
union, i.e., the respondent is not entitled to the affidavits until after the witness is called and
testifies on behalf of the GC, even if the charging party union also has a copy of them. H. B.
Zachry Co., 310 NLRB 1037, 1038 (1993) (reversing judge and quashing the respondent’s
subpoenas on the union to the extent they sought production of statements given to the General
Counsel by individuals who were not called to testify).
A respondent likewise may not subpoena the affidavits from the witnesses themselves;
indeed, an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by subpoenaing Board affidavits given by
its employees. See Santa Barbara News-Press, 358 NLRB 1539 (2012), reaffd. 361 NLRB 903
(2014), enfd. mem. per curiam sub nom. Ampersand Publishing, LLC v. NLRB, 2017 WL
1314946 (D.C. Cir. March 3, 2017). The Board considers such requests to be inherently coercive
and unlawful. Id. at 1540, citing Inter-Disciplinary Advantage, 349 NLRB 480, 505 (2007).
Respondent not entitled to statements never in the General Counsel’s possession. The
Jencks rule does not compel disclosure of a pretrial witness statement that was given to the
charging party and was never in the possession of the General Counsel. See Tidelands Marine
Service, Inc., 140 NLRB 288, 289 n. 4 (1962), enfd. 338 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1964).
Respondent not entitled to statements of its own witness. A respondent is not entitled to
Jencks statements of its own witness, i.e., a witness the respondent called to testify. Clear
Channel Outdoor, Inc., 346 NLRB 696 n. 1 (2006). Accord Lion Elastomers LLC, 369 NLRB
No. 88, slip op. at 1 n. 2, and 8 n. 9 (2020). This is true even if called as an adverse or hostile
witness under FRE 611(c). See Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc., 149 NLRB 910, 911 n. 2 (1964)
(respondent was not entitled to a Jencks statement given by the charging party, as the charging
party was called by respondent as an adverse witness). See also NLRB v. Duquesne Electric
Co., 518 F.2d 701, 705 (3d Cir. 1975). The court there upheld the ALJ’s application of Kenrich
Petrochemicals where the respondent called a discriminatee to testify, noting that FRCP 43(b)
227
[now FRE 611(c)] only authorizes leading questions, not cross-examination. However, the court
suggested that respondent might have been entitled to the discriminatee’s affidavit to impeach if
“she had given testimony damaging to the [respondent’] case, which she never did.” 518 F.2d at
705.
Board law is unclear regarding whether a respondent is entitled to Jencks statements of
its own manager, supervisor, officer, or agent after being called by the General Counsel as an
adverse witness under FRE 611(c). It may depend on whether the witness gave testimony
adverse or damaging to the respondent. See generally Sherwin v. United States, 320 F.2d 137,
156 n. 12 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 964 (1964) (“The production required by the
[Jencks] Act is restricted to production for impeachment purposes. Palermo v. United States, 360
U.S. 343, 349, 79 S.Ct. 1217, 3 L.Ed.2d 1287.”); and U.S. v. Bradford, 2017 WL 4699261, *2
(N.D. Ind. (Oct. 19, 2017) (“Jencks production is intended to allow a defendant the opportunity to
impeach an adverse witness with her own earlier, potentially contradictory, statements. See U.S.
v. Allen, 798 F.2d 985, 998 (7th Cir. 1986).”)
Charging party entitled to statements given by respondent witness. A charging party is
entitled, on request and for the purpose of cross-examination, to a pretrial statement given to the
General Counsel by a witness who testifies on behalf of the respondent. See Senftner
Volkswagen Corp., 257 NLRB 178 n. 1, 186–187 (1981), enfd. 681 F.2d 557 (8th Cir. 1982)
(judge did not err in granting the charging party union’s request, after the respondent’s general
manager had been called and examined by the respondent and cross-examined by the General
Counsel, to review a pretrial statement the general manager had given to the Regional Office
during its investigation of the charge).
The same is true if a witness was called and examined as an adverse witness by the
General Counsel. See Parts Depot, 332 NLRB 670 (2000) (applying the rationale of Senftner to
require the General Counsel to provide the charging party, for purposes of cross-examination and
impeachment, with the pretrial affidavit of a company supervisor after he had been called and
examined by the GC as an adverse witness under FRE 611(c)), enfd. 24 Fed. Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir.
2001).
Board law is unclear whether a charging party may demand a copy of a witness’s Jencks
statement before or after the charging party itself calls the witness as an adverse or hostile
witness under FRE 611(c). However, based on the holdings in Kenrich Petrochemicals and
Duquesne Electric, above, it appears likely that the Board and the courts would uphold a judge’s
ruling or order declining to require disclosure of the statement.
Duty to search for statements. In Albertson’s, Inc., Case 27–CA–13390, unpub. Board
order issued January 29, 1999, the Board ruled that the General Counsel is obligated to search
its files (before, it is implied, the witness testifies) for any statements in cases involving charges
filed by the charging party union against the respondent during the period covered by the pending
charges. Further, the Board denied the GC’s request to restrict the search to the same Regional
Office where the pending charges were filed. However, it ruled that the GC was not required to
search files in cases involving charges against other employers.
Right to sufficient time to study statements. A judge’s denial of 15 minutes time to study
the statement after production was found to be prejudicial error requiring a remand in A. R. Blase
Co., 143 NLRB 197, 197–198 (1963), enf. denied 338 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1964). Normally, the
General Counsel should not oppose a request for a reasonable time for study. See NLRB
Casehandling Manual (Part 1), Sec. 10394.9.
228
Copying and retaining statements. There is no absolute right to make copies of the
statements unless the statements are admitted into evidence. This is within the judge’s discretion.
Manbeck Baking Co., 130 NLRB 1186, 1189–1190 (1961).
With respect to retaining the statement, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 339 NLRB 64 (2003),
the Board held that a Jencks statement may not be retained after the close of the hearing. After
the witness has testified, the exception to the general prohibition against using Board files under
Section 102.118 of the Board’s Rules no longer applies and the prohibition of the rule is restored.
With respect to retaining a Jencks statement during the hearing, even after the witness
has been cross-examined, see Cadillac of Naperville, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 3, slip op. at 1 n. 1
(2019), enfd. on point 14 F.4th 703 (D.C. Cir. 2021). There, the Board held that the judge did not
abuse his discretion in denying the respondent employer’s request to do so. The Board stated
that the judge’s ruling was “consistent with Board precedent and neither unreasonable nor an
interference with the Respondent’s case.” In support, it quoted the Board’s statement in Wal-
Mart Stores, above, that “the plain meaning of Sec. 102.118(b) of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations limits the purpose of disclosure [of witness statements] to cross-examination.”
There may, however, be circumstances where a respondent may appropriately be allowed
to retain a statement throughout the trial. See NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part 1), Sec.
10394.9 (providing that, on request, the respondent may be permitted to retain the copies
throughout the trial for legitimate trial purposes, returning them at the close of the trial unless the
statement has been made an exhibit).
Because some counsel may make notes that they would be reluctant to disclose to the
General Counsel, it is prudent to establish a procedure in advance, such as an agreed upon
destruction of copies with attorney notes, to avoid later controversy and dispute.
§ 16–614 FRE 614. Court’s Calling or Examining a Witness
FRE 614 states:
(a) Calling. The court may call a witness on its own or at a party’s request. Each
party is entitled to cross-examine the witness.
(b) Examining. The court may examine a witness regardless of who calls the
witness.
(c) Objections. A party may object to the court’s calling or examining a witness
either at that time or at the next opportunity when the jury is not present.
Section 102.35(a)(11) of the Board’s Rules similarly provides that the judge may “call,
examine, and cross-examine witnesses and . . . introduce into the record documentary or other
evidence.” See § 2–300, Duties of Trial Judge, and § 2–410, Grounds Asserted for
Disqualification, above.
§ 16–615 FRE 615. Excluding Witnesses
FRE 615 states:
At a party’s request, the court must order witnesses excluded so that they cannot
hear other witnesses’ testimony. Or the court may do so on its own. But this rule
does not authorize excluding:
(a) a party who is a natural person;
229
(b) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person, after being
designated as the party’s representative by its attorney;
(c) a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the
party’s claim or defense; or
(d) a person authorized by statute to be present.
As fully discussed in Chapter 11, Sequestration of Witnesses, the Board has generally
attempted to follow the “spirit” of FRE 615 in fashioning its own rules in this area. See also
§ 1–300 (Model Sequestration Order).
§ 16–700 Opinions and Expert Testimony
§ 16–701 FRE 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
FRE 701 states:
If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is
limited to one that is:
(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception;
(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact
in issue; and
(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the
scope of Rule 702.
See, e.g., UCSF Stanford Health Care, 335 NLRB 488, 532 (2001) (testimony of the
respondent’s witnesses did not qualify as lay opinion testimony under FRE 701 because the
testimony was not based on first-hand knowledge or observations), enfd. 325 F.3d 334 (D.C. Cir.
2003), cert. denied 540 U.S. 1104 (2004).
Regarding lay testimony on ultimate and legal issues, see § 16–704, below.
§ 16–702 FRE 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
FRE 702 states:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier
of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the
case.
Pursuant to FRE 104(a), opposing counsel may voir dire a proffered expert witness before
the witness is permitted to testify as to his or her opinion. See § 16–104.1, above. Such
questions may support a motion to exclude evidence for failure to satisfy the requirements of FRE
702.
The Board accords judges significant discretion in determining whether to allow expert
testimony. See Dupont Specialty Products USA, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 117, slip op. at 1 n. 1
(2020) (holding that the judge did not abuse his discretion by refusing to permit the respondent
company to introduce expert testimony regarding workplace safety regulations, hazards, and
mitigation efforts at the plant, as the record clearly established, and it was undisputed, that there
230
were significant hazards at the plant and the expert testimony would have been largely
cumulative of testimony by the company’s chief of emergency services), enfd. 2021 WL 3579384
(3d Cir. Jul. 7, 2021). See also California Gas Transport, 355 NLRB 465 n. 1 (2010) (judge in
backpay proceeding did not err in refusing to hear respondent’s proffered expert testimony that
the Board’s methodology for determining the interim earnings of self-employed discriminatees is
flawed).
For other case examples, see Chemical Solvents, Inc., 362 NLRB 1469, 1491 (2015)
(rejecting the respondent’s proffered expert witness testimony, in an 8(a)(3) and (5) plant-closure
case, that the respondent realized cost savings after the closure, as the expert’s after-the-fact
assessment could not have played any part in the respondent’s decision and, in any event, would
not be a defense to the allegations); National Extrusion & Mfg. Co., 357 NLRB 127, 154–155, n.
29 (2011) (rejecting, in a case alleging an 8(a)(5) refusal to provide health insurance-information,
the General Counsel’s proffered expert witness testimony that health insurance companies
usually provide plan documents to prospective purchasers, as such generalized testimony did not
directly address the respondent’s evidence that it was unable in this particular instance to obtain
the plan documents from the insurance company); and UCSF Stanford Health Care, above, 335
NLRB at 531–532 (rejecting the respondent’s proffered expert witness testimony regarding the
effect of union or employee solicitation and distribution on patients and their families, as
respondent had not shown that the testimony was based on more than subjective belief or was
reliable).
See also Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 31–CA–143038, unpub. Board order issued Dec.
1, 2015 (2015 WL 7769416). The complaint in that case alleged that the respondent’s mandatory
arbitration provision violated 8(a)(1) because it would reasonably be construed by employees to
preclude the filing of NLRB charges. Respondent sought to call two witnesses: 1) its recruitment
manager to testify that the company’s employees are proficient in English and have completed
high school; and 2) a linguistics expert to testify that a reasonable employee having these
characteristics would not interpret the respondent’s mandatory arbitration provision to preclude
the filing of NLRB charges. The Board held that the ALJ did not abuse his discretion in barring
the testimony of both witnesses as irrelevant.
§ 16–702.1 Polygraph Evidence
“Polygraph evidence has faced sharp criticism, largely because of serious doubts about its
scientific or probative value.” U.S. v. Resnick, 823 F.3d 888, 896 (7th Cir. 2016), cert. denied
137 S.Ct. 2092 (2017), citing, e.g., U.S. v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 309 (1998) (upholding a
military rule that barred the admission of polygraph evidence in court martial proceedings).
However, a majority of federal courts have held that the trial judge has discretion whether to
admit polygraph tests. See, e.g., U.S. v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293, 1303 (11th Cir. 2005), cert.
denied 546 U.S. 1169 (2006) (holding that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in excluding
the evidence, as “reasonable judges can disagree over the reliability of polygraph methodology”);
U.S. v. Lea, 249 F.3d 632, 638–639 (7th Cir. 2001) (admissibility of polygraph evidence is within
the trial judge’s discretion, using FRE 403 as a guide); and Gibbs v. Gibbs, 210 F.3d 491, 500
(5th Cir. 2000) (holding that the judge properly admitted polygraph evidence in an ERISA action,
particularly since the judge, rather than a jury, was the trier of fact). See also § 16–403, above
(citing cases that distinguish between judge and jury trials in evaluating whether admission of
evidence would be unfairly prejudicial under FRE 403).
For a Board case addressing polygraph evidence, see J.C. Penney Co., 172 NLRB 1279
(1968), enfd. in relevant part 416 F.2d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 1969). The ALJ in that case admitted a
231
polygraph and gave it some, but not controlling weight, i.e., he discredited the witness despite the
polygraph results indicating that the witness testified truthfully. See also Ackerman Mfg. Co.,
241 NLRB 621, 622 n. 1 (1979). In that case, the ALJ rejected a certified polygraph report to the
extent it was submitted by the respondent to show that the witness was truthful in his statements
to the polygraphist about observing the discriminatees removing company property. However,
the ALJ admitted it for purposes of evaluating the respondent’s investigative efforts and “bona
fides” in failing to recall the discriminatees.
§ 16–702.2 Prior Notice to Opponent
Prior notice should normally be given by a party intending to use an expert witness at the
trial so that the opposing party may have time to obtain its own expert. The failure to do so may
be considered by the judge in ruling on the admissibility of the expert testimony under FRE 403.
See National Extrusion, 357 NLRB 127, 155, n. 29 (2011). See also §§ 16–102 and 16-403,
above.
However, there is no requirement to create and produce an expert’s report in the manner
required by FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) in the context of federal civil discovery. McDonald’s USA, LLC,
2–CA–093893, unpub. Board order issued Jan. 16, 2018 (2018 WL 447422) (holding that “there
is no demonstrated need for an expert report that cannot be met by alternative measures such as
granting a continuance, if appropriate, after the . . . expert has testified, despite the inherent delay
that would result”).
§ 16–703 FRE 703. Bases of an Expert’s Opinion Testimony
FRE 703 states:
An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has
been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would
reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the
subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts
or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may
disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate
the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.
Where expert testimony has been received, the judge may disregard it if the premises for
the expert’s analysis and conclusions are flawed. See Raley’s, 348 NLRB 382, 562–563 (2006)
(handwriting expert’s testimony about signatures on a petition was based on flawed premises);
H. B. Zachry Co., 319 NLRB 967, 979–980 (1995) (basis for management professor’s opinion
about the union members’ motive for applying for work was flawed), modified on different point,
127 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1997); Fluor Daniel, Inc., 304 NLRB 970, 971 n. 10, 975, 978, 980
(1991) (statistical consultant’s conclusions about the employer’s hiring decisions were based on
flawed assumptions), enfd. mem. 976 F.2d 744 (11th Cir. 1992).
See also Parts Depot, Inc., 348 NLRB 152 n. 6 (2006) (judge in the backpay proceeding
properly refused to permit an expert witness to opine, based on an analysis of employment
trends, that employees did not make reasonable efforts to seek interim employment, as Board
precedent requires consideration of an individual’s particular circumstances rather than just
probabilities).
The foregoing rulings are consistent with the Supreme Court's expression in General
Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997), that a “court may conclude that there is simply
too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.”
232
§ 16–704 FRE 704. Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
FRE 704 states in relevant part:
(a) In General — Not Automatically Objectionable. An opinion is not
objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.
. . . .
Under FRE 704, an opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate
issue. However, as indicated in the advisory committee notes, to be admitted the testimony must
still satisfy the standards set forth in Rule 701 (lay witness) or Rule 702 (expert witness), as well
as Rule 403.
Thus, opinions on ultimate legal issues are properly excluded as within the exclusive
province of the judge and Board. See Roundy’s Inc. v. NLRB, 674 F.3d 638, 647, 648 (7th Cir.
2012), enfg. in relevant part 356 NLRB 126 n. 4 (2010). The issue in that case was whether
the employer had unlawfully excluded union representatives from handbilling in common areas
outside its stores. Citing the advisory committee notes to FRE 704, the court held that the judge
did not abuse his discretion in refusing to permit the employer to call an alleged expert on
Wisconsin real estate law to testify about the nature of the employer's property interest at
the stores. The court also found that the employer had suffered no prejudice as the judge
permitted the employer to include the alleged expert's interpretation of the law in its
posthearing brief.
See also Nationwide Transport Finance v. Cass Information, 523 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th
Cir. 2008) (commercial law expert’s legal conclusions about the applicability of the UCC to the
facts of the case were inadmissible); and Gilson v. Sirmons, 520 F.3d 1196, 1243 (10th Cir.
2008) (expert testimony on witness’s credibility was inappropriate), cert. denied 532 U.S. 962
(2001).
However, when the question seeks an expert or lay witness’s opinion using terms that
have the same common and legal meaning, the testimony is admissible. See Torres v. County
of Oakland, 787 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir. 1985), and cases cited there. See also Graham,
Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 704.1 (9th ed. Nov. 2021 Update); and Wright & Miller et al., 28 Fed.
Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6284 (2d ed. April 2021 Update).
§ 16–705 FRE 705. Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Expert’s Opinion
FRE 705 states:
Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion—and give the
reasons for it—without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert
may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination.
§ 16–706 FRE 706. Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses
FRE 706 states:
(a) Appointment Process. On a party’s motion or on its own, the court may order
the parties to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may
ask the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert that the
parties agree on and any of its own choosing. But the court may only appoint
someone who consents to act.
233
(b) Expert’s Role. The court must inform the expert of the expert’s duties. The
court may do so in writing and have a copy filed with the clerk or may do so orally
at a conference in which the parties have an opportunity to participate. The expert:
(1) must advise the parties of any findings the expert makes;
(2) may be deposed by any party;
(3) may be called to testify by the court or any party; and
(4) may be cross-examined by any party, including the party that called the
expert.
(c) Compensation. The expert is entitled to a reasonable compensation, as set by
the court. The compensation is payable as follows:
(1) in a criminal case or in a civil case involving just compensation under the
Fifth Amendment, from any funds that are provided by law; and
(2) in any other civil case, by the parties in the proportion and at the time that the
court directs—and the compensation is then charged like other costs.
. . . .
(e) Parties’ Choice of Their Own Experts. This rule does not limit a party in
calling its own experts.
There is no specific provision in the Board’s Rules comparable to FRE 706. But cf.
George Joseph Orchard Siding, Inc., 325 NLRB 252 (1998) (discussing a judge’s inherent
discretionary power under the NLRA, the APA, and the Board’s Rules to appoint interpreters);
and H & M International Transportation, Inc., 22-CA-089596, unpub. Board order issued May
23, 2014 (2014 WL 2194514) (upholding the judge’s discretion to order production of a memory
card from the alleged discriminatee’s cell phone so that the company could evaluate the reliability
of an audio recording made with the phone, but directing the judge to issue a protective order
“requiring that the memory card be given to a designated qualified expert in forensic analysis of
electronic records, not in the direct employ of any party, for retrieval and review of the audio file at
issue, and any associated metadata, in order to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the
data.”)
§ 16–800 Hearsay
§ 16–801 FRE 801. Definitions; Exclusions from Hearsay
FRE 801 states:
(a) Statement. “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or
nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.
(b) Declarant. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement.
(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:
(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing;
and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the
statement.
(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following
conditions is not hearsay:
(1) A Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is
subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement:
(A) is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty
of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;
(B) is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered:
(i) to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently
fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or
234
(ii) to rehabilitate the declarant’s credibility as a witness when attacked on
another ground; or
(C) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.
(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an
opposing party and:
(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;
(B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;
(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on
the subject;
(D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of
that relationship and while it existed; or
(E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the
conspiracy.
The statement must be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s
authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the
existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E).
§ 16–801.1 Purpose of Evidence: Truth of the Matter Asserted
As indicated in FRE 801(c)(2), a statement is hearsay only if it is offered “to prove the
truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” A communication is not offered for the truth of the
matters contained therein “if the significance of an offered statement lies solely in the fact that it was
made.” FRE 801 Advisory Committee's Note to subdivision (a).
Thus, for example, a statement offered only to show the effect the statement had on the
hearer is not hearsay. See, e.g., Salem Hospital Corp., 363 NLRB No. 56, slip op. at 1 n. 1
(2015) (union assistant director’s testimony that some of the hospital’s nurses told a union
organizer that the hospital was planning to close certain units was not hearsay because it was not
offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but to show the effect it had on the union
organizer, specifically her decision to request information and bargaining regarding the closure).
See also Kitchen v. BASF, 952 F.3d 247, 255 (5th Cir. 2020) (manager’s testimony in terminated
employee’s discrimination action that the company’s in-house physician told him that the
employee’s positive alcohol test indicated he was likely under the influence of alcohol at work was
not hearsay because it was not offered to show that the employee was intoxicated but rather for
the effect the physician’s opinion had on the manager, namely the manager’s honest belief that
the employee had been intoxicated while at work); and U.S. v. Safavian, 435 F.Supp.2d 36, 44
(D.D.C. 2006) (emails were admissible as non-hearsay because they were offered to provide
context or to show that the statements were made, not to establish the truth of the statements).
In addition, it is well-established that “verbal acts,” that is, out-of-court statements that
have “independent legal significance,” are not offered for their truth and are therefore not
hearsay. Thus, if the out-of-court statement actually affects the legal rights of the parties, or
where the legal consequences flow from the fact that the words were said, the statement itself is
not hearsay. A common example is words or documents associated with the formation of an
agreement or contract. See Goode & Wellborn, Courtroom Handbook on Fed. Evid. Rule 801
(March 2021 Update). See also Carpenters Local 257 (DAT Construction), 290 NLRB 538 n. 2
(1988) (job applicant’s testimony that employer’s president told him “go to work Monday with your
tools” was admissible nonhearsay evidence that manager was offering him a job).
235
§ 16–801.2 Affidavit of Recanting Witness
Where an employee witness gives testimony inconsistent from his/her pretrial affidavit, the
Board has permitted the affidavits to be introduced as substantive evidence to allay concerns
over witness intimidation. The Board has suggested that the affidavits may be sufficiently similar
to depositions to constitute nonhearsay under FRE 801(d)(1)(A). But even assuming they are
hearsay, the Board has admitted them where corroborated. See Conley Trucking, 349 NLRB
308, 309–313 (2007), enfd. 520 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2008), and cases cited there. See also
§ 16–802, Corroborated Hearsay, below. For pretrial statements of respondent supervisors or
agents, see § 16–801.3, Admission or Statement by Opposing Party, below.
For a case involving a posthearing recanting affidavit, see Southdown Care Center, 313
NLRB 1114, 1114–1115, 1118 (1994). There, the Board remanded for consideration of the
posthearing affidavit of a major witness indicating that most of her testimony at the hearing was
false. On remand the judge, disbelieving the recanting affidavit, reaffirmed his original findings,
which the Board adopted.
§ 16–801.3 Admission or Statement by Opposing Party
Admissions and statements by a party or its agents are covered by FRE 801(d)(2). See,
e.g., Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., 355 NLRB 1121 n. 2 (2010) (supervisor’s statements to an
employee were nonhearsay admissions under FRE 801(d)(2)), enfd. 2011 WL 7645787 (6th Cir.
2011); and Times Union, 356 NLRB 1339 n. 1 (2011) (article by respondent’s business reporter
quoting respondent’s publisher fell within exception to hearsay rule set forth in FRE 801(d)(2)(D)
for statements by a party agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship).
Affidavits by supervisors. Pretrial affidavits given to the General Counsel by supervisors
while employed by the respondent concerning matters within the scope of employment are
nonhearsay statements by a party opponent under FRE 801(d)(2). See, e.g., Fredericksburg
Glass & Mirror, 323 NLRB 165, 175–176 (1997) and cases cited there.
Party position statements. Many cases find attorney statements, both in and out of court,
to be admissions. For example, it is well-established Board law that a lawyer’s position letter can
be received as an admission if it contains a statement or statements conflicting with the party’s
position. See, e.g., Raley’s, 348 NLRB 382, 501–502 (2006); McKenzie Engineering Co., 326
NLRB 473, 485 n. 6 (1998), enfd. 182 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 1999); Hogan Masonry, 314 NLRB 332,
333 n. 1 (1994) United Technologies Corp., 310 NLRB 1126, 1127 n. 1 (1993), enfd. mem. sub.
nom. NLRB v. Pratt & Whitney, 29 F.3d 621 (2d Cir. 1994); and Massillon Community
Hospital, 282 NLRB 675 n. 5 (1987). See also MCPC v. NLRB, 813 F.3d 475, 493 n. 13 (3d Cir.
2016). Indeed, the Board has held that it is reversible error for the judge to refuse to admit a
position statement into evidence. Massillon Community Hospital, above; Florida Steel Co.,
235 NLRB 1010, 1011-1012 (1978); and Ablon Poultry & Egg Co., 134 NLRB 827 n. 1 (1961).
The rule applies even to respondent position statements submitted by former counsel.
See United Scrap Metal, Inc., 344 NLRB 467, 467–468, n. 5 (2005); and Optica Lee
Borinquen, 307 NLRB 705 n. 6 (1992), enfd. mem. 991 F.2d 786 (1st Cir. 1993). It also applies
to position statements previously submitted in representation proceedings. See Evergreen
America, 348 NLRB 178 (2006), enfd. 531 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2008). See also Bliss & Laughlin
Steel Co., 266 NLRB 1165, 1167 n. 2 (1983), enfd. 754 F.2d 229 (7th Cir. 1985).
As previously discussed in § 8-455 (Work Product Privilege), the Board in Kaiser
Aluminum, 339 NLRB 829 (2003), held that a charging party does not waive the work product
236
privilege by giving a position statement to the General Counsel. However, the Board did not
overrule or otherwise signal that it was retreating from the cases cited above involving respondent
position statements. See the judge’s discussion in Evergreen America, above, 348 NLRB at
187–188.
It is unclear what, if any, weight the judge may give a position statement that has been
disavowed by the attorney prior to trial. See Orland Park Motor, 333 NLRB 1017 n. 1, 1024–
1026 (2001), enfd. 309 F.3d 452 (7th Cir. 2002). However, the Board has held that an admission
in an answer filed in a prior proceeding may properly be considered notwithstanding counsel’s
assertion that the prior pleading was “simply a clerical error that was never remedied.” Spurlino
Materials, LLC, 357 NLRB 1510 n. 1, 1514 n. 18, 1516 n. 20 (2011), enfd. 805 F.3d 1131 (D.C.
Cir. 2015). The Board has also held that a lawyer’s position letter can be used to impeach the
lawyer’s conflicting testimony at the trial. Harowe Servo Controls, Inc., 250 NLRB 958, 1033
(1980).
A party may not affirmatively rely on its own assertions in position statements or briefs to
help establish a point on which it carries the burden of proof. See Cannondale Corp., 310 NLRB
845, 852 (1993) (attorney’s position letter); Domsey Trading Corp., 310 NLRB 777, 814 n. 35
(1993) (attorney’s letter to the judge in the nature of a supplemental brief), enfd. 16 F.3d 517 (2d
Cir. 1994); Auburn Foundry, 274 NLRB 1317 n. 2 (1985), enfd. 791 F.2d 619 (7th Cir. 1986) (a
statement in the lawyer’s brief to the judge); and Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine
Midland Bank, 30 F.3d 339, 343 (2d Cir. 1994) (a statement made in the counsel’s opening
statement).
Statements in pleadings. Generally, documents contained in General Counsel’s Exhibit 1
are limited to the so-called “formal papers” (charges, pleadings, motions, orders, and other similar
documents), and are therefore offered and received as merely procedural documents. Colorado
Symphony Assoc., 366 NLRB No. 60, slip op. at 4 n. 5 (2018). See also Operating Engineers
Local 627, 368 NLRB No. 39, JD. at 3 n. 2 (2019) (compliance proceeding). Thus, they generally
do not constitute substantive evidence unless they contain an admission.
The Board has repeatedly held that admissions in an answer are binding even where the
admitting party later attempts to produce contrary evidence. C.P. Associates, Inc., 336 NLRB
167 (2001); Consolidated Bus Transit, Inc., 350 NLRB 1064, 1065 n. 6 (2007), enfd. 577 F.3d
467 (2d Cir. 2009); and Lorge School, 355 NLRB 558, JD at n. 3 (2010) (answer to compliance
specification). See also T. Steele Construction, Inc., 351 NLRB 1032 n. 12 (2007) (rejecting
respondent’s argument that its previous admission in its answer should be amended to a denial to
conform to the evidence presented at trial); and Boydston Electric, Inc., 331 NLRB 1450, 1451
(2000) (holding that the judge erred in finding, based on the evidence at trial, that the alleged
discriminatee was not discharged, in light of the respondent’s previous admission to the
discharge in its answer).
With respect to admissions in withdrawn or superseded answers, see D. A. Collins
Refractories, 272 NLRB 931, 932 (1984) (admission loses its binding effect when an amended
pleading is filed; judge erred by not, despite amended pleading, allowing party to explain and/or
rebut admission). See also Graham, 6 Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 801:26 (9th ed. Nov. 2021
Update) (admissions in superseded or withdrawn pleadings are considered evidentiary rather
than binding admissions and may be controverted or explained by the party).
With respect to an admission in a previous case, see Spurlino Materials, above.
237
Opening statements and briefs. Like statements in a position statement and an answer,
statements by counsel in an opening statement or a brief may be used against the party as
admissions. See Performance Friction Corp., 335 NLRB 1117, 1149 (2001); McGaw of Puerto
Rico, Inc., 322 NLRB 438, 448 (1996), enfd. 135 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1997); and Molon Motor and
Coil Corp., 302 NLRB 138, 139 n. 7 (1991), enfd. on other grounds 965 F.2d 523 (7th Cir. 1992).
Even a statement by counsel in a legal brief in a related case may be found admissible against a
party. Purgess v. Sharrock, 33 F.3d 134, 143–144 (2d Cir. 1994) (court properly admitted
statement by defense counsel in a memorandum of law filed in support of defendants’ motion to
dismiss the complaint in an earlier related case).
Statements in form of opinion or legal conclusion. See Casino Pauma, 362 NLRB 421,
423 n. 7 (2015) (tribal casino’s prior memos to its employees stating that they were protected by
the NLRA, which were offered by the union and received into evidence without objection, could
properly be considered in evaluating the casino’s argument that the Board lacked jurisdiction).
Statements by alleged discriminatees. An alleged discriminatee who has not filed a
charge in the proceeding is not a party-opponent under FRE 801(d)(2). Thus, affidavits or
statements of noncharging-party discriminatees are generally not admissible as substantive
evidence. See the ALJ’s ruling in Vencor Hospital Los Angeles, 324 NLRB 234, 235 n. 5
(1997), which was subsequently cited and followed in Performance Friction Corp., above, 335
NLRB at 1120–1121, 1141. But see § 16–801.2, Affidavit of Recanting Witness, above.
It appears uncertain, however, whether an alleged discriminatee who is also a charging
party constitutes a party opponent within the meaning of FRE 801(d)(2). In UNITE HERE (Sams
Town Hotel), 357 NLRB 38, 39 (2011), the ALJ discredited the charging-party discriminatee
based on both her demeanor and another witness’s testimony about a prior inconsistent
statement she made, which the ALJ found was admissible as nonhearsay under FRE 801(d)(2)
because she was a party opponent under that rule. However, on exceptions, the Board
specifically noted that it relied solely on the ALJ’s demeanor-based findings in adopting his
credibility findings. See also Unga Painting Corp., 237 NLRB 1306, 1307 (1978), discussed in
Chapter 11 on sequestration of witnesses, above (applying a partial exclusion policy to alleged
discriminatees even if they are also charging parties excepted from exclusion under FRE 615(a)).
And compare, in the context of EEOC actions, EEOC v. Placer ARC, 2016 WL 74032, *2 (E.D.
Cal. Jan. 7, 2016) (holding that statements made by the individual charging party in the EEOC
action were admissible as statements of an opposing party under Rule 801(d)(2)); EEOC v.
Triangle Catering, LLC, 2017 WL 818261, *3 (E.D. N.C. March 1, 2017) (same); and EEOC v.
Rent-A-Center East, Inc., 303 F.Supp.3d 739, 742–744 (C.D. Ill. 2018) (Mag. J.) (disagreeing
with Placer and Rent-A-Center and ruling to the contrary).
Documents in personnel files. Under FRE 801(d)(2), a document in an employee’s
personnel file may be received as substantive evidence for the truth of the matters asserted
therein if it constitutes a statement by the respondent employer. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 315 NLRB
509, 512 (1994) (a memo in an employee's personnel file, signed by the employee’s manager
and dated 10 days after the discharge, warrants an inference that the document, describing the
termination interview, was company generated).
Note that memos and other documents in an employee’s personnel file may also be
admissible under FRE 803(1) (present sense impression) and/or 803(6) (records of regularly
conducted activity: business records), discussed more fully below in §§ 16–803.1 and 16–803.6.
Establishing that declarant was an agent of a party. The party asserting that a statement
is admissible nonhearsay under FRE 801(d)(2)(D) bears the burden of establishing that the
238
statement was made by a party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope and during the
time of that relationship. See, e.g., U.S. v. Aetna, Inc., 2016 WL 8738426, *2 (D. D.C. Nov. 30,
2016), citing Gilmore v. Palestinian Interim Self-Gov’t Authority, 53 F.Supp.3d 191, 205–206
(D.D.C. 2014), affd. 843 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert. denied 138 S. Ct. 88 (2017). This is
consistent with the general rule that the burden of proving an agency relationship is on the party
asserting its existence. See Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 343 NLRB 1335, 1336 (2004) (employer
established that union stewards who talked with employees waiting in line to vote had actual and
apparent authority to represent union); and Pan-Oston Co., 336 NLRB 305, 306 (2001) (General
Counsel failed to prove a group leader who committed allegedly unlawful conduct was an agent
of the employer based on actual or apparent authority merely because of his title and because he
attended supervisory meetings).
As indicated in FRE 801(d)(2), the declarant’s own statement may be considered but is
insufficient by itself to establish that he/she was acting as an agent of a party. Thus, there must
be independent direct or circumstantial evidence that an agency relationship existed and that the
statement was made within the scope of the agency relationship. See, e.g., Gomez v. Rivera
Rodriguez, 344 F.3d 103, 116 (5th Cir. 2003); U.S. v. Portsmouth Paving Corp., 694 F.2d 312,
321 (4th Cir. 1982); Jones v. Discount Auto Parts, LLC, 2017 WL 1396477, *5 (M.D. Fla. April
19, 2017); and Ungerbuehler v. FDIC, 2010 WL 3732205, *7 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 20, 2010), and
cases cited there.
For Board cases addressing whether a sufficient independent showing was made, see,
e.g., U.S. Ecology Corp., 331 NLRB 223, 225 n. 12 (2000) (individual’s statement to employee
was inadmissible hearsay as the employee’s description of the individual as a “supervisor” was
insufficient by itself to find that he was an agent of the employer), enfd. 26 Fed. Appx. 435 (6th
Cir. 2001); and Laborers Local 270, 285 NLRB 1026, 1028 (1987) (statements by business
manager’s wife were inadmissible hearsay as the evidence failed to establish that she was an
agent of the respondent union based on either actual or apparent authority or ratification). See
also Delchamps, Inc., 330 NLRB 1310, 1318 (2000) (supervisor’s statement to employee on
supervisor’s last day employment was admissible nonhearsay as the evidence showed the
supervisor was still on the premises and made the statement during his normal working hours,
and the employer failed to establish that he was told to leave early).
§ 16–802 FRE 802. The Rule Against Hearsay
FRE 802 states:
Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:
a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.
As with other rules of evidence, the Board applies the hearsay rules “so far as
practicable.” See § 16–100, above. However, like other administrative agencies, the Board does
“not invoke a technical rule of exclusion but admit[s] hearsay evidence and give[s] it such weight
as its inherent quality justifies.” Midland Hilton & Towers, 324 NLRB 1141 n. 1 (1997), citing
Alvin J. Bart & Co., 236 NLRB 242 (1978), enf. denied on other grounds 598 F.2d 1267 (2d Cir.
1979). Thus, ALJs are not precluded from admitting hearsay and according it the weight they
believe to be appropriate based upon other record evidence. Conley Trucking, 349 NLRB 308,
310–312 (2007), enfd. 520 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2008). See also NLRB v. St. George Warehouse,
645 F.3d 666, 674–675 (3d Cir. 2011) (finding Board properly admitted hearsay testimony
regarding discriminatee’s search for work), enfg. 355 NLRB 474 (2010).
239
§ 16–802.1 Corroborated hearsay
Hearsay evidence is admissible in Board proceedings “if rationally probative in force and if
corroborated by something more than the slightest amount of other evidence.” Midland Hilton,
above, citing RJR Communications, Inc., 248 NLRB 920, 921 (1980). See also Rome
Electrical Systems, 356 NLRB 170 n. 4 (2010) (Board “may consider probative hearsay
testimony that is corroborated by other evidence or otherwise inherently reliable”); RC Aluminum
Industries, Inc., 343 NLRB 939, 940 (2004) (affirming the judge’s ruling admitting corroborated
hearsay); and Dauman Pallet, Inc., 314 NLRB 185, 186 (1994) (overturning the judge's
exclusion of corroborated hearsay and according it weight). Cf. W. D. Manor Mechanical
Contractors, Inc., 357 NLRB 1526 (2011) (uncorroborated hearsay is entitled to “little weight”);
and NLRB v. First Termite Control Co., 646 F.2d 424 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that the evidence
supporting legal jurisdiction was hearsay and remanding the case to the Board).
§ 16–802.2 Double hearsay
Double hearsay is inadmissible unless both parts satisfy the Board’s requirements. See
Auto Workers Local 651 (General Motors), 331 NLRB 479, 481 (2000) (an employee’s
uncorroborated testimony that a second employee told her that he heard a supervisor call her a
“voodoo sister” was unreliable hearsay and did not support a finding that the supervisor was in
fact hostile to her); and T.L.C. St. Petersburg, 307 NLRB 605 (1992), affd. mem. 985 F.2d 579
(11th Cir. 1993) (judge properly accorded no weight, on the issue of the company’s good faith
doubt of the union’s majority status, to the company president’s testimony concerning statements
allegedly made by employees to an employee and a supervisor that they subsequently conveyed
to him). See also IATSI Local No. 8 (Elliott Lewis Convention Services), 369 NLRB No. 67,
slip op. at 1 n.1 (2020). Cf. Kamtech, Inc., 333 NLRB 242 n. 4 (2001) (purported “double
hearsay” statements were actually a party admission not barred by the hearsay rule). See also
FRE 805, set forth in § 16–805, below.
The double hearsay issue may also arise with respect to documents. For example, a
meeting notes offered for the truth of the statements recorded therein may constitute double
hearsay if the notes do not fall within the business record exception in FRE 803(6) or some other
exception and the recorded statements also do not fall within an exception. See, e.g., Volvo
Group North America, LLC, 370 NLRB No. 52, slip op. at 4 (2020) (to extent meeting notes
described another meeting attendee’s statement and were offered for the truth of the attendee’s
statement, they were inadmissible as double hearsay). Cf. Terex, 366 NLRB No. 162, slip op. at 1
n. 4 (2018) (manager’s report containing statement by unidentified employee(s) was admissible
because it was a business record under FRE 803(6) and the employee statements were
corroborated by other evidence and otherwise sufficiently trustworthy considering the
circumstances to fall within the residual exception in FRE 803(7)). For a further discussion of
these two exceptions, see §§ 16–803.6 and 16–807, below.
§ 16–803 FRE 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — Regardless of
Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
FRE 803 states in relevant part:
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether
the declarant is available as a witness:
(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event
or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.
240
(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition,
made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.
(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of
the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or
emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily
health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact
remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s
will.
(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that:
(A) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or
treatment; and
(B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their
inception; or their general cause.
(5) Recorded Recollection A record that:
(A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well
enough to testify fully and accurately;
(B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the
witness’s memory; and
(C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.
If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an
exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.
(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event,
condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:
(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information
transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a
business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another
qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or
with a statute permitting certification; and
(E) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method
or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
(7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity. Evidence that a
matter is not included in a record described in paragraph (6) if:
(A) the evidence is admitted to prove that the matter did not occur or exist;
(B) a record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind; and
(C) the opponent does not show that the possible source of the information or
other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
(8) Public Records. A record or statement of a public office if:
(A) it sets out:
(i) the office’s activities;
(ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in
a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or
(iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual
findings from a legally authorized investigation; and
(B) the opponent does not show that the source of information or other
circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
(9) Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if
reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.
241
(10) Absence of a Public Record. Testimony — or a certification under Rule
902 — that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement if the
testimony or certification is admitted to prove that:
(A) the record or statement does not exist; or
(B) a matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept a record or
statement for a matter of that kind.
(11) Records of Religious Organizations Concerning Personal or Family
History. A statement of birth, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death,
relationship by blood or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history,
contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.
(12) Certificates of Marriage, Baptism, and Similar Ceremonies. A statement
of fact contained in a certificate:
(A) made by a person who is authorized by a religious organization or by law
to perform the act certified;
(B) attesting that the person performed a marriage or similar ceremony or
administered a sacrament; and
(C) purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a
reasonable time after it.
(13) Family Records. A statement of fact about personal or family history
contained in a family record, such as a Bible, genealogy, chart, engraving on a
ring, inscription on a portrait, or engraving on an urn or burial marker.
(14) Records of Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. The record
of a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if:
(A) the record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded
document, along with its signing and its delivery by each person who purports to
have signed it;
(B) the record is kept in a public office; and
(C) a statute authorizes recording documents of that kind in that office.
(15) Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. A
statement contained in a document that purports to establish or affect an interest
in property if the matter stated was relevant to the document’s purpose — unless
later dealings with the property are inconsistent with the truth of the statement or
the purport of the document.
(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that was
prepared before January 1, 1998, and whose authenticity is established.
(17) Market Reports and Similar Commercial Publications. Market
quotations, lists, directories, or other compilations that are generally relied on by
the public or by persons in particular occupations.
(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A
statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:
(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-
examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and
(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s
admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.
If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an
exhibit.
(19) Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History. A reputation among
a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage — or among a person’s
associates or in the community — concerning the person’s birth, adoption,
legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or
marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history.
242
(20) Reputation Concerning Boundaries or General History. A reputation in a
community — arising before the controversy — concerning boundaries of land in
the community or customs that affect the land, or concerning general historical
events important to that community, state, or nation.
(21) Reputation Concerning Character. A reputation among a person’s
associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.
(22) Judgment of a Previous Conviction. Evidence of a final judgment of
conviction if:
(A) the judgment was entered after a trial or guilty plea, but not a nolo
contendere plea;
(B) the conviction was for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for
more than a year; [and]
(C) the evidence is admitted to prove any fact essential to the judgment; . . . . .
The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.
(23) Judgments Involving Personal, Family, or General History, or a
Boundary. A judgment that is admitted to prove a matter of personal, family, or
general history, or boundaries, if the matter:
(A) was essential to the judgment; and
(B) could be proved by evidence of reputation.
(24) [Other Exceptions.] [Transferred to Rule 807.]
Under FRE 803, certain out-of-court statements are admissible as substantive evidence
to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein, regardless of whether the person who made the
statement is available to testify, because the statements “possess circumstantial guarantees of
trustworthiness sufficient to justify nonproduction of the declarant in person at the trial even
though he may be available.” Advisory Comm. Notes to 1972 Proposed Rules.
Whether any of the FRE 803 hearsay exceptions apply is often academic in NLRB
proceedings because, as discussed above in § 16–802.1, the Board allows hearsay testimony if
it is corroborated by more than the slightest amount of other evidence. See, e.g., RC Aluminum
Industries, Inc., 343 NLRB 939, 940 (2004) (finding it unnecessary to decide whether a
photocopied paycheck from the alleged discriminatee’s personnel file, which contained the
notation “Terminated 11/16/00,” was admissible as a business record under FRE 803(6) to prove
she was terminated rather than quit, because the notation was corroborated by her nonhearsay
testimony that the supervisor told her that she was being fired). However, where corroborative
evidence of the proffered hearsay statement is absent or slight, it may be necessary to address
the issue.
Note that, as previously discussed in § 16–104 (FRE 104), the hearsay rule is also
inapplicable where offered to address a preliminary question such as whether other evidence is
admissible.
§ 16–803.1 Present Sense Impression
Under the FRE 803(1) “present sense impression” hearsay exception, a person’s out-of-
court statement regarding an event or condition is admissible as substantive proof of the event or
condition if he/she 1) personally “perceived” the event or condition, such as by seeing or hearing
it, 2) made the statement “while or immediately after” perceiving it, and 3) “describ[ed] or
explain[ed]” what he/she perceived. See Goode & Wellborn, Courtroom Handbook Fed.
Evid. Rule 803(1) (March 2021 Update); Graham, 7 Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 803.1 (9th ed.
243
Nov. 2021 Update); and Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 8:67 (4th ed. May 2021
Update).
The theory underlying this hearsay exception is that “substantial contemporaneity of
event and statement”—either “precise contemporaneity” or a “slight lapse” thereafter—“negate
the likelihood of deliberate or conscious misrepresentation.” Advisory Comm. Notes to 1972
Proposed Rules. “‘The idea of immediacy lies at the heart of the exception,’ thus, the time
requirement underlying the exception ‘is strict because it is the factor that assures
trustworthiness.’” U.S. v. Green, 556 F.3d 151, 155 (3d Cir. 2009), citing Mueller & Kirkpatrick,
supra.
There is no bright-line rule regarding what constitutes only a “slight lapse,” but as little as
10 or 15 minutes may be too long depending on the circumstances. See Cumberland Farms
Dairy of N.Y., Inc., 258 NLRB 900 n. 1 (1981). In that case, the employer presented testimony
from its plant foreman that the plant manager told him that he fired the charging party employee
(Giles) because Giles called him an “asshole.” The ALJ ruled that the plant manager’s statement
was admissible under FRE 803(1). However, the Board reversed on the ground that the manager
did not make the statement to the foreman until 10 minutes after the event, by which time,
according to the foreman, the manager had become worried about it.
See also U.S. v. Penny, 576 F.3d 297, 313–314 (6th Cir. 2009) (arrested shooting
suspect’s statement to police officer that he thought he was being robbed was not admissible
under FRE 803(1) because it was made 10–15 minutes after the incident), cert. denied 559 U.S.
940 (2010); and Hilyer v. Howat Concrete Co., 578 F.2d 422, 426 n. 7 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
(statement made “at least 15 minutes and possibly up to 45 minutes” after the event “hardly
qualifies as ‘immediately’ after the [event] as that term is used in Rule 803(1).”).
As indicated in the treatises cited above, substantial contemporaneity and the other
foundational requirements under FRE 803(1) may be established by the statement itself and the
surrounding circumstances. A common example is a 911 call where the caller indicates he/she
is observing or “just” observed the event. However, if the statement itself and the surrounding
circumstances are unclear, the foundational requirements must be established by other
evidence. See, e.g., Healthbridge Mgt. LLC. v. NLRB, 672 Fed. Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 30,
2016) (administrator’s reports to a manager about an incident involving the alleged discriminatee
and a group of other employees was not admissible under FRE 803(1) because the record was
unclear how much time elapsed between the incident and the statements and it was possible up
to an hour had elapsed); and Miller v. Greenleaf Orthopedic Associates, S.C., 827 F.3d 569,
573 (7th Cir. 2016) (employee’s diary entries were not admissible under FRE 803(1) in her ADA
discrimination action against employer because she offered no evidence that the entries were
made while she was perceiving the events or immediately thereafter without calculated
narration). Courts also sometimes require corroborative evidence where the identity of the
declarant is not identified, as an unidentified declarant’s capacity to personally perceive the event
cannot be substantiated or attacked.
For cases applying FRE 803(1) to personnel records and bargaining notes, see Caudill
v. Kennebec County, 2019 WL 1270921 *4 n. 6 (D. Me. March 19, 2019) (daily field training
sheets assessing employee’s work skills were admissible under both 803(1) and 803(6)); and
Mack Trucks, 277 NLRB 711, 725 (1985) (employer’s bargaining notes were admissible under
both 803(1) and 803(6)). But cf. Kurz-Kasch, Inc., 286 NLRB 1343, 1346 n. 8 (1987) (rejecting
the General Counsel’s argument that the minutes of a bargaining session were admissible under
803(1) to prove that something was not said, as the minutes were not a verbatim account of the
244
meeting and thus did not convey the author’s present sense impression that something did not
occur), enf. denied 865 F.2d 757 (1989).
For a case applying Rule 803(1) to an email, see, e.g., United States v. Ferber, 966 F.
Supp. 90, 99 (D. Mass. 1997) (email by an employee recounting a telephone conversation
shortly after it occurred amounted to present sense impression).
§ 16–803.2 Excited Utterance
Under FRE 803(2), an out-of-court statement “relating to” a “startling event or condition”,
made “while the declarant was under the stress of excitement” caused by the event or condition
is admissible as substantive evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The theory
underlying this exception is that “circumstances may produce a condition of excitement which
temporarily stills the capacity of reflection and produces utterances free of conscious fabrication.”
Advisory Comm. Notes to 1972 Proposed Rules.
Thus, for the exception to apply, it must be shown that the declarant was so excited or
distraught by the startling event or condition when he/she made the statement relating to it that
he/she did not reflect on it beforehand. The standard is subjective; whether the speaker was in
fact excited at the time, regardless of whether another might not have been. As with 803(1)
statements, this may be shown by the statement itself and the surrounding circumstances, at
least where the declarant is identified. See Goode & Wellborn, Courtroom Handbook Fed.
Evid. Rule 803(2) (March 2021 Update); Graham, 7 Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 803.2 (9th ed.
Nov. 2021 Update); and Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 8:68 (4th ed. May 2021
Update).
For a Board case finding an out-of-court statement admissible under FRE 803(2), see
Lauderdale Lakes General Hospital, 227 NLRB 1412, 1418 n. 6 (1977), enfd. in relevant part
576 F.2d 666 (5th Cir. 1978). In that case, the General Counsel offered evidence that as the
alleged discriminatee, a nurse, was leaving a conversation with the hospital administrator, she
encountered another employee and said, “That son-of-a-bitch just threatened to place narcotics
in my car.” The nurse’s statement to the employee was found admissible under the 803(2)
hearsay exception because it was “a spontaneous utterance which was the result of an exciting
or shocking outward occurrence and was made before enough time had elapsed for [the nurse]
to have devised anything in her own interest.”
Compare Honeycomb Plastics Corp., 288 NLRB 413, 419 (1988) (an employee’s
statements to other employees that a manager had questioned her earlier that day about the
identity of union organizers were not admissible excited utterances under FRE 803(2) to prove
the alleged unlawful interrogation because the statements were not made contemporaneous with
the event); and Barberton Manor, 252 NLRB 380, 389 (1980) (evidence of a deceased patient’s
prior statements that the alleged discriminatee, a nurse’s aide, had abused her were not entitled
to substantive effect under the 803(2) hearsay exception as she was not in a state of excitement
at the time of her statements and they were not sufficiently reliable given that she was 97 years
old, was receiving radiation therapy and medication, was at times confused and demanding, and
could not identify the alleged discriminatee until a nurse mentioned her name).
§ 16–803.3 State of Mind: Motive
FRE 803(3) provides that a “statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such
as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling,
245
pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact
remembered or believed . . .” are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even if the declarant is
available as a witness.
For cases applying this hearsay exception, see Global Recruiters of Winfield, 363
NLRB No. 68, slip op. at 6 n. 10 (2015) (prior emails from the respondent company’s owner to
corporate staff about how to work with the alleged discriminatee, which were offered into
evidence by the respondent itself, were not excluded by the hearsay rules as they were offered
for the purpose of establishing the owner’s state of mind when he wrote the emails and his
motivation for the various actions that he subsequently took regarding the discriminatee); and
International Business Systems, 258 NLRB 181 n. 6 (1981) (prior statements attributed to
strikers, which articulated their fears, grievances, and intent to strike, constituted statements of
then-existing state of mind or emotion, and thus were admissible under FRE 803(3) to establish
that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike), enfd. mem. 659 F.2d 1069 (3d Cir. 1981).
See also Lightner v. Dauman Pallet, Inc., 823 F. Supp. 249, 252 n. 2 (D. N.J. 1992),
affd. mem. 993 F.2d 877 (3d Cir. 1993); and Garcia v. Green Fleet Systems, LLC, 2014 WL
5343814 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (testimony that employees had expressed fear of losing their jobs or
other retaliation for supporting the union is admissible under the FRE 803(3) “state of mind”
exception to the hearsay rule to show that the employer’s alleged unfair labor practices had a
chilling effect and that an interim injunction against the employer under Section 10(j) of the Act is
therefore just and proper).
Of course, even if testimony is admissible under the FRE 803(3) “state of mind” exception,
it should nevertheless be excluded if state of mind is irrelevant. See Delaware County Memorial
Hospital, 366 NLRB No. 28, slip op. at 4 n. 5 (2018), enf. denied in part and remanded on other
grounds 976 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2020); and § 16–402, above.
§ 16–803.5 Recorded Recollection
Under FRE 803(5), the contents of a memorandum or record written, signed, or adopted
by a witness regarding a matter when it was fresh in the witness’s memory, but which the witness
has insufficient present recollection, are admissible as substantive proof of the events. See, e.g.,
A.A. Superior Ambulance Service, 263 NLRB 499, 500–501 (1982) (employee witness who
was unable to recall certain conversations that occurred 10 months before the hearing was
permitted under FRE 803(5) to read into the record a written statement he had given to the union
shortly after the conversations occurred), enfd. mem. 720 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1983).
Normally, a foundation must be laid, through testimony of the witness, that the witness
currently has an insufficient recollection and the prior statement was made at a time when the
events were fresh in the witness’s mind and the witness made or adopted the recorded statement
believing it to be true. See J. C. Penney Co. v. NLRB, 384 F.2d 479, 484 (10th Cir. 1967)
(distinguishing between writings admitted as past recollection recorded, i.e., as a substitute for
the witness’s memory, and writings used to stimulate memory [present recollection revived] or to
determine truthfulness [prior inconsistent statements]). But cf. Three Sisters Sportswear Co.,
312 NLRB 853, 865 (1993), enfd. mem. 55 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1093
(1996), where the pretrial affidavit of a frightened witness (a current employee), who claimed not
to remember anything about her affidavit other than her signature, was received in evidence as
past recollection recorded under FRE 803(5).
Note, however, that contemporaneousness is not required to find that the matter was
fresh in the witness’s mind at the time of the prior recorded statement. See U.S. v. Smith, 197
246
F.3d 225, 231 (6th Cir. 1999) (affirming district court’s admission of a prosecution witness’s prior
statement to a detective 15 months after one of the alleged unlawful incidents occurred), and
cases cited there. But see Garrison v. Sam’s East, Inc., 787 Fed. Appx. 627 (11th Cir. 2019)
(district court’s exclusion of plaintiff’s statement to her insurance claims adjuster 5 months after
her alleged slip and fall was not manifestly erroneous).
As indicated in FRE 803(5), if admissible under this exception, the contents of the
memorandum or record may be read into evidence by the party offering it; however, only the
adverse party may submit the memorandum or record as an exhibit.
§ 16–803.6 Regularly Conducted Activity: Business Records
A party seeking to admit a business record of an act, event, condition, or opinion as proof
thereof under FRE 803(6) must show—through the custodian or other witness familiar with the
business’s or organization’s mode of operation (or by his/her certification with reasonable written
notice)—that the record was made “at or near the time” by someone with personal knowledge or
from information furnished by someone with personal knowledge, the persons furnishing and
recording the information had a “regular practice” of doing so, and the record was kept “in the
course of a regularly conducted activity”, i.e., it was a routine record. If these foundational
requirements are met, the record is admissible unless the opposing party shows that “the source
of the information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of
trustworthiness”; for example, that the record was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Goode &
Wellborn, Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid. Rule 803(6) (March 2021 Update); and Graham, 7
Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 803.6 (9th ed. Nov. 2021 Update)
Personnel documents. Memoranda and other documents in an employee’s personnel file
may be admitted as records of regularly conducted business activity under FRE 803(6) provided
the foregoing conditions are met. See, e.g., Caudill v. Kennebec County, 2019 WL 1270921, *4
n. 6 (D. Me. March 19, 2019) (daily field training sheets assessing employee’s work skills were
admissible under FRE 803(6) as well as 803(1) and 801(d)(2)). Compare Affinity Medical
Center, 362 NLRB 654, 660 n. 8 (2015) (document purporting to be a verbal warning prepared 4
months after the event did not meet the requirements of FRE 803(6) because it was not prepared
at or near the time of the event and there was no indication whose knowledge it was based
upon); Avondale Industries, 329 NLRB 1064, 1237 (1999) (postdischarge form was not
admissible under 803(6) to show that the employee was discharged for insubordination, as a
discharge is not a routine event, the form was created in contemplation of litigation before the
state labor department, the form was completed by an office clerical employee without personal
knowledge and no evidence was offered who told her that the discharge was for insubordination,
and there was also no showing about when the form was created); and Pierce v. Atchison
Topeka & Santa Fe, 110 F.3d 431, 444 (7th Cir. 1997) (trial judge did not abuse his discretion in
excluding a manager’s memo that was placed in the plaintiff-employee’s personnel file and
summarized manager’s meetings with plaintiff, as it “was not created with the kind of regularity or
routine that gives business records their inherent reliability,” and “it was obviously to memorialize
an unusual incident . . . that [the manager] may have been concerned could have some litigation
potential to it.”).
Bargaining notes. Bargaining notes have also been admitted as substantive evidence
under FRE 803(6). Pacific Coast Metal Trades Council (Lockheed Shipbuilding), 282 NLRB
239, JD at n. 2 (1986) (employer’s records concerning attendance and discussions at bargaining
sessions were admissible under 803(6)), and Mack Trucks, 277 NLRB 711, 725 (1985)
(company negotiator’s bargaining notes were admissible under both 803(1) and 803(6)). In
247
some cases the parties will stipulate to the receipt of the bargaining summaries of one or more
parties, with the qualification that all parties are free to contest any entry and to advance their
own version of the meetings. See Formosa Plastics Corp., Louisiana, 320 NLRB 631, 641
(1996).
Electronically stored information. “For the purposes of Rule 803(6), ‘it is immaterial that
the business record is maintained in a computer rather than in company books’’’; the Rule
“allows for the admission of a ‘data compilation, in any form,’ so long as the compilation meets
the requirements of the rule.” Sea-Land Service, Inc., v. Lozen Intern., LLC, 285 F.3d 808,
819 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Catabran, 836 F.2d 453, 457 (9th Cir.1988)). See
also FRE 101(b)(4) (defining a “record” to include “a memorandum, report, or data compilation”),
and (b)(6) (“a reference to any kind of material or any other medium includes electronically
stored information”). Thus, exempt 803(6) business records may include data stored
electronically on computers and later printed out for presentation in court, so long as the original
computer data compilation was prepared pursuant to a business duty in accordance with regular
business practice. Anthony v. GE Capital Retail Bank, 321 F. Supp. 3d 469, 476 (S.D.N.Y.
2017); and Branch v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 286 F. Supp. 3d 771
(E.D. Va. 2017).
However, as indicated above, records that are otherwise admissible under FRE 803(6)
may be excluded as untrustworthy if they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. While
accurate and unaltered data retrieved from a computer system does not become inadmissible as
a business record merely because it was retrieved in anticipation of litigation, if the retrieval
process amounts to a purposeful selection that cannot be independently reviewed by the
opposing party, then the retrieved material may be challenged as being prepared in anticipation
of litigation. Id.; see also Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. B.R.I. Coverage Corp., 38 F.3d 627, 633
(2d Cir. 1994) (computer generated report was properly excluded where proponent did not show
it was compiled in accordance with regular business practice and where its preparation required
significant selection and interpretation of data, as opposed to a downloading of information
previously computerized in the regular course of business).
Emails and text messages. Like other electronically stored information, an email or a text
message may be admitted for the truth of the matter asserted under the 803(6) business record
hearsay exception provided it meets the requirements of the Rule. Wright & Miller et al., 30B
Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6864 (April 2021 Update); Mueller and Kirkpatrick, 4 Federal
Evidence § 8:79 (4th ed. May 2021 Update).
First, the message must have been made at or near the time of the event recorded by,
or from information transmitted by, someone with knowledge of the event documented in the
message. See, e.g., Nair v. Columbus State Community College, 2008 WL 3822341, * 23–
24 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2008) (email to department chairman from colleague of Title VII plaintiff
regarding incident between plaintiff and a student did not qualify as an 803(6) business record
as it was sent months after reported incident occurred); and Rogers v. Oregon Trail Electric
Consumers Coop, Inc., 2012 WL 1635127, *8–10 (D. Ore. May 8, 2012) (emails describing
events employer claimed justified issuing disciplinary warnings to ADA/FMLA plaintiff did not
qualify as 803(6) business records as employer failed to establish that individuals who sent the
emails had personal knowledge of the events described therein).
Second, the message must have been sent or received in the course of a regular
business activity. This requires more than just a showing that the message was sent between
two company employees or that employees regularly conduct business through emails or text
messages generally; it must be shown that the particular message in question was made as a
248
regular practice of the company. U.S. v. Daneshvar, 925 F.3d 766, 777 (6th Cir. 2019). See
also Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F.Supp.2d 595, 621 n. 163 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“An email
created within a business entity does not, for that reason alone, satisfy the business records
exception of the hearsay rule”); and In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the
Gulf of Mexico, 2012 WL 85447, *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 11, 2012) (the business records hearsay
exception requires a showing that the company “had a policy or imposed a business duty on its
employee to report or record the information within the email” and that it was the “regular practice
to send or receive emails that record the type of event(s) documented in the email”). Compare,
for example, U.S. v. Daneshvar , above (upholding district court’s ruling that branch manager’s
email to company president was merely “a form of conversation,” that is, “a one-time discussion”
about a topic, rather than an 803(6) business record), with Thomas v. Bronco Oilfield
Services., 503 F.Supp.3d 276, 291 & n.11 (W.D. Penn. 2020) (ruling that human resources
director’s email to decisionmaker relating a supervisor’s thoughts about discharging an employee
qualified as an 803(6) business record as firing employees was a regular business activity and
nothing suggested that it was not the HR department’s regular practice to discuss such matters
via email). Further, if the source of the information related in the message is someone other than
the maker of the message, both the maker and the source must be acting in the regular course
of the business. Compare State of New York v. Microsoft, 2002 WL 649951, *4 (D.D.C. Apr.
12, 2002) (rejecting email where no such showing was made), with Thomas v. Broco Oilfield
Services, above.
Third, the message must be kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of the
business or organization. See, e.g., Canatxx Gas Storage Ltd. v. Silverhawk Capital
Partners, LLC, 2008 WL 1999234, at *12–13 (S.D. Tex. May 8, 2008) (admitting email
summary of telephone conversation based on testimony that it was company’s regular practice
to keep these records); and DirecTV, Inc. v. Murray, 307 F.Supp.2d 764, 772–73 (D.S.C.
2004) (admitting email sales records when orders were routinely placed via email and the
emails were retained as business records). Compare State of New York v. Microsoft, above,
at *2 (refusing to admit emails under 803(6) where there was “a complete lack of information
regarding the practice of composition and maintenance” of them). Emails and texts that are
automatically stored or archived, as opposed to deliberately maintained for future reliance in
business, may not meet this requirement. See, e.g., Rogers v. Oregon Trail Electric
Consumers Coop, Inc., above (rejecting emails as business records where employer failed to
provide evidence of a policy that imposed a business duty on employees to send and retain
emails); and U.S. v. Ferber, 966 F.Supp. 90, 98 (D. Mass. 1997) (same; finding that “there must
be some evidence of a business duty to make and regularly maintain records of this type”).
Finally, even if the above requirements are met, the message may nevertheless be
inadmissible if the source of the information or the method or circumstances of preparation
indicate a lack of trustworthiness. See, e.g., Applebaum v. Target Corp., 831 F.3d 740, 744
(6th Cir. 2016) (email sent by bicycle manufacturing company’s counsel in response to Target’s
claim for indemnification for plaintiff’s bicycle injury was barred because it “lack[ed] the
objectivity of a typical business record”); and Quiles Quiles v. U.S., 2021 WL 5549438, *4
(D.P.R. July 22, 2021) (author’s statement in email that she was responding to plaintiff’s
allegations indicated that email was prepared in anticipation of litigation and therefore lacked
trustworthiness under Rule 803(6)).
For a discussion of methods available to authenticate emails, text messages, and other
electronically stored information, see §§ 16–901.1 through 16–901.3, below.
249
§ 16–804 FRE 804. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — When the
Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness
FRE 804 states in relevant part:
(a) Criteria for Being Unavailable. A declarant is considered to be unavailable as
a witness if the declarant:
(1) is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarant’s
statement because the court rules that a privilege applies;
(2) refuses to testify about the subject matter despite a court order to do so;
(3) testifies to not remembering the subject matter;
(4) cannot be present or testify at the trial or hearing because of death or a then-
existing infirmity, physical illness, or mental illness; or
(5) is absent from the trial or hearing and the statement’s proponent has not
been able, by process or other reasonable means, to procure:
(A) the declarant’s attendance, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule
804(b)(1) or (6); or
(B) the declarant’s attendance or testimony, in the case of a hearsay exception
under Rule 804(b)(2), (3), or (4).
But this subdivision (a) does not apply if the statement’s proponent procured or
wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability as a witness in order to prevent the
declarant from attending or testifying.
(b) The Exceptions. The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay if
the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
(1) Former Testimony. Testimony that:
(A) was given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, whether
given during the current proceeding or a different one; and
(B) is now offered against a party who had — or, in a civil case, whose
predecessor in interest had — an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by
direct, cross-, or redirect examination.
(2) Statement Under the Belief of Imminent Death. In a prosecution for
homicide or in a civil case, a statement that the declarant, while believing the
declarant’s death to be imminent, made about its cause or circumstances.
(3) Statement Against Interest. A statement that:
(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if
the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the
declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to
invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to
civil or criminal liability; . . . .
(4) Statement of Personal or Family History. A statement about:
(A) the declarant’s own birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce,
relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family
history, even though the declarant had no way of acquiring personal knowledge
about that fact; or
(B) another person concerning any of these facts, as well as death, if the
declarant was related to the person by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so
intimately associated with the person’s family that the declarant’s information is
likely to be accurate.
(5) [Other Exceptions.] [Transferred to Rule 807.]
(6) Statement Offered Against a Party That Wrongfully Caused the
Declarant’s Unavailability. A statement offered against a party that wrongfully
caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as
a witness, and did so intending that result.
250
§ 16–804.1 Declarant Unavailable
For Board cases applying the FRE 804 unavailability requirement, see FDRLST Media,
LLC, 370 NLRB No. 49, slip op. at 1 n. 3 (2020) (judge erred in allowing respondent to enter
affidavits of its executive officer and two employees without establishing that they were
unavailable to testify); Park Maintenance, 348 NLRB 1373 n. 2 (2006) (judge erred in admitting
affidavits in the absence of a showing that the affiants were unavailable to testify); and Marine
Engineers District 1 (Dutra Construction), 312 NLRB 55 (1993) (judge properly struck the non-
Board affidavit of a nonappearing witness, offered by respondent in support of an affirmative
defense, as respondent did not allege that the affiant was unavailable to testify). See also NLRB
v. Augusta Bakery Corp., 957 F.2d 1467, 1480 (7th Cir. 1992) (respondent’s “conclusory” offer
of proof that a witness was unavailable was insufficient as it did not explain why the witness was
unavailable or show that respondent had attempted to procure his presence), enfg. 298 NLRB 58
n. 1 (1990).
§ 16–804.2 Declarant Deceased
FRE 804 provides that certain statements, including former testimony and statements
against interest, are excepted from the hearsay rule where the declarant is deceased. The Board
has also admitted into evidence other statements by a deceased person where it is the best
evidence available. See NLRB v. St. George Warehouse, 645 F.3d 666, 675 (3d Cir. 2011) (ALJ
properly admitted in the backpay proceeding the hearsay testimony of the deceased
discriminatee’s mother regarding her son’s post-termination search for alternative work to show
that the discriminatee had engaged in a reasonably diligent search for work, “given that it was the
best evidence available”), enfg. 355 NLRB 474 (2010). But see Custom Coated Products, 245
NLRB 33 (1979) (ALJ refused to consider the pretrial affidavit that the Regional Office took from
the now-deceased charging party, as the affidavit “did not have any circumstantial guarantee of
trustworthiness required by Rule 804(5)” [now 807], the residual hearsay exception); and NLRB
v. United Sanitation Service, 737 F.2d 936, 940–941 (11th Cir. 1984) (Board incorrectly relied
on the residual hearsay exception to admit the affidavit of a deceased alleged discriminatee, as
the General Counsel failed to clearly demonstrate the requisite guarantees of trustworthiness).
Because unfair labor practice proceedings before the Board derive substantively and
procedurally from a federal statute, state law does not supply the “rule of decision” under FRE
601. Accordingly, the Board is not bound to apply state “dead man’s” statutes excluding
“statements attributed to deceased persons or those too ill to testify.” Quarles Mfg. Co., 83 NLRB
697, 699 n. 8 (1949), remanded at request of Board to vacate order and dismiss complaint 190
F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1951).
However, the Board subjects such a statement to “the closest scrutiny before deciding
what weight to give it.” West Texas Utilities, 94 NLRB 1638, 1639 (1951), enfd. 195 F.2d 519
(5th Cir. 1952). See also Ann’s Laundry, 276 NLRB 269, 270 n. 3 (1985) (same).
§ 16–805 FRE 805. Hearsay Within Hearsay
FRE 805 states:
Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of
the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule.
See § 16–802.2, Double Hearsay, above.
251
§ 16–806 FRE 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant’s Credibility
FRE 806 states:
When a hearsay statement—or a statement described in Rule 801(d)(2)(C), (D), or
(E)—has been admitted in evidence, the declarant’s credibility may be attacked,
and then supported, by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes
if the declarant had testified as a witness. The court may admit evidence of the
declarant’s inconsistent statement or conduct, regardless of when it occurred or
whether the declarant had an opportunity to explain or deny it. If the party against
whom the statement was admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party may
examine the declarant on the statement as if on cross-examination.
§ 16–807 FRE 807. Residual Exception
FRE 807 states:
(a) In General. Under the following conditions, a hearsay statement is not
excluded by the rule against hearsay even if the statement is not admissible under
a hearsay exception in Rule 803 or 804:
(1) the statement is supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness—after
considering the totality of circumstances under which it was made and evidence, if
any, corroborating the statement; and;
(2) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other
evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.
(b) Notice. The statement is admissible only if the proponent gives an adverse
party reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement—including its
substance and the declarant’s name—so that the party has a fair opportunity to
meet it. The notice must be provided in writing before the trial or hearing—or in
any form during the trial or hearing if the court, for good cause, excuses a lack of
earlier notice.
See, e.g., RAV Truck & Trailer Repairs, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 36, slip op. at 1 n. 1, and 12
n. 18 (2020) (tax return offered by the respondent employer to show it was operating at a loss
was not admissible under FRE 807 as it was not signed), rev. denied in relevant part 997 F.3d
314 (D.C. Cir. 2021); and Custom Coated Products, 245 NLRB 33 (1979) (ALJ refused to
consider the pretrial affidavit that the Regional Office took from the now-deceased charging party,
as the affidavit was not a statement against interest and was not made at a time when he thought
he was dying, and therefore “did not have any circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness
required by Rule 804(5)” [now 807]). See also NLRB v. United Sanitation Service, 737 F.2d
936, 940–941 (11th Cir. 1984) (Board incorrectly relied on the residual hearsay exception to
admit the affidavit of a now-deceased alleged discriminatee, as there was no indication that he
knew of his potential liability for perjury and there was no corroboration of several key assertions
in the affidavit, and thus the General Counsel had failed to demonstrate the requisite guarantees
of trustworthiness).
§ 16–807.1 Notice Not Required
“The Board does not require adherence to the [Federal Rules of Evidence] requirement
that the proponent of a hearsay statement make known to the adverse party, with a fair
opportunity to prepare to meet it, of the intention to offer the statement, and the particulars of it,
including the name and address of the declarant.” Sheet Metal Workers Local 28 (Borella
Bros.), 323 NLRB 207, 209 n. 2 (1997). See also Metropolitan Transportation Services, 351
252
NLRB 657, 703 (2007). [Note: the notice requirement was previously set forth in FRE 803(24),
but is now contained only in FRE 807, the “Residual Exception”].
The judge, however, may exercise his or her discretion to impose a notice requirement in
circumstances indicating that a lack of some notice will prejudice the adverse party or prolong the
trial.
§ 16–900 Authentication and Identification
§ 16–901 FRE 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
FRE 901 states:
(a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item
of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding
that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
(b) Examples. The following are examples only — not a complete list — of
evidence that satisfies the requirement:
(1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it
is claimed to be.
(2) Nonexpert Opinion About Handwriting. A nonexpert’s opinion that
handwriting is genuine, based on a familiarity with it that was not acquired for the
current litigation.
(3) Comparison by an Expert Witness or the Trier of Fact. A comparison with
an authenticated specimen by an expert witness or the trier of fact.
(4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. The appearance, contents,
substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken
together with all the circumstances.
(5) Opinion About a Voice. An opinion identifying a person’s voice — whether
heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording —
based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with
the alleged speaker.
(6) Evidence About a Telephone Conversation. For a telephone conversation,
evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time to:
(A) a particular person, if circumstances, including self-identification, show that
the person answering was the one called; or
(B) a particular business, if the call was made to a business and the call
related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.
(7) Evidence About Public Records. Evidence that:
(A) a document was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law; or
(B) a purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this
kind are kept.
(8) Evidence About Ancient Documents or Data Compilations. For a
document or data compilation, evidence that it:
(A) is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity;
(B) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and
(C) is at least 20 years old when offered.
(9) Evidence About a Process or System. Evidence describing a process or
system and showing that it produces an accurate result.
(10) Methods Provided by a Statute or Rule. Any method of authentication or
identification allowed by a federal statute or a rule prescribed by the Supreme
Court.
253
§ 16–901.1 Circumstantial Evidence
Pursuant to FRE 901(b)(4), a document may be identified and authenticated by
circumstantial as well as direct evidence. See Sunland Construction Co., 311 NLRB 685, 692-
698 (1993). See also cases cited in Goode & Wellborn, Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid.
Rule 901 (March 2021 Update); and Graham, 8 Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 901:4 (9th ed. Nov.
2021 Update). As discussing the following sections, this is also true with respect to audio and
video recordings and other types of electronically stored information (ESI).
§ 16–901.2 Audio and Video Recordings
Like other evidence, pursuant to FRE 901(b)(1), tape recordings may be authenticated by
presenting testimony of a witness with knowledge that supports a finding that the recording is
what the party claims it is. See H & M International Transportation, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 139,
slip op. at 1 n. 1, and 29 n. 48 (2016), enfd. mem. 719 Fed. Appx. 3 (D.C. Cir. 2018). See also
Mueller & Kirkpatrick, 5 Federal Evidence § 9:14 (4th ed. May 2021 Update), and cases cited
there.
Thus, it is not always necessary for the person who made the recording to testify. See
Sysco Columbia, above. See also U.S. v. Washington, 2017 WL 3642112, *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug.
24, 2017) (YouTube video), affd. 962 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2020), and cases cited there. Nor is it
always necessary to show chain of custody. See, e.g., Sleepy’s LLC v. Select Comfort
Wholesale Corp., 779 F.3d 191, 206 (2d Cir. 2015); U.S. v. Carrasco, 887 F.2d 794, 803–804
(7th Cir. 1989); and U.S. v. Sandoval, 709 F.2d 1553, 1554–1555 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (holding that
the accuracy and authenticity of audiotapes were sufficiently established by the uncontroverted
testimony of participants in the conversations, and there was no need to establish chain of
custody).
Like other documents or things, recordings may also be authenticated by circumstantial
evidence. See Sysco Columbia, LLC, 368 NLRB No. 129, slip op. at 5 (2019). See also U.S. v.
Damrah, 412 F.3d 618, 628 (6th Cir. 2005) (videotape of defendant offered by the government
was authenticated by its own unchallenged characteristics, i.e., by the video and audio it
recorded, and no evidence of how it was made and handled prior to its seizure was required).
The following are some issues that typically arise with respect to proffered recordings:
Defects in Recording. Recordings may be of less than perfect quality, with some words or
passages being garbled or inaudible. However, unless the defects are so substantial that they
render the entire recording untrustworthy, any defects go to weight not admissibility. See Mueller
& Kirkpatrick, above, and cases cited there. See also Planned Building Services, Inc., 347
NLRB 670, 671 n. 5 (2006) (ALJ had a legitimate basis for finding a tape recording sufficiently
accurate even though it contained some inaudible portions), overruled on other grounds
Pressroom Cleaners, 361 NLRB 643 (2014).
Edited recording. Any editing of the recording must be explained by someone with
knowledge of the editing. See Medite of New Mexico, Inc., 314 NLRB 1145, 1146 n. 7 (1994)
(affirming judge who excluded an edited videotape taken by a guard, because the guard did not
do the editing and could not describe what was edited), enfd. 72 F.3d 780, 787 (10th Cir. 1995).
Transcript of recording. A transcript of the recording may be offered to assist in
understanding or identifying relevant portions of the recording. The parties should be encouraged
254
to reach a stipulation regarding the accuracy of the transcript. However, if no stipulation is
reached, the party challenging the proffered transcript may present its own version of the
disputed portions. The judge may then attempt to resolve the dispute by carefully listening to the
recording. See, e.g., Local 147, Laborers (Northeast Remsco Construction, Inc.), 370 NLRB
No. 30, slip op. at 11 (2020); and Oasis Mechanical, Inc., 346 NLRB 1011, 1014 (2006). See
also Wright & Miller, et al., 31 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 7110 (2d ed. Dec. 2021 Update); and
U.S. v. Carrasco, above, 887 F.2d at 805–806.
For a discussion of other issues regarding the admissibility in NLRB proceedings of
recordings, including recordings of collective-bargaining negotiations and recordings made in
violation of state law or the Federal Wiretapping Statute, see § 16–402.7, above.
§ 16–901.3 Electronically Stored Information (ESI)
Other types of electronically stored information (ESI), such as email communications,
cellular phone text messages, social media posts, and photographs, may likewise be
authenticated by circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Bertram, 259 F. Supp. 3d
638, 642–43 (E.D. Ky. 2017) (witness with history of email exchanges with defendants could
authenticate emails based on distinctive characteristics, even where witness was not a recipient
of specific email being admitted). See also U.S. v. Lamm, 5 F.4th 942, 948 (8th Cir. 2021) (social
media accounts); U.S. v. Vazquez-Soto, 939 F.3d 365, 373 (1st Cir. 2019) (photograph from
Facebook page); U.S. v. Barber, 937 F.3d 965, 970 (7th Cir. 2019) (Facebooks posts and
messages); and U.S. v. Turner, 934 F.3d 794, 798 (8th Cir. 2019) (text messages and
photographs extracted from cellphone), cert. denied 140 S. Ct. 1217 (2020); and U.S. v. Browne,
834 F.3d 403, 411–415 (3d Cir. 2016) (Facebook chats), cert. denied 137 S.Ct. 695 (2017).
For helpful summaries of the various means of authenticating different forms of ESI, see
Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 546–548 (D. Md. 2007)
(describing the various methods or types of evidence that have been found sufficient to
authenticate ESI); and Sedona Conference, Commentary on ESI Evidence & Admissibility,
Second Ed., 22 Sedona Conf. J. 83 (2021) at Appendix A (citing numerous cases).
§ 16–901.4 Signatures/Union Authorization Cards
There are several alternative ways that union authorization cards and other hand-signed
documents may be authenticated. They may be authenticated by the signers themselves; by a
witness who observed the signing; or by the person who solicited the signatures and received
them back, even if the solicitor did not actually observe the signing. See, with respect to
authorization cards, Novelis, 364 NLRB No. 101, slip op. at 3 (2016), enf. denied in part 885 F.3d
100, 107 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2018); Evergreen America Corp., 348 NLRB 178, 179 (2006), enfd. 531
F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2008); and McEwen Mfg. Co., 172 NLRB 990, 992 (1968), enfd. 419 F.2d
1207 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 988 (1970), and cases cited there. See also United
Site Services of California, 369 NLRB No. 137, slip op. at 4 (2020) (offer and acceptance letters
purportedly signed by two of the strike replacements and offered into evidence by the employer
were sufficiently authenticated and should have been considered by the ALJ, notwithstanding that
the employer did not call the two replacements to testify, as the HR manager testified that the
letters were obtained from their personnel files and that she or the area manager witnessed all
strike replacements signing their letters, and the area manager testified that he witnessed one of
the two subject letters being signed by the replacement).
255
Hand-signed documents may also be authenticated by comparing handwriting and
signatures with authenticated specimens. As indicated in FRE 901(b)(3), either an expert or the
judge may perform this task. See also Parts Depot, Inc., 332 NLRB 670, 674 (2000), (“[T]he
Board has long held, consistent with Section 901(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, that a
judge or a handwriting expert may determine the genuineness of signatures on authorization
cards by comparing them to W-4 forms in the employer’s records.”), enfd. 24 Fed. Appx. 1 (D.C.
Cir. 2001); and Traction Wholesale Center Co., 328 NLRB 1058, 1059–1060 (1999) (judge
properly compared the signature on the authorization card to signatures on the employee’s
employment application and work rules forms, which respondent kept and relied on in the
ordinary course of business and produced pursuant to a subpoena), enfd. 216 F.3d 92, 105 (D.C.
Cir. 2000).
With respect to the validity of authorization cards offered to establish majority support for a
union, see Cumberland Shoe Corp., 144 NLRB 1268 (1963) (a card which unambiguously
states that the signer authorizes the union to represent the employee for collective bargaining
purposes will be counted unless it is proved that the employee was told that the card was solely
for the purpose of obtaining an election), enfd. 351 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965). See also NLRB v.
Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 606–608 (1969):
[E]mployees should be bound by the clear language of what they sign unless that
language is deliberately and clearly canceled by a union adherent with words
calculated to direct the signer to disregard and forget the language above his
signature. There is nothing inconsistent in handing an employee a card that says
the signer authorizes the union to represent him and then telling him that the card
will probably be used first to get an election. . . . [I]n hearing testimony
concerning a card challenge, trial examiners should not neglect their obligation to
ensure employee free choice by a too easy mechanical application of the
Cumberland rule. We also accept the observation that employees are more likely
than not, many months after a card drive and in response to questions by
company counsel, to give testimony damaging to the union, particularly where
company officials have previously threatened reprisals for union activity in
violation of 8(a)(1). We therefore reject any rule that requires a probe of an
employee's subjective motivations as involving an endless and unreliable inquiry.
§ 16–901.5 Documents Obtained from Opposing Party
FRE 901(b) makes clear that the 10 listed examples are illustrative only and not exclusive
or exhaustive. Courts have recognized various other methods of authentication. For example,
courts have held that documents obtained during discovery are presumed to be authentic,
thereby shifting the burden to the producing party to show that they are not. See Jones v.
Chapman, 2017 WL 1546432, *3 (D. Md. April 28, 2017); EEOC v. Celadon Trucking Services,
Inc., 2015 WL 3961180, *3 (S.D. Ind. June 30, 2015); and Lorraine v. Markel, above, 241 F.R.D.
at 552, and cases cited there.
The Board appears to apply a similar rebuttable presumption of authenticity to documents
the General Counsel has obtained from a respondent employer’s personnel files. See RC
Aluminum Industries, Inc., 343 NLRB 939, 940 n. 7 (2004) (photocopied paycheck from the
employer’s personnel files containing a notation that employee was terminated, which the GC
offered as evidence that the employee was in fact terminated rather than quit); and Aero Corp.,
149 NLRB 1283, 1287 (1964) (signed employment applications and W-4 and tax withholding
forms, which the GC subpoenaed from the employer and offered as employee handwriting
samples to establish that their union authorization cards were genuine), enfd. 363 F.2d 702 (D.C.
256
Cir.), cert. denied 385 U.S. 973 (1966). See also Overnite Transportation Co., 334 NLRB 1074,
1090–1091 (2001) (following Aero).
§ 16–902 FRE 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating
FRE 902 states:
The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic
evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:
(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document
that bears:
(A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district,
commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former
Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political
subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any
entity named above; and
(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.
(2) Domestic Public Documents That Are Not Sealed but Are Signed and
Certified. A document that bears no seal if:
(A) it bears the signature of an officer or employee of an entity named in Rule
902(1)(A); and
(B) another public officer who has a seal and official duties within that same
entity certifies under seal—or its equivalent—that the signer has the official
capacity and that the signature is genuine.
(3) Foreign Public Documents. A document that purports to be signed or
attested by a person who is authorized by a foreign country’s law to do so. The
document must be accompanied by a final certification that certifies the
genuineness of the signature and official position of the signer or attester — or of
any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness relates to the signature or
attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness relating to the signature or
attestation. The certification may be made by a secretary of a United States
embassy or legation; by a consul general, vice consul, or consular agent of the
United States; or by a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country
assigned or accredited to the United States. If all parties have been given a
reasonable opportunity to investigate the document’s authenticity and accuracy,
the court may, for good cause, either:
(A) order that it be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification;
or
(B) allow it to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final
certification.
(4) Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record — or a
copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by
law — if the copy is certified as correct by:
(A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification; or
(B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a federal statute, or
a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.
(5) Official Publications. A book, pamphlet, or other publication purporting to be
issued by a public authority.
(6) Newspapers and Periodicals. Printed material purporting to be a
newspaper or periodical.
257
(7) Trade Inscriptions and the Like. An inscription, sign, tag, or label purporting
to have been affixed in the course of business and indicating origin, ownership, or
control.
(8) Acknowledged Documents. A document accompanied by a certificate of
acknowledgment that is lawfully executed by a notary public or another officer who
is authorized to take acknowledgments.
(9) Commercial Paper and Related Documents. Commercial paper, a
signature on it, and related documents, to the extent allowed by general
commercial law.
(10) Presumptions Under a Federal Statute. A signature, document, or
anything else that a federal statute declares to be presumptively or prima facie
genuine or authentic.
(11) Certified Domestic Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. The
original or a copy of a domestic record that meets the requirements of Rule
803(6)(A)-(C), as shown by a certification of the custodian or another qualified
person that complies with a federal statute or a rule prescribed by the Supreme
Court. Before the trial or hearing, the proponent must give an adverse party
reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record—and must make the
record and certification available for inspection—so that the party has a fair
opportunity to challenge them.
(12) Certified Foreign Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. In a civil
case, the original or a copy of a foreign record that meets the requirements of Rule
902(11), modified as follows: the certification, rather than complying with a federal
statute or Supreme Court rule, must be signed in a manner that, if falsely made,
would subject the maker to a criminal penalty in the country where the certification
is signed. The proponent must also meet the notice requirements of Rule 902(11).
(13) Certified Records Generated by an Electronic Process or System. A
record generated by an electronic process or system that produces an accurate
result, as shown by a certification of a qualified person that complies with the
certification requirements of Rule 902(11) or (12). The proponent must also meet
the notice requirements of Rule 902(11).
(14) Certified Data Copied from an Electronic Device, Storage Medium, or
File. Data copied from an electronic device, storage medium, or file, if
authenticated by a process of digital identification, as shown by a certification of a
qualified person that complies with the certification requirements of Rule 902(11)
or (12). The proponent also must meet the notice requirements of Rule 902(11).
§ 16–902.1 Newspaper/Television Reports
Newspaper articles and job advertisements are self-authenticating under FRE 902(6).
Self-authenticating documents, however, are not necessarily admissible. See, for example, Sheet
Metal Workers Local 15, 346 NLRB 199, 202 (2006) (excluding a newspaper article’s quotation
of the CEO as hearsay), enf. denied on other grounds 491 F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2007). See also
B. N. Beard Co., 248 NLRB 198, 199 n. 9 (1980), where the Board avoided the hearsay problem
presented with an article quoting the respondent’s president by disregarding the quote and
instead considering only the newspaper reporter’s credited testimony describing what the
president told him.
Television interviews may require different treatment as they are not listed in FRE 902 as
self-authenticating. But see Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 97 F.Supp.3d 287, 342 n. 28 (E.D. N.Y.
2015) (CNN video was “effectively self-authenticating,” as it bore CNN logos, showed no signs of
258
being edited, and “forging such a video would be extremely difficult”), vacated and remanded on
other grounds 882 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2018).
§ 16–902.2 Electronically Stored Information (ESI)
FRE 902(13) and (14), added in 2017, provide additional tools for authenticating
electronically stored information (ESI), including system metadata and files such as an email or
an Excel spreadsheet. Like subsections (11) and (12) that precede them, these rules permit the
self-authentication of certain ESI only to the extent the party seeking to introduce them into
evidence submits a proper certification to their authenticity and provides notice to the opposing
party to give it a fair opportunity to challenge the certification.
Certification under FRE 902(13) (records generated by an electronic process or system),
may be used to authenticate system metadata (for example, the dates that a file was created, last
modified, and last accessed) which itself may be used to authenticate the ESI to which it relates.
Certification under FRE 902(14) (data copied from an electronic device) typically involves
authenticating a digital copy of ESI by comparing its “hash value” (a unique alphanumeric sequence
of characters that an algorithm determines based upon the digital contents of the device) to that of
the original document. See generally Sedona Conference, Commentary on ESI Evidence &
Admissibility, Second Ed., 22 Sedona Conf. J. 83 (2021). For sample certifications under Rules
902(13) and 902(14), see Grimm & Brady, Recent Changes to Federal Rules of Evidence: Will
They Make It Easier to Authenticate ESI?, 19 Sedona Conf. J. 707, 711–21 (2018).
§ 16–903 FRE 903. Subscribing Witness’s Testimony
FRE 903 states:
A subscribing witness’s testimony is necessary to authenticate a writing only if
required by the law of the jurisdiction that governs its validity.
§ 16–1000 Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs
§ 16–1001 FRE 1001. Definitions That Apply to This Article
FRE 1001 states:
In this article:
(a) A “writing” consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent set down in
any form.
(b) A “recording” consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent recorded
in any manner.
(c) A “photograph” means a photographic image or its equivalent stored in any
form.
(d) An “original” of a writing or recording means the writing or recording itself or
any counterpart intended to have the same effect by the person who executed or
issued it. For electronically stored information, “original” means any printout — or
other output readable by sight — if it accurately reflects the information. An
“original” of a photograph includes the negative or a print from it.
(e) A “duplicate” means a counterpart produced by a mechanical, photographic,
chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or technique that accurately
reproduces the original.
259
§ 16–1002 FRE 1002. Requirement of the Original
FRE 1002 states:
An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its
content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.
FRE 1002 states the best evidence or “original writing” rule. It applies when the
proponent seeks to prove the content of a writing (or recording or photograph). This includes
situations where a party seeks to prove a matter with testimony by a witness with no personal
knowledge of it independent of the content of a writing. Under the rule, the party must present
the writing itself (the original or a duplicate as permitted under FRE 1003) rather than the
testimony or other evidence (unless an exception under FRE 1004 applies).
The rule is not applicable where the party seeks to prove the meaning of the contents or
facts about the writing other than its contents. It is also generally inapplicable where the party
seeks to prove what is not contained in the writing. Further, it does not apply when the purpose
of the questioning is to test the memory and veracity of the witness. Finally, it does not prevent
witnesses with personal knowledge of facts from testifying about them even though the same
facts are contained in a writing. See also the exceptions listed in FRE 1004, discussed in
§ 16–1004, below.
For discussion of these and other points with supporting court cases, see Goode &
Wellborn, Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid. Rule 1002 (March 2021 Update); Wright & Miller
et al., 31 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 7184 (2d ed. Dec. 2021 Update); Mueller & Kirkpatrick, 5
Federal Evidence § 10:19 (4th ed. May 2021 Update); and Graham, 8 Handbook of Fed. Evid.
§§ 1001, 1002.1, and 1002.3 (9th ed. Nov. 2021 Update). See also Mallory Controls Co., 214
NLRB 616, 618 n. 5 (1974) (best evidence rule did not prevent employer witnesses with
knowledge of the results of a survey from testifying about those results even though the same
facts were contained in a writing).
§ 16–1003 FRE 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates
FRE 1003 states:
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine
question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it
unfair to admit the duplicate.
§ 16–1004 FRE 1004. Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content
FRE 1004 states:
An original is not required and other evidence of the content of a writing, recording,
or photograph is admissible if:
(a) all the originals are lost or destroyed, and not by the proponent acting in bad
faith;
(b) an original cannot be obtained by any available judicial process;
(c) the party against whom the original would be offered had control of the original;
was at that time put on notice, by pleadings or otherwise, that the original would be
a subject of proof at the trial or hearing; and fails to produce it at the trial or
hearing; or
(d) the writing, recording, or photograph is not closely related to a controlling issue.
260
For discussion of these exceptions to the best evidence rule, see Goode & Wellborn,
Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid. Rule 1004 (March 2021 Update); and Wright & Miller et al.,
31 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. §§ 8014–8017 (2d ed. Dec. 2021 Update). See also §§ 8–720 and
8–730, above, regarding the nonproduction or spoliation of subpoenaed documents.
Note that the best evidence rule may also be inapplicable under FRE 104 where
testimony regarding a writing is offered to address a preliminary question about whether other
evidence is admissible, a witness is qualified, or a privilege exists. See § 16–104, above; and
3 Lane Goldstein Trial Technique § 13:4 (3d ed. Nov. 2021 Update).
§ 16–1005 FRE 1005. Copies of Public Records to Prove Content
FRE 1005 states:
The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record —or of a
document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law—if
these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the
copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be
correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If no such copy can be
obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to
prove the content.
§ 16–1006 FRE 1006. Summaries to Prove Content
FRE 1006 states:
The proponent may use a summary, chart, or calculation to prove the content of
voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently
examined in court. The proponent must make the originals or duplicates available
for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and
place. And the court may order the proponent to produce them in court.
Summaries of documents are often prepared and offered in evidence where the
documents themselves are too voluminous or complicated to be conveniently presented in their
entirety. Under FRE 1006, such summaries are admissible if the underlying documents would be
admissible and have been made available to opposing counsel for examination, and a proper
foundation for the summary is established (usually by the person who prepared the summary).
A party may also offer a summary of documents that are already in the record. In such
circumstances, the judge may properly consider whether admission of the summary is warranted
under FRE 611(a). Other types of summaries or compilations may require evaluation under one
or more rules, such as FRE 803(5) (recorded recollection) or FRE 803(6) (summaries or
compilations made at or near the time of the events and kept in the regular course of business).
Regardless of which type of summary is involved, in evaluating its admissibility and/or
probative weight, the judge should carefully consider the circumstances under which the
summary was prepared and whether it reflects the author’s partisan subjective view or
interpretation of the underlying information. See Monfort of Colorado, 298 NLRB 73, 82 n. 37
(1990), enforced in part 965 F.2d 1538 (10th Cir. 1992). See also Dickerson-Chapman, Inc.,
313 NLRB 907 n. 1, 924 (1994). In that case, the respondent company sought to introduce
“summaries” of payroll records as substantive evidence regarding the supervisory status of its
foremen and crew leaders. The judge rejected the summaries for the purpose offered because
they did not merely summarize the payroll records but also contained legal conclusions or turned
261
on admittedly inaccurate or controverted testimony by a company vice president who was not
shown to have personal knowledge of the facts. However, the judge received the summaries for
the purpose of impeaching the vice president’s testimony. The company subsequently filed
exceptions, but the Board affirmed the judge’s rulings.
§ 16–1007 FRE 1007. Testimony or Statement of a Party to Prove Content
FRE 1007 states:
The proponent may prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph by the
testimony, deposition, or written statement of the party against whom the evidence
is offered. The proponent need not account for the original.
§ 16–1101 FRE 1101. Applicability of the Rules
FRE 1101 states:
(a) To Courts and Judges. These rules apply to proceedings before:
United States district courts; United States bankruptcy and magistrate judges;
United States courts of appeals; the United States Court of Federal Claims; and
the district courts of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
(b) To Cases and Proceedings. These rules apply in: civil cases and
proceedings, including bankruptcy, admiralty, and maritime cases; criminal cases
and proceedings; and contempt proceedings, except those in which the court may
act summarily.
(c) Rules on Privilege. The rules on privilege apply to all stages of a case or
proceeding.
(d) Exceptions. These rules — except for those on privilege — do not apply to the
following:
(1) the court’s determination, under Rule 104(a), on a preliminary question of fact
governing admissibility;
(2) grand-jury proceedings; and
(3) miscellaneous proceedings such as: extradition or rendition; issuing an arrest
warrant, criminal summons, or search warrant; a preliminary examination in a
criminal case; sentencing; granting or revoking probation or supervised release;
and considering whether to release on bail or otherwise.
(e) Other Statutes and Rules. A federal statute or a rule prescribed by the
Supreme Court may provide for admitting or excluding evidence independently
from these rules.
262
APPENDIX:
COMMON EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
The following is a list of common evidentiary objections in Board hearings with some basic points
or analytical checklists to consider in ruling on them. Citations are to the NLRB ALJ Bench
Book (BB) chapters and sections above and the following additional resources (by author):
Wright & Miller et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. (2d ed. April 2021 Update); Goode & Wellborn,
Courtroom Handbook Fed. Evid. (March 2021 Update); Graham, Handbook of Fed. Evid. (9th
ed. Nov. 2021 Update); Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence (4th ed. May 2021 Update);
and Larsen, Navigating the Federal Trial (July 2021 Update).
I. Objections to Questions/Testimony
Argumentative/Badgering/Harassing (The question is argumentative; counsel is badgering or
harassing the witness)
A question on cross-examination is argumentative if it appears intended to persuade the
judge rather than to elicit evidence from the witness, or if it contains an argument and calls for
an argument from the witness in response. See Graham, § 611.20. Argumentative questions
that are sarcastic or otherwise phrased to ridicule the witness or any testimony he/she may
offer in response are also objectionable on the ground that they constitute badgering or
harassing the witness. See Wright & Miller, § 6164; and Mueller & Kirkpatrick, § 6:63.
Asked and answered (The question has already been asked and answered by the witness)
This objection applies where counsel asks substantially the same question that he/she
previously asked and the witness fully answered. It may also apply where a party’s counsel
asks the same question already asked by counsel for another party sharing the same or
similar interests. It does not apply, however, where counsel repeats a question that was
previously asked by opposing counsel. See Graham, § 611.17; Mueller & Kirkpatrick, § 6:63;
Wright & Miller, § 6164; and Larsen, § 3:19.
Assumes facts not in evidence (The question assumes facts that are not in evidence)
A question on direct examination of a friendly witness that suggests facts that have not been
established is objectionable because it is suggestive or leading (see below). Such questions
are normally not objectionable on cross-examination provided counsel believes in good faith
that the assumed fact may be true. See Wright & Miller, § 6164.
Beyond the scope of direct (The question goes beyond the scope of the direct examination)
Cross-examination is generally limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and
matters relevant to the credibility of the witness. However, what constitutes the same subject
matter is construed broadly or liberally. Further, judges have discretion to allow a party to
exceed the scope of direct examination. See BB § 16–611.2.
263
Compound (The question is compound)
A question that contains more than one question is objectionable because it may confuse the
witness and elicit an ambiguous answer. The judge may require the questions to be
separated or the answer to be clarified. Alternatively, the judge may overrule the objection on
the ground that the objecting counsel may clarify the matter on cross or redirect examination.
See Graham, § 611.16; and Wright & Miller, § 6164.
Cumulative (The testimony would be unnecessarily cumulative of other evidence)
Relevant testimony may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by other factors,
including that it would cause undue delay, waste time, or be needlessly cumulative of other
evidence. See BB § 16–403.
Foundation/Personal knowledge (Counsel has not laid a foundation or established that the
witness has the requisite personal knowledge to answer the question)
A witness may testify about a matter only if he/she has personal knowledge of it. See
BB § 16–602. The party offering the testimony has the burden of laying a foundation for the
testimony. See Wright & Miller, § 6027. If requested, objecting counsel may be permitted to
cross-examine or “voir dire” the witness at the time of the objection regarding the foundation
for his/her testimony. See Graham, § 611.9; and Mueller & Kirkpatrick, § 6:67. If it appears
that the witness lacks personal knowledge, his/her previous testimony about the matter may
be stricken. See Graham, § 602.1.
Hearsay (The question calls for hearsay)
See BB §§ 16–801 through 16–807. Checklist:
- Is it hearsay?
- Does the question seek to establish the truth of the matter asserted by the declarant?
- Is it a prior statement by the witness under FRE 801(d)(1)?
- Was the declarant a supervisor or agent of the party opponent under FRE 801(d)(2)?
- Does a hearsay exception apply under FRE 803 (e.g., present sense impression, state of
mind [or, as to documents, recorded recollection, business record]) or FRE 804
(statement against interest by unavailable declarant)?
- Is the hearsay admissible under FRE 104 because it is offered to address a preliminary
question about whether other evidence is admissible, a witness is qualified, or a privilege
exists?
- Will the hearsay be corroborated by, or itself corroborate, other testimony or evidence?
- Does the hearsay have sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness under FRE 807?
264
Hypothetical/Speculation (The question is hypothetical or calls for speculation)
Asking lay witnesses hypothetical (“what if”) questions is usually disallowed because the
answer would not be based on personal knowledge or experience and therefore likely be a
mere guess or self-serving speculation. See Mueller & Kirkpatrick, § 7:3; and Larsen,
§ 11:103.
Leading (The question is leading; counsel is leading the witness)
See BB § 16–611.4. Checklist:
- Is the question leading?
- Is this direct or cross examination?
- Is leading on direct appropriate or permitted under the circumstances?
- Does the question relate to undisputed preliminary or background facts?
- Has the witness’s memory been exhausted?
- Is this an adverse or hostile witness?
- Is the question to the non-adverse witness phrased to lead as little as necessary?
Legal Conclusion (The question calls for a legal conclusion)
-Questions that call for a legal conclusion are normally inadmissible. However, if the question
uses terms that have the same common and legal meaning, the testimony is admissible. See
BB § 16–704.
Misstates prior testimony/evidence (The question misstates the prior testimony or evidence)
A question that misstates the prior testimony of the witness or other evidence is improper
because it is misleading and creates confusion. The judge may require counsel to restate the
question without the objectionable point. See Graham, § 611.15; Goode & Wellborn, Rule
611; and Mueller & Kirkpatrick, § 6:63.
Narrative (The question calls for a narrative)
Broad or open-ended questions that call for a narrative are objectionable because they are
more likely to elicit irrelevant and other objectionable testimony including hearsay and
speculation without affording opposing counsel an opportunity to object. However, narrative
answers may be more persuasive because they are less influenced by counsel. It is therefore
up to the judge’s discretion whether to allow them. See Graham, § 611.15; and Wright &
Miller, § 6164.
Nonresponsive (The answer is nonresponsive)
When a witness’s answer is nonresponsive to a question, the questioner may move to strike
it. Opposing counsel, however, must show that the answer is inadmissible or objectionable
265
on some other ground to have it stricken. See Graham, §611.23; Wright & Miller, § 5036; and
Goode & Wellborn, Rule 611, p. 402.
Privileged (The question seeks privileged attorney-client communications)
See BB §§ 8–405 through 8–425 (attorney-client communications), and § 16–502 (limitations
on waiver of privilege in federal proceedings). Checklist:
- Was it a communication between a client and its outside attorney or in-house counsel acting
as such?
- Was it made in confidence for the purpose of seeking and obtaining legal advice?
- Would the substance of the communication be revealed by answering the question?
- Has the privilege been waived?
- Has the substance of the communication been disclosed to a third person lacking a
common legal interest?
- Has it been disclosed to employees with no need to know and without taking steps to
preserve confidentiality?
- Was it disclosed in a federal proceeding intentionally or inadvertently?
- If intentionally, does fairness require further disclosure of related privileged
information involving the same subject matter?
- If unintentionally, were reasonable steps taken to prevent disclosure or rectify the
error?
- Was the communication in furtherance of a crime or fraud other than an unfair labor
practice?
Protected Activity (The question seeks information about employees who engaged in union or
other protected activity)
Board law protects from disclosure the identity of employees who engage in union or other
protected concerted activity. See BB §§ 8–455 (identity of union supporters), and 16–607.2
(limitations on impeachment).
Relevance (The question or testimony is irrelevant)
See BB §§ 16–401 through 16–403 (relevance), and 16–607 through 16–610 (impeachment).
Checklist:
- Is the question relevant to the allegations, defenses, or remedy in the case?
- Is the question relevant to the credibility or bias of the witness?
- Is the relevance marginal and outweighed by other factors (undue delay, wasting time,
needlessly cumulative)?
266
Vague/Ambiguous (The question is too vague or ambiguous)
A question is ambiguous or vague if it could be interpreted in different ways or is likely to
confuse the witness and elicit a vague or unreliable answer. See Graham, § 611.19; and
Goode & Wellborn, Rule 611, p. 401.
II. Objections to Documents or Recordings
Authentication (The document or recording has not been authenticated)
See BB §§ 16–901 through 16–903. Checklist:
- Has the document or recording been authenticated by a witness with knowledge?
- Has the document’s or recording’s authenticity been shown by circumstantial evidence?
- Is the document presumptively authentic because it was produced pursuant to a subpoena?
- Is the document self-authenticating under FRE 902?
Incomplete (The document is incomplete)
If a party introduces an incomplete writing or recording, the opposing party may introduce the
remainder or other parts of the writing or recording that in fairness should also be considered.
See BB § 16–106.
[See also Hearsay, Privileged, and Relevance, above]
III. Objections to Testimony Regarding Documents
Best evidence (The document itself is the best evidence)
See BB §§ 16–1002 and 16–1004. Checklist:
- Does the best evidence rule apply, i.e., is the proponent seeking to prove the contents of a
writing (or recording or photograph) or use the contents of the writing to prove a matter?
- Is the proponent instead seeking to prove the meaning of the contents or facts about the
writing other than its contents?
- Is the proponent instead trying to prove what was not in the writing?
- Is the proponent instead trying to test the memory of the witness?
- Does the witness have personal knowledge of the facts independent of the writing?
- Does an exception to the best evidence rule apply?
- Was the writing lost or destroyed by someone other than the proponent acting in bad faith?
267
- Is the proponent unable to obtain the writing by judicial process?
- Did the opponent have possession of the writing and fail to produce it at the hearing despite
notice?
- Is the writing not closely related to a controlling issue in the case?
- Is the writing admissible under FRE 104 because it is offered to address a preliminary
question about whether other evidence is admissible, a witness is qualified, or a privilege
exists?
Impeaching with prior statement (The prior statement has not been shown to the witness or
opposing counsel)
When attempting to impeach a witness using his/her prior inconsistent statement, counsel
need not show or disclose its contents to the witness but must show it to opposing counsel on
request. See BB § 16–613.
Parol evidence (The testimony about the contract violates the parol evidence rule)
Under the parol evidence rule, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to vary or contradict a
contract’s clear and unambiguous terms. But extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the
meaning of an ambiguous contract, to show that no agreement was reached, or to show a
past practice inconsistent with an expired contract. See BB § 16–402.1.
Refreshing recollection (The document has not been produced to opposing counsel)
When using a document to refresh a witness’s memory at the hearing, counsel must produce
the document and permit opposing counsel to inspect it, cross-examine the witness about it,
and introduce any relevant portion into evidence. This is also true if the witness used the
document to refresh his/her memory before the hearing if the judge determines that justice
requires it. See BB § 16–612
Speaks for itself (The document speaks for itself)
This objection is often made where counsel asks a witness to describe the contents of a
document that has been or will be offered and received into evidence. The judge has
discretion under FRE 611(a) and 701 to allow such testimony where relevant and helpful to
clarifying or explaining the contents of the document. See Mueller & Kirkpatrick, §10.18.
IV. Objections to Objections
Coaching/Speaking objection (Counsel is attempting to coach the witness by making speaking
objections)
During cross-examination of a witness (or during direct examination of an adverse witness
under FRE 611(c)), it is improper for the opposing counsel who is aligned with the witness to
make a narrative objection that goes beyond what is necessary to inform the judge of the
specific ground of the objection in order to coach or suggest to the witness how to answer the
question. See Larsen, § 3:13.
268
Frivolous objections (Counsel is making frivolous or baseless objections and disrupting the
examination)
Disrupting the opposing counsel’s examination by repeatedly making frivolous or baseless
objections is improper and may warrant sanctions. See BB §§ 6–600 through 6–630.
General objection (Counsel has failed to state the specific ground for the objection)
Counsel should state the specific ground for an objection so that opposing counsel and the
judge may know how to address it. If counsel fails to do so, under FRE 103 the objection will
not be preserved on review or appeal unless the ground was obvious from the context. See
BB § 16–103.1. See also Wright & Miller, §§ 5036.1 and 5036.7; and Graham, § 103:2.
Previously overruled objection (Counsel’s objection was previously overruled)
The judge may grant an objecting party a standing or continuing objection to avoid repeated
objections on the same overruled ground(s) to the same line of inquiry. See BB § 16–103.1
Untimely objection (The objection was made too late, after the testimony or evidence was
received)
An objection (or a motion to strike) should be made as soon as the ground for it becomes
apparent. Under FRE 103, the failure to do so may forfeit or waive a claim of error on review
or appeal. However, the judge has discretion to sustain an objection even if it is untimely.
See BB § 16–103.1.
