UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-60789
MOBIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCING U.S., INC.,
Petitioner-Cross Respondent;
VERSUS
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent-Cross-Petitioner.
Petition For Review and Cross-Petition For Enforcement
of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board
December 23, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
DENNIS, Circuit Judge:
Mobil Exploration and Producing U.S., Inc. (“Mobil”) seeks
review of an order by the National Labor Relations Board (the
“Board”) finding that it violated § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor
Relations Act by discharging its employee, Bob L. Pemberton
(“Pemberton”) for statements he made to co-employees during a work
break (1) advocating that employees elect a new Union president or
join a different union; and (2) that he would take legal action if
Mobil fired him for his part in a group employee effort (i) to end
a possibly corrupt agreement by the Union to reimburse Mobil for
funds it paid the Union president for his loss of regular and
double time wages during his absences from work on Union business
and (ii) to recover for the Union any improper payments received by
the Union president. The Board cross-petitions for enforcement.
We enforce the order.
I. Factual and Procedural Background1
1
The parties, Mobil, Pemberton, and the NLRB General Counsel,
prior to filing briefs and submitting this case to the
Administrative Law Judge entered a Stipulation of Facts in which
they agreed “that the Charge, Complaint and Notice of Hearing,
Answer, Order to Show Cause, and the ‘Stipulation of Facts’ with
attached Exhibits constitute the entire record in this case and
that no oral testimony is necessary or desired by any of the
parties.” The Stipulation of Facts and its exhibits 2 and 3 are
filed as an Appendix to this opinion.
The parties’ Stipulation of Facts, in part, provides:
* * *
10. At all material times, Pemberton had an ongoing
dispute with Glenn Thibodeaux over the operation,
policies and practices of the Union and this existence
and nature of this dispute was known by employees,
supervisors and agents of Respondent. A copy of a letter
from Pemberton distributed generally to Union
representatives dated December 16, 1991 is attached
hereto as Exhibit 2. A copy of a letter from Pemberton
distributed generally to bargaining unit employees dated
January, 3, 1994 is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
Respondent [Mobil], at all material times, was aware of
the existence of Exhibits 2 and 3.
* * *
16. Prior to July 19, 1994, Respondent [Mobil] and the
Union had a verbal agreement whereby the President of the
Union would be compensated for time lost, including
overtime, when away from work on Union business or when
his presence as Union President is requested by
Respondent. This agreement operated such that, if the
employees working in the offshore crew to which the Union
President was assigned worked overtime during a week,
2
Bob L. Pemberton was employed by petitioner Mobil for nearly
twenty years. At the time of Pemberton’s discharge on July 29,
1994, he was a field facility operator on an offshore oil platform.
For 12 years prior to his termination, Pemberton was a member of
then the Union President would be paid for that overtime
even though the Union President was not working with his
crew at that time. Further, the Union would later
reimburse Respondent for all compensation received by the
Union President, including overtime, for those times when
the Union President was determined to have been working
on Union business.
17. In or around June, 1994, in a verbal agreement
between Respondent and the Union, Respondent ceased the
practice referred to in paragraph 16. Respondent and the
Union agreed to cease this practice, in part, after
receiving complaints about the practice from an
unspecified number of Respondent’s employees, including
Pemberton.
Pemberton’s letters to Union representatives and bargaining
unit employees attached as exhibits to the stipulation show that
Pemberton was actively engaged in urging concerted activities for
the benefit of the Union and the bargaining unit employees.
“It is well settled that stipulations of fact fairly entered
into are controlling and conclusive, and courts are bound to
enforce them[.]” A. Duda & Sons Coop. Ass’n v. United States, 504
F.2d 970, 975 (5th Cir. 1974)(citing United States v. Righter, 400
F.2d 344, 351 (8th Cir. 1968); Osborne v. United States, 351 F.2d
111, 120 (8th Cir. 1965)); accord Quest Medical, Inc. v. Apprill,
90 F.3d 1080, 1087 (5th Cir. 1996)(citing, e.g., United States
Abatement Corp. v. Mobil Exploration & Prod. U.S., Inc. (In re U.S.
Abatement Corp.), 79 F.3d 393, 400 (5th Cir. 1996); Holiday Inns,
Inc. v. Alberding, 683 F.2d 931, 935 (5th Cir. 1982)).
The dissenting opinion overlooks our obligation to enforce the
stipulations of fact of the parties as controlling and conclusive
and finds its own version of the facts in contravention of the
stipulation. Compare the dissenting opinion at pages 3,4, 5 and 7,
and footnotes 5 and 6, with the Stipulation of Facts in the
Appendix to this opinion. Also, footnote 7 of the dissenting
opinion, which is inconsistent with the text of the dissent,
clearly misinterprets what “the majority argues.”
3
the Associated Petroleum Employees Union (the “Union”), and he
served as a representative of the Union from 1989 to 1991.
Pemberton had a long-standing disagreement with the president of
the Union, Glenn Thibodeaux (“Thibodeaux”), concerning the
operation and policies of the Union. In December 1991, Pemberton
sent a letter to his fellow Union members criticizing Thibodeaux’s
actions as Union president in proposing to help Mobil cut costs by
eliminating some employees’ jobs, and calling for his resignation.
On January 3, 1994, Pemberton distributed a letter to bargaining
unit employees in which he said he had declined nomination for
Union representative, in part, because of his criticism and
disapproval of Thibodeaux as president. The existence and nature
of Pemberton’s long-standing disagreement with Thibodeaux about
Union matters was well known to Mobil. Prior to July 19, 1994,
Mobil and the Union had an agreement whereby the Union president
would be compensated by Mobil for time lost, including overtime,
during which the president was away from work on Union business.
Under the agreement, the Union was obliged to reimburse Mobil for
all such compensation paid to the Union president. After Pemberton
and an unspecified number of other employees complained, Mobil and
the Union rescinded the agreement and practice in or around June,
1994. Pemberton asked a Mobil supervisor how much money had been
paid by the Union to Mobil under the agreement but she was unable
to provide the information. Sometime between June 15 and 22, on a
date not specifically known, Pemberton informed a Mobil supervisor
4
that he planned to file an unfair labor practice charge based on
Mobil’s payment of the Union president under the rescinded plan but
would refrain from doing so if the president refunded to the Union
any payments he received for time not actually spent on Union
business.
In or around June 1994, Pemberton received information that
Thibodeaux had worked as a high school teacher during part of the
time covered by the agreement. Between June 15 and 22, 1994,
Pemberton informed his supervisor, Mary Ellen Waszczak
(“Waszczak”), that Thibodeaux had taught at a high school during a
time at which he had been reimbursed for being away from work on
Union business. Waszczak told Pemberton that the matter would be
investigated. However, Waszczak warned Pemberton that he “had
better not leave himself open for anyone to come back and to find
something that he [was] doing wrong.”
On June 23, 1994, Pemberton went to the Lake Arthur High
School on one of his off days. Pemberton asked the principal for
the dates Thibodeaux had taught at the school in order to determine
if they corresponded to the dates he was paid for absences from
work due to Union business. The principal refused to divulge any
information. A high school representative told Thibodeaux that
someone had inquired as to the dates he served as a substitute
teacher. When Thibodeaux asked Mobil Labor Relations Adviser Dan
Whitfield (“Whitfield”) about the matter, he was told that
Pemberton had complained about Thibodeaux’s improper receipt of
5
Union business compensation while substitute teaching, and that
Mobil’s security department was investigating the complaint.
On July 7, 1994 Mobil Security Advisor John Burton (“Burton”)
took a written statement from Thibodeaux, who admitted that he had
been paid by the company for one day he worked as a substitute
teacher in January 1992, and that he had reimbursed Mobil for his
salary on that date. On July 8, 1994, Burton telephoned Pemberton
as part of his investigation. During their conversation, Pemberton
asked Burton who he was investigating, him or Thibodeaux. Burton
stated that he was just going to conduct an investigation into the
allegations made by Pemberton and did not know where the
investigation would go. Burton told Pemberton that, except for the
Union representative, Pemberton should not discuss the
investigation with anyone and to tell the representative the
investigation was confidential. Pemberton indicated that was fine
and he would do that.
On July 17, 1994, Pemberton engaged in a conversation with
some co-workers during his and their work break in the galley of a
Mobil offshore platform. The galley was a kitchen/living area
provided to employees for work and lunch breaks. Waszczak was in
a nearby office with the door open. Pemberton began talking about
Thibodeaux receiving overtime pay and that Mobil was going to fire
Pemberton. Mobil and Pemberton stipulated that Waszczak overheard
Pemberton make the following verbatim statements:
The [Company] is trying to fire me, they have
6
gotten a security guy, John Burton after me
because I was trying to right a wrong; John
Burton will dig something up on me; You know
what I’ll do, I’ll sue the shit out of them.
Waszczak got up, walked into the galley, had a brief conversation
with one of the other employees, and returned to her office. She
then overheard Pemberton tell his coworkers:
She’s the one [Waszczak] who turned me in to
John Burton; She knows about it. I wouldn’t
be surprised if he had this phone [in the
galley area] tapped so he can hear what I’m
saying out here; Do you know where [Mobil]
gets its investigators . . . from the
military. John Burton called me at my home on
Friday and Saturday night. People say to me,
“Bob you are just out to get Thibodeaux.” I
tell them they are wrong, I’m not out to get
him. He is wrong, he is giving things to
[Mobil], we don’t have a union, we need to get
in with the OCAW [another union], we can’t do
anything because of the [Union]. He’s not
going to be president much longer.
On July 29, 1994, Mobil told Pemberton that he was being
terminated from employment because of: (1) “improper interference
with a Mobil security investigation”; and (2) “insubordination.”
Pemberton filed a grievance with the Union pursuant to a
collective bargaining agreement. After a one-day arbitration
hearing, the arbitrator found (1) just cause to support
Pemberton’s discharge because Pemberton’s comments to his
coworkers on the offshore platform on July 17, 1994 constituted
insubordination due to Burton’s instruction that he not discuss
the investigation; but (2) there was insufficient evidence to
support a finding that Pemberton interfered with the company’s
7
investigation by visiting the high school on June 23, 1994 and
inquiring about the dates of Thibodeaux’s teaching. In addition
to the finding of insubordination, the arbitrator found the
following incidents contributed to the “cumulative weight of the
whole of Pemberon’s actions” and contributed to a finding “just
cause for termination”: (1) Pemberton was insubordinate in May
1994 when he walked out of Waszczak’s office after being
reprimanded for using offensive language, although Waszczak
decided to only orally reprimand Pemberton; (2) Pemberton’s record
showed “repeated misconduct” which contributed to the arbitrator’s
finding of just cause for termination.
On April 13, 1996, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found
that deferral to the arbitration award was appropriate, and upheld
the arbitrator’s decision as not “palpably wrong,” finding that
the “thrust of Pemberton’s remarks was a personal complaint about
the investigation.” The ALJ also concluded that Mobil had a
legitimate business interest in keeping internal investigations
confidential, and agreed with the arbitrator that Pemberton’s
breach of his promise of confidentiality combined with his poor
prior conduct was sufficient cause for discharge and compatible
with the purposes of the Act.
A divided panel of the National Labor Relations Board refused
to enforce the ALJ decision or defer to the arbitrator’s award.
A majority of the Board found that the award was “palpably wrong”
and “repugnant to the Act” because Pemberton’s termination was
8
precipitated by his exercise of protected concerted activity, i.e,
his July 17 work break conversation with co-workers during which
he expressed dissatisfaction with Thibodeaux as a Union leader and
his opinion that Thibodeaux should not be president of the Union.
The Board ordered Pemberton reinstated and compensated for his
loss. Mobil petitions to deny, and the Board cross-petitions to
uphold, enforcement.
II. Standard of Review
The Board’s factual findings must be affirmed if supported by
substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. See
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 487-88 (1951);
Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. NLRB, 666 F.2d 238, 239 (5th Cir.
1982). Questions of law decided by the Board are reviewed de novo.
See NLRB v. Motorola, Inc., 991 F.2d 278, 282 (5th Cir. 1993).
NLRB deference to an arbitration award is an integral part of
the administration of federal labor law, but Board deference is
nonetheless discretionary. See NLRB v. South Central Bell
Telephone Co., 688 F.2d 345, 350 (5th Cir. 1982), cert denied, 460
U.S. 1081 (1983); Hawaiian Hauling Service Ltd. v. NLRB, 545 F.2d
674, 675 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 965 (1977) (citing
NLRB v. Plasterers’ Union, 404 U.S. 116, 136-37 (1971)); NLRB v.
Ryder/P.I.E. Nationwide, Inc., 810 F.2d 502, 506 (1987). The Board
has established criteria to guide its decisions and to this extent
self-imposed restraints limit its discretion. See, e.g., Spielberg
9
Mfg. Co., 112 N.L.R.B. 1080 (1955); Olin Corp., 268 N.L.R.B. 573
(1984). In reviewing the Board, we must insure that it adheres to
its own standards until they are properly changed by the Board.
See Richmond Tank Car Co. v. NLRB, 721 F.2d 499, 501 (5th Cir. 1983)
(citing Hawaiian Hauling Service Ltd v. NLRB, 545 F.2d 674 (9th Cir.
1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 965 (1977)). We will not deny
enforcement unless the Board clearly departs from its own standards
or its standards themselves are invalid. Id.
III. Analysis
A. Activity Protected by the National Labor Relations Act
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act guarantees
employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations,” and “to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.” 29 U.S.C. § 157 (1998). The Supreme Court has often
affirmed that the task of defining the scope of Section 7 “‘is for
the Board to perform in the first instance as it considers the wide
variety of cases that come before it,’” NLRB v. City Disposal Sys.
Inc., 465 U.S. 822, 829 (1984) (citing Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437
U.S. 556, 568 (1978)), and, “on an issue that implicates its
expertise in labor relations, a reasonable construction by the
Board is entitled to considerable deference.” Id. at 829-30
(citing NLRB v. Iron Workers, 434 U.S. 335, 350 (1978)); see also
NLRB v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 130-31 (1944).
10
The question for decision in the present case is thus narrowed to
whether the Board’s application of Section 7 to Pemberton’s
statements to his fellow employees is reasonable.
Although the term “concerted activity” is not defined in the
Act, “it clearly enough embraces the activities of employees who
have joined together in order to achieve common goals.” City
Disposal, 465 U.S. at 831 (citing Meyers Indus., 268 N.L.R.B. No.
73, at 3 (1984)). The precise manner in which particular actions
of an individual employee must be linked to the actions of fellow
employees in order to permit it to be said that the individual is
engaged in concerted activity, however, must be elucidated by the
Board and the courts. Id. at 829-31.
The phrase, “to engage in concerted activities,” does not
refer merely to a situation in which two or more employees are
working together at the same time and the same place toward a
common goal. Id. at 831. Section 7 itself defines both joining
and assisting labor organizations -- activities in which a single
employee can engage -- as concerted activities. See id. Indeed,
it is now well recognized that an individual employee may be
engaged in concerted activity when he acts alone in several other
situations: that in which the lone employee intends to induce group
activity, and that in which the employee acts as a representative
of at least one other employee, see id. (citing, e.g., Aro, Inc. v.
NLRB, 596 F.2d 713, 717 (6th Cir. 1979); NLRB v. Northern Metal Co.,
11
440 F.2d 881, 884 (3rd Cir. 1971)); that in which an employee
honestly and reasonably asserts a right grounded in a collective
bargaining agreement, see NLRB v. City Disposal Sys. Inc., 465 U.S.
822 (1984); and individual employee action may also constitute
concerted activity if it represents either a “continuation” of
earlier concerted activities or a “logical outgrowth” of concerted
activity. See Burle Indus., Inc., 300 N.L.R.B. 498 (1990),
enforced without op., 932 F.2d 958 (3d Cir. 1991); Jhirmack
Enterprises, 283 N.L.R.B. 609 (1987); Rogers Envtl. Contracting,
325 N.L.R.B. No. 8, (1997); Every Woman’s Place, Inc., 282 N.L.R.B.
413 (1986), enforced, 833 F.2d 1012 (6th Cir. 1987).
Moreover, employees do not lose their protection under Section
7's “mutual aid or protection” clause when they seek to improve
terms and conditions of employment or otherwise improve their lot
as employees through channels outside the immediate employee-
employer relationship. See Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556,
565 (1978). Thus, the “mutual aid or protection” clause protects
employees from retaliation by their employers when they seek to
improve working conditions through resort to administrative and
judicial forums. Id. at 565-66.
The fact that an activity is concerted, however, does not mean
that an employee can engage in it with impunity. An employee may
engage in concerted activity in such an abusive manner that he
loses the protection of Section 7. See City Disposal, 465 U.S. at
12
837 (citing Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. NLRB, 430 F.2d 724,
729 (5th Cir. 1970); Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 247 N.L.R.B. 177,
181 (1980); Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556 (1978); NLRB v.
Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105 (1956)). Also, some concerted
activity bears a less immediate relationship to employees’
interests as employees than other such activity. It can be assumed
that at some point the relationship becomes so attenuated that an
activity cannot fairly be deemed to come within the “mutual aid or
protection” clause. The task of deciding when that boundary has
been crossed is for the Board to perform in the first instance as
it considers the wide variety of cases that come before it. See
Eastex, 437 U.S. at 567-68 (citing, inter alia, Republic Aviation
Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 798 (1944); Phelps Dodge Corp. v.
NLRB, 313 U.S. 177, 194 (1941)). For example, the Supreme Court
has approved the Board’s extension of the Republic Aviation rule to
cover the distribution of literature by dissident employees
advocating the displacement of a union, see Eastex, 437 U.S. at
n.23 (citing NLRB v. Magnavox Co., 415 U.S. 322 (1974)), and
recognizing other Board extensions of the rule to encompass non-
organizational literature complaining about an incumbent union
leadership or bargaining position. See, e.g., Ford Motor Co., 221
N.L.R.B. 663 (1975), enf’d 546 F.2d 418 (3rd Cir. 1976)).
If an activity is both concerted and protected under Section
7 of the Act, Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for an
13
employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees” in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (1998);
see Blue Circle Cement Co. v. NLRB, 41 F.3d 203, 206 (5th Cir.
1994). Accordingly, to prove a violation of Section 8(a)(1), the
General Counsel must establish that the employer interfered with,
restrained, or coerced an employee in the exercise of a right to
engage in an activity that was both concerted and protected under
Section 7. See, e.g., Reef Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 952 F.2d 830, 836
(1991); Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. NLRB, 430 F.2d 724, 729
(5th Cir. 1970) (citing Welch Scientific Co. v. NLRB, 340 F.2d 199,
203 (2d Cir. 1965)(“[I]f the conduct complained of otherwise
violated Section 8(a)(1), good faith is no defense. The cases
clearly demonstrate that it is the tendency of an employer’s
conduct to interfere with the rights of his employees protected by
Section 8(a)(1), rather than his motives, that is controlling.”)).
B. Did Mobil’s Discharge of Pemberton Violate Section 8(a)(1)?
Mobil does not contest the finding of the arbitrator, adopted
by the ALJ, that the evidence was insufficient to show that
Pemberton interfered with Mobil’s investigation by his June 23,
1994 inquiry into Thibodeaux’s substitute teaching. Pemberton’s
“contributing” misconduct found by the arbitrator to have occurred
between February 1993 and May 1994 was not related to Pemberton’s
opposition to the Union president or his remarks on July 17th, 1994.
Mobil does not demonstrate how those extraneous incidents support
14
its argument that Pemberton’s July 17th statements were mere
personal griping. Therefore, Mobil can claim to have justifiably
fired Pemberton and thereby lawfully interfered with his July 17
statements to his coworkers on the offshore platform only if the
statements did not constitute concerted or protected activity.
1. Pemberton’s July 17 Conduct Was “Concerted Activity” Under
Section 7
Generally, to qualify as “concerted activity” under the
National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., conduct
“must appear at the very least that it was engaged in with the
object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action or
that it had some relation to group action in the interests of the
employees.” NLRB v. Buddies Supermarkets, Inc., 481 F.2d 714, 718
(5th Cir. 1983). A conversation may constitute a concerted
activity although it involves only a speaker and a listener, but to
qualify as such, it must appear at the very least that it was
engaged in with the object of initiating or inducting or preparing
for group action or that it had some relation to group action in
the interest of the employees. See Mushroom Transp. Co. v. NLRB,
330 F.2d 683, 685 (3rd Cir. 1964).2 Moreover, individual activity
2
“This is not to say that preliminary discussions are
disqualified as concerted activities merely because they have not
resulted in organized action or in positive steps toward presenting
demands. We recognize the validity of the argument that, inasmuch
as almost any concerted activity for mutual aid and protection has
to start with some kind of communication between individuals, it
would come very near to nullifying the rights of organization and
15
that is an outgrowth of prior protected concerted activity, such as
an “ongoing labor dispute,” is also protected. Blue Circle, 41
F.3d at 207-209; Reef Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 952 F.2d 830, 838
(1991).
In view of these principles, we cannot say that the Board
erred in concluding that “Pemberton’s conduct on July 17
constituted protected concerted activity because it was engaged in
with the object of initiating or inducing group action with respect
to employees’ mutual interests-–group opposition to the incumbent
Union leadership and support of a fellow unit employee facing
possible discipline because of his opposition.” Mobil Oil
Exploration & Producing, U.S., Inc., 325 N.L.R.B. No. 18, at 3,
1997 WL 713342 (N.L.R.B.) (1997) (citing Whittaker Corp., 289
N.L.B.R. 933 (1988); Mushroom Transp. Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 683,
685 (3rd Cir. 1964)). The Board correctly relied on the well
settled principle that Section 7 encompasses the right of employees
to oppose the policies and actions of their incumbent union
leadership and to seek to persuade other employees to take steps to
align the union with these opposing views. See id. (citing
Machinists Local 707 (United Technologies), 276 N.L.R.B. 985, 991
(1985), enf’d, 817 F.2d 235 (2d Cir. 1987); Laborers Local 652
(Southern Cal. Contractors’ Ass’n), 319 N.L.R.B. 694, 698-99
collective bargaining guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act if such
communications are denied protection because of lack of fruition.”
Mushroom, 330 F.2d at 684.
16
(1995)). The Board has long acknowledged the critical importance
of dissident activity within union organizations. For example, in
Red Cab, Incorporated, 194 N.L.R.B. 279 (1971), the Board faced a
situation in which an employer discharged union members who
vehemently opposed the attempts of union leadership to end a
strike. The Board stated:
“The discharge of a dissident within a union when that
termination is motivated by a desire to eliminate protest
must inevitably result in an infringement under Section
8(1)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the employee’s right to self-
organization. We believe that inherent in that right is
the privilege of protest and persuasion of others.
Without this, effective employee representation becomes
a nullity.”
Id. at 290 (quoting Nu-Car Carriers, Inc., 88 N.L.R.B. 75, 76-77
(1950)); see also NLRB v. Local 139, Int’l Union of Operating
Engineers, 796 F.2d 985, 989 (7th Cir. 1986) (“When employee members
of a union undertake to inform fellow members of what they believe
to be corruption of union officials, they are engaged in ‘concerted
activity.’”). In the present case, as the Board noted, it is
stipulated that Pemberton has had an ongoing dispute concerning the
operation, policies, and practices of the Union under incumbent
Union president Thibodeaux’s leadership. In furtherance of that
dispute, Pemberton also joined an unspecified number of other
employees in protesting a Mobil-Union verbal agreement to
compensate Thibodeaux for lost wages, with Mobil to be reimbursed
by the Union, for his absences from work that he claimed were
necessitated by Union business. In continuance of that concerted
17
action, Pemberton complained to Mobil about Thibodeaux’s alleged
abuse of this privilege of Union office and asked Mobil to require
Thibodeaux to return any improper payments to the Union.
Consequently, Pemberton’s protest to fellow employees on July 17
that Mobil was attempting to “dig up” a pretext for firing him
because he “was trying to right a wrong” may reasonably be viewed
as either a continuation of earlier concerted activities or a
logical outgrowth of concerted activity. See Blue Circle Cement
Company v. NLRB, 41 F.3d 203, 207-208 (5th Cir. 1994)
There is substantial evidence in support of the Board’s
conclusion that Pemberton’s July 17 statements to his fellow
workers were another attempt to enlist the support of other
employees in opposition to the policies and alleged derelictions of
the incumbent Union leadership, and not merely a personal
complaint. Mobil’s argument that the Board unsoundly or
erroneously concluded that Pemberton’s July 17 statements were
concerted activity, not mere personal griping, is not persuasive.
Mobil misplaces its reliance on two Fifth Circuit cases to support
its position.
First, Mobil relies upon NLRB v. Datapoint Corporation, 642
F.2d 123, 128 (5th Cir. 1981). In Datapoint, an employee on the
factory floor loudly protested an employer’s decision to lay off
all but three employees for a week-long period while the company
department relocated. Several days later after a contentious
18
meeting with the supervisor who announced the layoff, the employee
“using profanity, had loudly proclaimed for all to hear that he had
told her off in no uncertain terms.” Id. at 125. The Fifth
Circuit held that the employee’s statements did not constitute
concerted activity. Instead, the court concluded that the comments
comprised only personal gripes not related to any sort of group
action. Id. at 128. The factual context presented by Datapoint is
easily distinguishable from the case at hand. Datapoint involved
the profane tirade of a disgruntled loner. Any semblance of the
instigation, incitement and sustenance of concerted group action
remains conspicuously absent from the employee’s personal campaign
in Datapoint. In the present case, Pemberton intended his July 17th
speech to serve as the catalyst for future group action.
Pemberton’s conduct throughout his tenure at Mobil reflected a
consistent dedication to union efficacy and vitality, and virtually
all of his actions related to concerted or union activity in one
form or another.
Second, Mobil relies upon Charles H. McCauley Associates,
Incorporated, 657 F.2d 685 (5th Cir. 1981) to advance its argument.
In McCauley, an architectural firm dismissed an employee for
attempting to organize a union among other employees. The Fifth
Circuit found that the employee’s complaints to management on
behalf of other employees, “though without their express support”
constituted “a predicate for possible group activity.” Id. at 688.
19
Neither the result nor the reasoning of McCauley lend any support
to Mobil’s arguments. In fact, McCauley serves as an excellent
illustration of this court’s approach to activity arising in a
union or group context. The concerted nature of the actions in
McCauley are similar to Pemberton’s campaign to initiate or induce
group action with respect to employees’ mutual interests.
2. Pemberton Did Not Engage In Concerted Conduct In Such An
Abusive Or Insubordinant Manner As To Lose Section 7 Protection3
Mobil argues that Pemberton’s concerted activity lost its
protection under the Act because (1) he disobeyed Burton’s
instruction not to disclose the company’s investigation of his
allegations that Thibodeaux collected compensation for Union work
while he was actually substitute teaching at a high school; and (2)
his language was too intemperate even for a conversation with only
his drilling rig co-workers present.
As the Supreme Court has stated, “[a]n employee may engage in
concerted activity in such an abusive manner that he loses the
protection of § 7.” City Disposal, 465 U.S. at 837. The NLRA does
not “provide protection to one so flagrantly insubordinate to the
legitimate assertion of managerial authority.” NLRB v. Great Dane
Trailers, Inc., 396 F.2d 769, 771 (1968); see also NLRB v.
Finesilver Mfg. Co., 400 F.2d 644, 649 (5th Cir. 1968) (“An
3
The Appendix described in footnote 1 is also relevant to this
section of the opinion.
20
employee cannot ordinarily be selective in the manner of obeying a
supervisor’s instructions. If instructions are flagrantly
disobeyed, the employee is properly discharged.”). Mobil asserts
that Pemberton’s insubordinate actions fall outside the protection
of the Act because he failed to abide by Mobil’s legitimate
confidentiality requirements.
The evidence contained in the record does not support Mobil’s
arguments. First, based on Pemberton’s statement that Burton was
“trying to dig something up on me,” it is reasonable to conclude
that Pemberton believed that Burton was trying to find a cause or
a pretext to fire him.4 Therefore, his most practical recourse was
to protest the employer’s action and seek the support of his fellow
workers, i.e., “mutual aid and protection,” which he did on July
17th. Pemberton’s statement may have implied that he thought the
company was looking for a possible cause or pretext for firing him
because he had displeased the management by “trying to right a
wrong.” But his remarks hardly could be understood as a disclosure
of the fact that the company was investigating Thibodeaux’s
activities away from work. Despite Pemberton’s suspicion, and
Burton’s vague remark, about the direction the investigation might
take, Pemberton had not been informed of any investigation other
than the one related to Thibodeaux. Therefore, the only
4
When Burton issued his investigatory report in August 1994,
the subject of the report is identified as “Bob L. Pemberton,” and
the bulk of the report concerns Pemberton’s alleged misconduct.
21
investigation he had been instructed not to discuss was the
Thibodeaux investigation.
Moreover, Pemberton’s speech did not violate Burton’s
instruction that Pemberton not discuss the fact that Mobil was
investigating Thibodeaux’s conduct. The only references to
Thibodeaux in Pemberton’s statement was his repetition of his own
well-known previous complaints that Thibodeaux had not acted in the
best interests of the Union membership, that he had received
overtime pay while attending to union business, and that he should
be replaced, or that the employees should join a different union.
Because of the company’s own actions, Mobil’s confidentiality
interest in its investigation of Thibodeaux’s behavior was
“exceedingly minimal,” as the Board found. In fact, it may have
been nonexistent. Burton testified that the purpose of the
confidentiality requirement was to prevent Thibodeaux, as the
target of the investigation, from attempting “to cover stuff up.”
Nothing in Pemberton’s July 17th remarks could have alerted
Thibodeaux or anyone else to the fact that Thibodeaux was under
investigation. Morevoer, it is undisputed that Mobil Labor
Relations Adviser Dan Whitfield informed Thibodeaux on June 25,
1994 of the investigation of him brought on by Pemberton’s
allegations. It is also undisputed that Burton questioned
Thibodeaux about Pemberton’s allegations on July 7, 1994. Thus,
Thibodeaux already knew about the allegations and the investigation
before July 17th. As the Board noted, there is no evidence that
22
Burton had any significant potential witnesses other than
Thibodeaux and Pemberton, or that Pemberton’s comments on July 17
were directed to, or overheard by, any potential witnesses. Under
these circumstances, the Board reasonably concluded that Mobil had
failed to demonstrate a substantial confidentiality interest that
could justify the intrusion on Pemberton’s exercise of Section 7
rights.
Considering the location and auditors of Pemberton’s July 17th
statements, Mobil’s argument that his language was flagrantly
intemperate is lacking in seriousness. Flagrant conduct of an
employee even though occurring in the course of Section 7 activity,
may justify disciplinary action by the employer. Not every
impropriety does, however, because the employee’s right to engage
in concerted activity permits some leeway for impulsive behavior,
which must be balanced against the employer’s right to maintain
order and respect. See Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. NLRB, 430
F.2d 724, 730 (5th Cir. 1970) (citing Boaz Spinning Co. v. NLRB, 395
F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1968)). Initially, the responsibility to draw
the line between these conflicting rights rests with the Board, and
its determination, unless arbitrary or unreasonable, ought not be
disturbed. See id. at 730. Pemberton’s work break remarks were
made to a small number of his drilling rig co-workers, not to any
supervisory personnel, and they were not delivered in an insulting,
provocative or violent manner. Under these circumstances, the
balance struck by the Board is authorized.
23
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s
finding that Mobil had little or no significant confidentiality
interest in its investigation of Thibodeaux’s alleged substitute
teaching activities, that Pemberton did not disobey his instruction
to keep quiet about the Thibodeaux investigation, that Pemberton’s
July 17, 1994 speech was protected, concerted activity under
Section 7 of the NLRA, and that Mobil violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by discharging Pemberton for that activity.
C. The Board Did Not Depart From Its Standards Of Review
In its Decision and Order dated November 8, 1997, a panel of
the National Labor Relations Board refused to defer to the decision
of the arbitrator finding that Pemberton’s July 17th speech to
fellow employees was delivered in such an obviously insubordinate
manner as to be stripped of any protections under the NLRA. The
Board determined that Pemberton’s activities were protected under
Section 7, and found the arbitrator’s interpretation and
application of the law was repugnant to the Act. Mobil argues that
the Board, nevertheless, erred in failing to defer to the decision
of the arbitrator.
1. Standard for Deferral
Where, as here, the question of whether an unfair labor
practice occurred has been decided by an arbitrator, the scope of
the deference given by the Board to an arbitrator’s decision is
described in Spielberg Manufacturing Company, 112 N.L.R.B. 1080
(1955), and its progeny.
24
Although supplemented and further articulated by subsequent
NLRB cases, the three part test of Spielberg remains the core of
the Board’s post-arbitration deferral policy. Under the Spielberg
doctrine, the Board will defer to the decision of the arbitrator if
three conditions are met: (1) the proceedings are fair and regular;
(2) the parties agree to be bound; (3) the decision of the
arbitrator is not clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of
the Act. Id. at 1082. In addition to a consideration of the three
Spielberg factors, Board deferral is further conditioned on proof
of the arbitrator’s adequate consideration of the relevant unfair
labor practice issue. See Olin Corp., 268 N.L.R.B. 573, 574
(1984). Finally, the party seeking to prevent deferral to the
findings of an arbitrator shoulders the burden of establishing that
the preceding standards for deferral have not been met. Id. at
574.
In the case before us, the parties concede that the first two
conditions of the Spielberg doctrine have been met. The
arbitrator’s adequate consideration of the unfair labor practice
issue is similarly not in dispute. The remaining question is
whether the decision of the arbitrator is clearly repugnant to the
purposes and policies of the Act.
a) Deferral and the Clearly Repugnant Standard
The Board may, in its discretion, decline to defer to an
arbitrator’s award if the award is clearly repugnant to the
25
purposes of the Act. An arbitrator’s award is clearly repugnant to
the Act if it is “palpably wrong”, i.e., “not susceptible to an
interpretation consistent with the Act.” Olin Corp., 268 N.L.R.B.
573, 574 (1984). The ALJ found that the arbitrator’s decision was
not inconsistent with the terms of the Act. The Board reversed.
The Board has considerable discretion in deciding whether it is
appropriate to defer to an arbitration award, and courts will
overturn the Board’s determination only where that determination is
an abuse of discretion. See NLRB v. South Central Bell Tel. Co.,
688 F.2d 345, 350 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1181
(1983). In particular, where the Board chooses not to defer to an
arbitrator’s decision, courts will not deny enforcement of the
Board determination “unless the Board clearly departs from its own
standards on deferral.” Richmond Tank Car Co. v. NLRB, 721 F.2d
499, 501 (5th Cir. 1983).
In cases involving allegations of employee disclosure of
confidential information of an employer, the Board has adopted a
balancing test to aid in determining whether or not arbitration
awards upholding termination or suspension of employees are
“clearly repugnant” to the Act. See Craig Hosp., 308 N.L.R.B. 158
(1992); Bell Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n, 214 N.L.R.B. 75 (1974);
Altoona Hosp., 270 N.L.R.B. 1179 (1984). The Board balances the
employee’s interests in disclosing the information with the
employer’s legitimate interests in its confidentiality. See
26
Altoona Hosp., 270 N.L.R.B. 1179, 1180 (1984). The Board upholds
discipline of an employee for disclosure of information when the
employee’s interests in disclosure fail to “outweigh the employer’s
legitimate interests in confidentiality.” Id. at 1180. The
balancing test even applies when an employee discloses information
“for reasons arguably protected by the Act.” Id.
The ALJ, in determining that deferral was appropriate, focused
on what he perceived to be Pemberton’s breach of confidentiality.
In deciding whether Pemberton’s conduct was protected concerted
activity, the ALJ agreed that “both arguments have some merit.”
The ALJ concluded, however, that “the protected concerted nature of
the remarks is not overwhelming and the arbitrator’s attention to
the breach of confidentiality issue as a valid motivation for the
discharge is reasonable.” In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ
relied heavily on cases in which the Board balanced weak claims of
protected activity against clearly legitimate employer interests in
confidentiality, and upheld employee terminations and suspensions
for breach of reasonable confidentiality requirements. See Craig
Hosp., 308 N.L.R.B. 158 (1992); Bell Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n, 214
N.L.R.B. 75 (1974).
In Craig, the employee, who was a member of an in-house
grievance committee, breached the committee’s confidentiality rules
to which she and the other committee members had agreed. Craig,
308 N.L.R.B. at 163. While the breach was pursuant to her advocacy
27
on behalf of a grievant -- arguably protected activity -- the Board
concluded, in finding the conduct unprotected, that the breach “did
much to undermine the entire grievance process by prejudicing or
perhaps intimidating potential witnesses.” Id. at 165.
Similarly, in Bell, the employee, a receptionist-switchboard
operator, disclosed to a union representative information
concerning the number of times the employer’s president had spoken
by telephone to the employer’s legal counsel. See Bell, 214
N.L.R.B. at 77. In finding the employee’s conduct unprotected
activity, the Board noted that “it seems plain” that an employer
has a right to rely on employees “not to disclose information about
his telephone calls, particularly those from his legal counsel.”
Id. at 78; see also Altoona Hosp., 270 N.L.R.B. 1179, 1179 (1984)
(Board deferred to arbitrator’s award sustaining discharge of an
employee, who disclosed the name of a patient’s mother to a private
investigator hired by the employee to aid her prosecution of a
grievance, because an employer’s “legitimate interest in keeping
certain information confidential . . . is unquestionably true with
regard to a health care employer whose patient records are
especially sensitive.”).
However, the ALJ’s reliance on the aforementioned cases is
misplaced. In the present case, the employer confidentiality
interest scale of the Board’s balancing test is empty and clearly
cannot budge, much less outweigh, the employee’s protected interest
28
in concerted activity. First, Pemberton’s conduct was not just
“arguably protected”. Pemberton was undoubtedly engaged in
protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the Act as
explained earlier in this opinion. Furthermore, Pemberton’s
interest in engaging in the protected activity in the reasonable
manner he used necessarily outweighs the superficial claim of a
confidentiality interest by Mobil in its investigation of
Thibodeaux, because Mobil itself, not Pemberton, destroyed or made
that confidentiality interest legally insignificant.
Although the Board enjoys ample discretion in deciding whether
to acquiesce in an arbitrator’s award, the Board must not “clearly
depart” from its own standards when electing not to defer. See
Richmond Tank Car Co. v. NLRB, 721 F.2d 499, 501 (5th Cir. 1983).
In the matter at hand, the decision of the Board has a sound basis
in precedent. The Board consistently has refused to defer to
arbitration awards where no valid factual basis exists for an
employer’s assertion that otherwise protected employee conduct is
outweighed by an employer’s legitimate interests. A number of
prior Board decisions serve to illustrate this principle.
In 110 Greenwich Street Corporation, two service employees
posted signs in car windows exhorting their employer to honor
financial commitments to his employees. Both employees were
subsequently discharged. The Board refused to defer to
arbitrator’s award sustaining the terminations since it determined
that the display of protest signs constituted protected activity
29
under Section 7 of the Act. Furthermore, the facts of the dispute
failed to sustain any breach of the employer’s alleged interests in
the normal functioning of his business. See 110 Greenwich Street
Corp., 319 N.L.R.B. 331, 334-35 (1995).
In Garland Coal & Mining Company, a union president was
disciplined for his refusal to obey a supervisor’s order to sign a
memorandum. The Board determined that the union president was
“espousing an official and protected union position” at the time
and refused to defer to the arbitrator’s award sustaining
discipline against the union president. Garland Coal & Mining Co.
276 N.L.R.B. 963, 965 (1985); accord NLRB v. Owners Maintenance
Corp., 581 F.2d 44, 47-50 (2d Cir. 1978) (Board did not abuse
discretion in declining to defer to arbitrator’s award sustaining
employer’s refusal to reinstate employees allegedly because their
leafleting was “grossly disloyal” where facts showed that passing
out leaflets related directly to a legitimate employee grievance).
In the present case, the Board appropriately refused to defer
to the arbitrator’s award on the grounds that the award was
“repugnant” to the Act. The arbitrator’s award is not susceptible
to an interpretation that is consistent with the goals of the Act.
The purpose of the NLRA would be thwarted if Pemberton’s genuine
and weighty interest in engaging in protected concerted activity
were not held to prevail over Mobil’s merely pro forma claim of
confidentiality in an investigation that the company had completely
30
disclosed to the only person whose conduct was allegedly in
question.
Mobil argues that the arbitration award is susceptible to an
interpretation consistent with the Act, and that it is not
“palpably wrong.” As discussed above, Mobil failed to enunciate a
legitimate confidentiality concern that would have justified its
infringement of Pemberton’s protected Section 7 rights. The ALJ
deferred to the arbitrator only because he concluded that
Pemberton’s conduct conflicted with what he perceived to be Mobil’s
confidentiality interests. Because Mobil had no legitimate
confidentiality interest that would justify its interference with
Pemberton’s exercise of his Section 7 rights, the ALJ’s deferral
was “clearly repugnant” to the Act because it was “not susceptible
to an interpretation consistent with the Act.” In such cases, when
the facts show that the employer’s interests have not been
breached, the Board consistently has held that it will not defer to
an arbitrator’s decision that fails to protect employees’ rights to
engage in concerted activities because of a misinterpretation or
misapplication of the principles and policy of the Act. See 110
Greenwich, 319 N.L.R.B. at 334-35; Garland, 276 N.L.R.B. at 965.
Accordingly, the Board’s refusal to defer to the arbitrator’s
ruling did not in the present case constitute an abuse of
discretion or an error of law.
IV. Conclusion
We conclude that we are required to uphold the Board’s
31
decision because substantial evidence supports the Board’s
determination that Pemberton’s actions constituted protected
concerted activity and that Pemberton’s strong, protected interest
in engaging in such activity clearly outweighed Mobil’s attenuated
confidentiality interest. We further hold that the Board did not
abuse its discretion or depart from its standards in finding that
the arbitrator’s decision was repugnant to the purposes and
policies of the Act. Therefore, the Board did not abuse its
discretion or depart from its standards in refusing to defer to the
arbitrator’s ruling. Based on the foregoing, Mobil’s petition for
review is DENIED, and the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement of
the order is GRANTED.
32
APPENDIX
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REGION 15
MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION &
PRODUCING, U.S., INC.
and Case No. 15-CA-12801
BOB L. PEMBERTON, AN INDIVIDUAL
STIPULATION OF FACTS
1. Bob L. Pemberton, an Individual, herein referred to as Pemberton, was employed by Mobil Oil
Exploration & Producing, U.S., Inc., herein referred to as Respondent, from August 16, 1974 until
July 20, 1994. At the time of his termination on July 29, 1994, Pemberton was employed as a field
facility operator. He was a member of the Associated Petroleum Employees Union, herein called the
Union, for about twelve years prior to his termination and served as a representative of the Union from
about 1989 to about 1991.
2. Pemberton filed a charge in case No. 15-CA-12801 on August 15, 1994, alleging that he was
terminated on or about July 29, 1994 because he had previously filed a charge against Respondent.
Pemberton filed an amended charge in Case No. 15-CA- 12801 on January 27, 1995, alleging that on
or about July 29,1994, he was terminated because of his protected concerted activities and because
he had previously filed a charge against Respondent. On January 31, 1995, an Order to Show Cause
issued directing the parties to show cause why the Regional Director should/should not defer to the
decision of the Arbitrator, Bill Detwiler, in American Arbitration Association Case No. 71-300-
00186-94. On February 9, 1995, Respondent filed its Response of Employer to Order to Show Cause.
On February 14, 1995, the Union filed a response to the Order to Show Cause. On March 30, 1995,
Pemberton withdrew the allegation that, on or about July 29, 1994, he was terminated because he had
previously filed a charge against Respondent. On March 30, 1995, Complaint and Notice of Hearing
issued alleging that on or about July 29, 1994, Pemberton was terminated because he engaged in
protected concerted activities. On April 11, 1995, the Respondent filed its answer to Complaint. On
February 5, 1996, Counsel for General Counsel issued a Motion Requesting Postponement of Hearing.
On February 5, 1996, the Acting Regional Director issued an Order Postponing Hearing Indefinitely.
A copy of the formal documents for this case are attached hereto as Exhibits I(a) through 1(o), with
33
Exhibit 1(o) being an index and description of the formal documents included in Exhibit 1.
3. Respondent, a corporation, with an office and places of business in California and Louisiana, has been
engaged in drilling for and producing oil. Respondent, during the 12-month period ending February
28, 1995, in conducting its business operations, sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly to points outside the State of California. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6) and (7) within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, herein called the Act.
4. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
5. At all material times, the following individuals held the respective positions and have been supervisors
of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and have been agents of Respondent
within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Charles Bennett, Production Foreman; Terry Britt,
Production Foreman; Kristina Mosca, Operations Supervisor; and Mary Ellen Waszczak, Senior
Production Foreman.
6. At all times since about January 1993 to about March 1993, Robert Gray held the position of
Respondent's Production Foreman and has been a supervisor of Respondent within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act and an agent of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
7. At all times since about July 1993 to about September 1993, Don Longorio, held the position of
Measurement & Production Foreman and has been a supervisor of Respondent within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act and an agent of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
8. At all material times, the following individuals held the respective positions and have been agents of
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: John Burton, Security Advisor; Robert
Putney, Labor Relations Manager; George Transier, Labor Relations Manager; Dan Whitfield, Labor
Relations Advisor; C.L. Bond, Security Manager; and G.A. Cox, Asset Team Leader.
9. At all material times, Glenn Thibodeaux was President of the Union.
10. At all material times, Pemberton had an ongoing dispute with Glenn Thibodeaux over the operation,
policies and practices of the Union and this existence and nature of this dispute was known by
employees, supervisors and agents of Respondent. A copy of a letter from Pemberton distributed
genera ly to Union representatives dated December 16, 1993 is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. A copy
of a letter from Pemberton distributed generally to bargaining unit employees dated January 3, 1994
is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Respondent, at all material times, was aware of the existence and
substance of Exhibits 2 and 3.
11. The collective bargaining agreement in effect between the Employer and the Union does not have any
provision requiring the Employer utilize progressive discipline in disciplining employees. The
Employer does however have a policy of utilizing a progressive disciplinary procedure when
disciplining employees. The procedure operates such that an employee will first receive a verbal
warning, then a written warning, then a suspension without pay and termination. The Employer
reserves the right to skip any of the steps of the procedure depending upon the severity of the employee
conduct requiring discipline.
34
12. On February 8, 1993, Pemberton received a verbal reprimand from Terry Britt for having an argument
with coworkers, using vulgar language during this argument and throwing his hard hat during the
argument. A copy of the verbal warning memo signed by Terry Britt dated February 8, 1993; a copy
of the statement given by employee Robert Gray to Britt; and a copy of the statement given by
employee Ruben Roy to Britt are attached hereto as Exhibits 4(a) through 4(c), respectively.
13. On October 20, 1993, Pemberton received a written reprimand from Charles Bennett for engaging in
an argument with Carol Swopes, EMSI technician, who was conducting drug tests for employees on
the offshore drilling rig where Pemberton was working at that time. A copy of the interoffice
correspondence from Charles Bennett to Pemberton dated October 20, 1993; a copy of the signed
handwritten statement of Swopes; a typed copy of Swopes' handwritten statement; and a copy of
signed statement given by employee Steve Quibodeaux to Britt dated August 19, 1993 are attached
hereto as Exhibits 5(a) through (d), respectively.
14. In or around early May 1994, Pemberton received a verbal reprimand from Senior Production
Foreman Mary Ellen Waszczak for making inappropriate comments about management officials of
Respondent. These comments included statements to the effect that management officials of
Respondent were "stupid" and were "assholes." No written, formal record of this counseling was made
by Waszczak or any other supervisor or agent of Respondent.
15. On March 10, 1994, Pemberton received a verbal reprimand for making statements to Longorio which
Longorio contended were in violation of Respondent's EEO and discrimination policies. A copy of the
Memo to File signed by Longorio dated March 10, 1994 and a typed copy of the Memo to File from
Longorio dated March 10, 1994 are attached hereto as Exhibits 6(a) and 6(b), respectively.
16. Prior to July 19, 1994, Respondent and the Union had a verbal agreement whereby the President of
the Union would be compensated for time lost, including overtime, when away from work on Union
business or when his presence as Union President is requested by Respondent. This agreement operated
such that, if the employees working in the offshore crew to which the Union President was assigned
worked overtime during a week, then the Union President would be paid for that overtime even though
the Union President was not working with his crew at that time. Further, the Union would later
reimburse Respondent for all compensation received by the Union President, including overtime, for
those times when the Union President was determined to have been working on Union business.
17. In or around June, 1994, in a verbal agreement between Respondent and the Union, Respondent ceased
the practice referred to in paragraph 16. Respondent and the Union agreed to cease this practice, in
part, after receiving complaints about the practice from an unspecified number of Respondent's
employees, including Pemberton.
18. In or around June 1994, Pemberton had a discussion with Operations Supervisor Kristina Mosca in
Mosca's office at the High Island Complex where Pemberton informed Mosca of his concerns about
Glenn Thibodeaux, the Union president, receiving overtime pay under the agreement referred to in
paragraph 16. After being informed by Mosca that the agreement between Respondent and the Union
had ceased, Pemberton asked Mosca the amount of money paid out by the Union to Respondent
pursuant to the agreement referred to in paragraph 16. Mosca was unable to provide Pemberton with
a figure during this meeting.
35
19. In or around June 1994, Pemberton, while working on the High Island Complex, had a conversation
with Wendell Lambert, an employee, where Pemberton and Lambert were discussing Thibodeaux's
receipt of overtime pay pursuant to the agreement referred to in paragraph 16. During
thisconversation, Lambert informed Pemberton that approximately one and a half to two years earlier,
two females, who were employed by a catering contractor performing work for Respondent on an oil
drilling platform at that time, pointed out Glenn Thibodeaux to Lambert and informed Lambert that
Thibodeaux had been their teacher in high school.
20. Between June 15 and 22, 1994, on a date not more specifically known, Pemberton had a conversation
with Senior Production Foreman Mary Ellen Waszczak in her office. In this meeting, Pemberton
informed Waszczak that he had discovered that the practice of overtime being paid to Thibodeaux
when he was on Union business had been put to a stop. Pemberton told Waszczak that he had called
Mosca to thank her. Waszczak stated that she had heard about it at the foreman's meeting. Pemberton
told Waszczak that he had spoken with the National Labor Relations Board and discussed filing a
claim against the Union. Pemberton told Waszczak that he would not file the claim if Respondent
would get Thibodeaux to reimburse the Union. Waszczak then stated that she would pass this on to
Mosca. A copy of the signed statement of Waszczak as provided to Security Advisor John Burton,
dated July 19, 1994, which discusses the above incident, is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
21. Between June 15 and 22, 1994, on the same date but after the meeting between Waszczak and
Pemberton referred to in paragraph 20, Waszczak had a conversation with Mosca where Waszczak
told Mosca that Pemberton was considering filing a claim against the Union with the National Labor
Relations Board but that he would not do so if Respondent got Thibodeaux to reimburse the Union for
overtime compensation paid to him pursuant to the agreement discussed above in paragraph 16. Mosca
told Waszczak to tell Pemberton about Respondent's policy about using Respondent's time and
equipment for his personal gain against Thibodeaux. See Exhibit 7.
22. Between June 15 and 22, 1994, approximately one to two days after the conversations referred to in
paragraphs 20 and 21, Pemberton had a conversation with Waszczak in her office. In this
conversation, Pemberton informed Waszczak that Thibodeaux was teaching at a high school while he
was supposed to be on Union business and that he had information about two girls who had been on
Thibodeaux's platform and asked an employee why Respondent had their school teacher working on
one of its platforms. Waszczak asked Pemberton how he knew this. Pemberton told Waszczak that the
girls pointed at Thibodeaux and said that he had been their teacher. Pemberton asked Waszczak what
she would do about that kind of information on the president of the Union. Waszczak stated that she
would treat it as if it were information on any other employee of Mobil and report it to the right people
and they could look into it. Waszczak then told Pemberton that he should not use Respondent's time
and phones for his "personal desires" for Thibodeaux. Waszczak then told Pemberton that it did not
take much for people to figure that he didn't care much for Thibodeaux by initiating charges against
the Union president. Waszczak stated that, if they go asking for an investigation to look into the things
he had br ought forward, he had better not leave himself open for anyone to come back and find
something that he is doing wrong. Pemberton stated that he understood, that he knew how to cover
himself from Respondent and that he had been having to cover himself for years against that. See
Exhibit 7.
23. Between June 15 and 22, 1994, on a date after the conversation referred to in paragraph 22, Pemberton
had a conversation with Waszczak in her office. In this conversation, Pemberton asked Waszczak if
36
she had heard back from Mosca on whether Respondent was going to make Thibodeaux reimburse the
Union for overtime compensation he received pursuant to the agreement referred to in paragraph 16
and what Waszczak had done about the information about Thibodeaux teaching while on Respondent's
time. Waszczak told Pemberton that Mosca was looking into whether Respondent was going to make
Thibodeaux reimburse the Union and she had not heard back from Mosca. Waszczak also told
Pemberton that she had done what she told him she was going to do with the information that
Thibodeaux was teaching while on Respondent's time. Waszczak stated that she had reported it to
Respondent's Labor Relations Department and an individual in the Labor Relations Department stated
that they would look into it. See Exhibit 7.
24. On or about June 22, 1994, Labor Relations Advisor Dan Whitfield sent an interoffice correspondence
to Security Manager C.L. Bond and Labor Relations Manager Robert Putney in which Whitfield
writes that he had been informed that Pemberton had told Waszczak that Thibodeaux was working as
a substitute teacher in or around the Lake Arthur, Louisiana area during times he was scheduled to
work but was excused to perform "union business." A copy of this letter dated June 22, 1994 signed
by Whitfield is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
25. On or about June 23, 1994, Pemberton, on a day he was not scheduled to work for Respondent, went
to the Lake Arthur High School in Lake Arthur, Louisiana. Pemberton went to the school with the
intention of collecting information regarding whether Thibodeaux was working as a substitute teacher
on days he was scheduled to work for Respondent but was excused to perform Union business. While
there, he had a conversation with Evelyn Broussard, the principal of the Lake Arthur High School.
Pemberton informed Broussard that he was looking into the possibility that Thibodeaux was working
as a substitute teacher on days when he was being paid by the Union to perform Union business.
Pemberton indicated that he and Thibodeaux worked for Respondent and that they were in the Union
together. The principal informed Pemberton that this information was confidential. Pemberton did not,
at any time, tell the principal that he was a supervisor, agent or investigator for Respondent. A copy
of a signed handwritten statement given by Broussard to Burton dated July 19, 1994 and a copy of a
typed copy of the statement given by Broussard to Burton on July 19, 1994 are attached hereto as
Exhibits 9(a) and 9(b), respectively. A copy of a signed handwritten statement given by Pemberton to
Burton dated July 19, 1994 and a typed copy of the statement given by Pemberton to Burton on July
19, 1994 are attached hereto as Exhibits 10(a) and 10(b), respectively.
26. On or about June 25, 1994, Thibodeaux had a telephone conversation with Labor Relations Advisor
Dan Whitfield. In this conversation, Thibodeaux informed Whitfield that he had spoken with a
representative from Jefferson Davis School Board Office (which oversees the operation of Lake Arthur
High School) where the representative of the School Board informed Thibodeaux that a man had gone
to Lake Arthur High School and asked School Principal Evelyn Broussard if Thibodeaux had been a
substitute teacher at the high school. Thibodeaux then told Whitfield that the School Board
representative said that the man asked where the school payroll records were kept and whether these
were public or private. Whitfield told Thibodeaux that Pemberton had gone to his foreman, Waszczak,
and told her that Thibodeaux had taught at Lake Arthur High School while “on Respondent's time.”
Whitfield then said that the allegation had been turned over to Respondent's security department. A
copy of the signed handwritten statement which relates this information given by Thibodeaux to
Security Advisor John Burton dated July 7, 1994 and a typed copy of the statement given by
Thibodeaux to Burton July 7, 1994 are attached hereto as Exhibits 11(a) and 11(b), respectively. No
member of management of Respondent ever asserted or considered Whitfield's response to
37
Thibodeaux's questions to be in breach of any security department policy or any company policy, nor
at any time was Whitfield instructed not to discuss the investigation with any employee.
27. On July 7, 1994, Security Advisor Burton began a security investigation for Respondent. Burton, on
this date, spoke with Thibodeaux and took a statement from him regarding whether Thibodeaux had
worked as a substitute teacher for Lake Arthur High School on days when he was scheduled to work
for Respondent but was excused to perform Union business. Thibodeaux provided Burton with copies
of his pay r ecords from the school and a letter signed by Cleve Beard, the superintendent for the
Jefferson Davis Parish school system, of which Lake Arthur High School is a part. The letter from
Beard read that Thibodeaux had worked as a substitute teacher on January 30, 1992 and that this was
the only day since 1990 (when Thibodeaux became president of the Union) that Thibodeaux had served
as a substitute teacher at Lake Arthur High School. Thibodeaux informed Burton that, on January 30,
1992, he was on Union business but that Respondent was reimbursed for Thibodeaux's salary for that
day. See Exhibits 11(a) and 11(b). A copy of a letter from Beard to Thibodeaux signed by Beard dated
July 5, 1994 are attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
28. On or about July 8, 1994, Burton had a telephone conversation with Pemberton. Burton introduced
himself as being with security for Respondent and stated that he was going to be looking into the
allegation concerning Thibodeaux's substitute teaching while being paid by the Union. Pemberton
asked Burton if Burton was investigating him (Pemberton). Burton asked, "Do what?" Pemberton
asked Burton how he knew about this. Burton stated that a letter came through the Employee Relations
department that security conduct this investigation and that he needed to speak with Pemberton about
it. Pemberton asked Burton why he needed to talk to him. Burton stated that Pemberton was the one
who came forward with the allegation and that he always liked to go back to the source of the
information and find out as much as he could when starting to conduct investigations. Pemberton asked
Burton again who he was investigating, he or Thibodeaux. Burton stated that he was just going to
conduct an investigation into the allegations and he did not know where the investigation would go.
Pemberton agreed to speak with Burton and they agreed that Pemberton could have a representative
from the Union present for the interview. Burton then told Pemberton that he wanted Pemberton not
to discuss the investigation with anybody. Burton told Pemberton that he understood that he had to tell
the Union representative but he should not discuss the investigation with anybody. Burton then told
Pemberton that this was a company confidential investigation and that he was not to discuss anything
that they had talked about on the phone that day. Burton then told Pemberton that he should stress this
point with the Union representative. Pemberton indicated that was fine and he would do that.
29. On or about July 9, 1994, Burton had a telephone conversation with Pemberton by telephone where
Burton called Pemberton. In this conversation, Pemberton and Burton changed the date and time of
their meeting for Pemberton to give a statement for the investigation. Burton then told Pemberton that
he should not discuss the investigation with anybody, that this was a company confidential
investigation and that Pemberton should not discuss anything which they had spoken about on the
phone.
30. Respondent does not have any formal written policy which prohibits interference with an official
security investigation or which requires compliance with an official security investigation and there
are no documents or examples to indicate that a past practice exists. However, it is Respondent's
contention that a past practice has been established which requires that an employee cooperate with
a security investigation in the manner instructed by the investigator conducting the investigation.
38
31. On or about July 17, 1994, in a platform meeting on the High Island Complex, attended by Pemberton
and Waszczak, Pemberton stated that due to circumstances which arose over the past few weeks, he
was concerned about working on a team that was working with represented employees. Waszczak
asked Pemberton why. Pemberton stated that he was not permitted to talk about it. Waszczak stated
that, if that was the case, then they would not want him to and that he should let them know how he
would like them to handle his spot on the team. Pemberton then stated that he did not think it would
be a good idea to be working on the team and stated again that he was not allowed say why. See
Exhibit 7.
32. On or about July 17,1994, at about 7:10 PM, after the events discussed above in paragraph 31,
Waszczak was sitting in the foreman's office on the High Island Complex with the door open. She
heard Pemberton come in the area where the office was located speaking very loudly. Pemberton was
not on working time. The area where Pemberton entered was the galley, a kitchen/living area on the
platform, used by employees working on the platform while those employees were not on working time
or were on lunch or on break. Steve Gardner, an employee, was in the area as he was on break. Bruce
Rabalais, an employee, was in the area reading a newspaper. Another employee with the last name of
Richard, whose first name is not known, was also in the area. Other unspecified employees were also
in the galley at the time Pemberton was present. Pemberton then began talking about Glenn
Thibodeaux receiving overtime pay and that Respondent was trying to fire him (Pemberton). At about
7:20 PM, Waszczak heard Pemberton make the following statements which she identified in her July
19, 1994 statement to Burton attached hereto as Exhibit 7 as being verbatim: "[Respondent] is trying
to fire me, they have gotten a security guy, John Burton after me because I was trying to right a
wrong;" "John Burton will dig something up on me;" "You know what I'll do, I'll sue the shit out of
them." At this point, Waszczak got up from her desk in the office and walked out into the galley.
Waszczak asked Rabalais if he was going to be around for awhile. Rabalais said that he was.
Pemberton was silent while Waszczak was in the galley. When Waszczak got back to her office, she
heard Pemberton make the following statements: "She's the one who turned me in to John Burton;"
"She knows about it;" "I wouldn't be surprised if he had this phone [in the galley] tapped so he can hear
what I'm saying out here;" "Do you know where [Respondent] gets its investigators ... from the
military;" "John Burton called me at my home on Friday and Saturday night;" "People say to me,
'Bob, you are just out to get Thibodeaux.' I tell them they are wrong, I'm not out to get him. He is
wrong, he is giving things to [Respondent], we don't have a Union, we need to get in with the OCAW,
we can't do anything because of the [Union]. He's not going to be president much longer." See Exhibit
7.
33. On or about July 19, 1994, Burton met with Pemberton and David Bain, a representative of the
Union, on the High Island Complex for the purpose of taking a statement from Pemberton. See
Exhibits 10(a) and 10(b).
34. Between July 19, 1994 and July 29, 1994, on an unspecified date, Burton had a conversation with
Whitfield where Burton briefed Whitfield on the information he collected during his investigation.
While briefing Whitfield, Burton informed Whitfield that he believed that Pemberton had interfered
with the investigation.
35. Between July 19, 1994 and July 29, 1994, Waszczak in a conversation with Mosca made a
recommendation to Mosca that Pemberton be terminated because of his interference with a security
39
investigation by going to Lake Arthur High School on or about June 23, 1994, and engaging in the
activities described above in paragraph 25; and for insubordination for failing to abide by the
confidentiality instructions given by Burton by engaging the activities described above in paragraph
32. This recommendation was affirmed by Mosca.
36. Between July 19, 1994 and July 29, 1994, Mosca made a recommendation to Whitfield that Pemberton
be terminated because he engaged in misconduct by interfering with a security investigation by going
to Lake Arthur High School on or about June 23, 1994, and engaged in the conduct described above
in paragraph 25; because he engaged in insubordination by failing to abide by the confidentiality
instructions given by Burton by engaging the activities described above in paragraph 32; because of
Pemberton's prior discipline described above in paragraphs 12 and 13; and for Pemberton's general
course of conduct. Whitfield affirmed this recommendation.
37. On or about July 26, 1994, Pemberton had a phone conversation with Waszczak where Waszczak told
Pemberton that he should report to work and that he was suspended without pay until further notice.
Waszczak did not specify the reasons for the suspension to Pemberton during this conversation.
38. On or about July 29, 1994, Pemberton had a phone conversation with Waszczak where Waszczak
informed Pemberton that he was being terminated because of interference with a security investigation
and insubordination. Waszczak refused to provide more details to Pemberton with regard to the
reasons for his termination.
39. On an unspecified date after July 29, 1994, Pemberton received a letter dated July 29, 1994, titled
"Termination of Employment," signed by Waszczak which read that Pemberton's employment with
Respondent was terminated effective July 29, 1994. The reasons for the termination were stated as
improper interference with a Mobil security investigation and insubordination. A copy of this letter
signed by Waszczak dated July 29, 1994 is attached hereto as Exhibit 13.
40. On an unspecified date after July 29, 1994, Pemberton filed a grievance over his termination with the
Union pursuant to the grievance/arbitration procedure in the collective bargaining agreement in effect
at that time. This grievance was subsequently processed to arbitration by the Union and Respondent.
41. On or about August 23, 1994, Burton completed his investigation and issued his investigative report
and investigative report synopsis. This investigative report concluded that Thibodeaux did not violate
any company rules in substitute teaching at Lake Arthur High School while serving as president of the
Union. The report further noted that Pemberton was terminated, effective July 29, 1994, for improper
interference with a Mobil security investigation and insubordination. A copy of a letter from Security
Manager C.L. Bond to Asset Team Leader G.A. Cox signed by Bond dated August 23, 1994 and a
copy of Burton's investigative report synopsis are attached hereto as Exhibit 4(a) and 14(b),
respectively.
42. On or about November 8, 1994, an arbitration hearing was held over the grievance filed by Pemberton
over his termination. This arbitration was assigned Case No. 71-300-00186-94 by the American
Arbitration Association. A copy of the arbitration transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit 15.
43. On or about January 10, 1995, the arbitrator in Case No. 71-300-00186-94 issued his decision
upholding the termination of Pemberton, the grievant. A copy of the arbitrator's decision signed by Bill
40
Detwiler, arbitrator, dated January 10, 1995 is attached hereto as Exhibit 16.
44. It is Respondent's contention that Pemberton's discharge was based on his actions in interfering with
the security investigation, insubordination in failing to follow Burton's orders not to talk about the
security investigation and based on his history of past misconduct. Further, it is Respondent's
contention that the National Labor Relations Board should defer to the arbitrator's decision under the
standards as set out in Spielberg Wk. Co.
45. It is the contention of the General Counsel that when Pemberton engaged in the activities described
above in paragraphs 25 and 32, he was engaged in protected concerted activities and therefore these
activities cannot form the basis for a lawful discharge. Further, it is the contention of the General
Counsel that, absent Pemberton's protected concerted activities, Respondent would not have had cause
to terminate Pemberton. Further, it is the contention of the General Counsel that deferral to the
arbitrator's award is inappropriate as this award is repugnant to the National Labor Relations Act.
The parties agree that the Charge, Complaint and Notice of Hearing, Answer, Order to Show Cause,
and the "Stipulation of Facts" with attached Exhibits constitute the entire record in this case and that
no oral testimony is necessary or desired by any of the parties.
By entering into this stipulated agreement, the parties do not necessarily concede the relevance of each
fact recited, and any party urging irrelevance would do so in a brief. This stipulation is made without
prejudice to any objection that any party may have as to the relevance, materiality or competency of
any facts stated herein.
The parties request that the Administrative Law Judge set a time for the filing of briefs.
/s/_______________________________________
Bob L. Pemberton, An Individual
/s/_______________________________________
Phil Jones, Esq.
for Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing, U.S., Inc.
/s/_______________________________________
William T. Hearne, Esq.
Counsel for General Counsel for National Labor
Relations Board Region 15
41
42
The parties agree that the Charge, Complaint and Notice of Heating, Answer, Order to Show Cause,
and the "Stipulation of Facts" with attached Exhibits constitute the entire record in this case and that
no oral testimony is necessary or desired by any of the parties.
By entering into this stipulated agreement, the parties do not necessarily concede the relevance of each
fact recited, and any party urging irrelevance would do so in a brief. This stipulation is made without
prejudice to any objection that any party may have as to the relevance, materiality or competency of
any facts stated herein.
The parties request that the Administrative Law Judge set a time for the filing of briefs.
/s/_______________________________________
Bob L. Pemberton, An Individual
/s/_______________________________________
Phil Jones, Esq.
for Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing, U.S., Inc.
/s/_______________________________________
William T. Hearne, Esq.
Counsel for General Counsel for National Labor
Relations Board Region 15
97-60789.CV0 43
97-60789.CV0 44
97-60789.CV0 45
97-60789.CV0 46
97-60789.CV0 47
97-60789.CV0 48
EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
The majority agrees with the National Labor Relations Board
(“the Board”) that the arbitral award in this case was “not
susceptible to an interpretation consistent with the [National
Labor Relations] Act.” I disagree.
In the case sub judice, the Board reversed the findings of
both the arbitrator and the administrative law judge (“ALJ”).
Under its own standards, the Board should have deferred if:
(1) the proceedings appear to have been fair and regular
(2) the parties agreed to be bound
(3) the decision is not “clearly repugnant to the
purposes and policies of the Act”
Spielberg Manufacturing Co., 112 N.L.R.B. 1080, 1082 (1955)
(emphasis added); see also Richmond Tank Car Co. v. NLRB, 721 F.2d
499, 502 (5th Cir. 1984) (applying Spielberg). “Clear repugnance”
may be found only if the arbitral award was “not susceptible to an
interpretation consistent with the Act.” Olin Corp., 268 N.L.R.B.
573, 574 (1984); see also Richmond Tank Car, 721 F.2d at 501
(applying Olin deference). Here, the Board held that the award was
“not susceptible to an interpretation consistent with the Act”
because Pemberton was fired solely for activities that were both
“concerted” and “protected.” Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing,
U.S., Inc., 325 NLRB No. 18, 1997 WL 713342, at *1, *3 (Nov. 8,
1997); see generally NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9,
16, 82 S. Ct. 1099, 1104, 8 L. Ed. 2d 298 (1962) (holding that § 7
prohibits dismissal only for those activities that are both
97-60789.CV0 49
“concerted” and “protected”).5
“It is the duty of the courts to insure Board adherence to the
Spielberg doctrine,” NLRB v. South Cent. Bell Tele. Co., 688 F.2d
345, 350 (5th Cir. 1982), keeping in mind “the policy favoring the
settling of labor disputes by arbitration.” Richmond Tank Car, 721
F.2d at 501 (citation omitted). We review the Board’s failure to
defer for abuse of discretion, see South Cent. Bell Tele. Co., 688
F.2d at 350; NLRB v. Magna Corp., 734 F.2d 1057, 1063 (5th Cir.
1984), and its findings that Pemberton’s conduct was “concerted”
and “protected” for substantial evidence.6
5
The three-member NLRB panel that decided this case split
2-1. Member Higgins, dissenting, argued for deferral in light of
the fact that reasonable people could disagree about whether
Pemberton’s conduct was “concerted” and “protected.” See Mobil,
1997 WL 713342 at *9 (Higgins, Member, dissenting) (“Under
Spielberg-Olin deferral principles, the fact that the Board could
reasonably come to a different conclusion is not a basis for
refusing to defer.”). In his concurrence, Chairman Gould agreed
with Member Fox that the arbitral award was “clearly repugnant,”
but also argued for lessening the Olin deferral standard to require
arbitral awards to comply with Board precedent. See id. at *7
(Gould, Chairman, concurring) (“For an arbitral award not to be
clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act under
Spielberg, I would require that it be consistent with Board
precedent.”). Despite the Chairman’s reservations, we must examine
this case as if Olin was unquestioned, as the Board must follow its
standards until they are properly changed. See Drug Plastics &
Glass Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 44 F.3d 1017, 1022 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“In
order to diverge from agency precedent, the Board must supply a
reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are
being deliberately changed, not casually ignored.”) (citation
omitted).
6
As the majority notes, we review the Board’s factual
findings for substantial evidence. See Universal Camera Corp. v.
NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477, 71 S. Ct. 456, 459, 95 L. Ed. 465, __
(1951); NLRB v. Thermon Heat Tracing Servs., Inc., 143 F.3d 181,
97-60789.CV0 50
To qualify as “concerted” activity, conduct need not
necessarily be communal. However, to be considered “concerted,”
Pemberton’s conduct “must appear at the very least . . . engaged in
with the object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group
action or that it had some relation to group action in the
interests of the employees.” NLRB v. Buddies Supermarkets, Inc.,
481 F.2d 714, 718 (5th Cir. 1973). By contrast, it is well-settled
that purely personal “griping” is not concerted activity and thus
unprotected by the Act. See NLRB v. City Disposal Sys., Inc., 465
U.S. 822, 832 n.10, 104 S. Ct. 1505, 1512 n.10, 79 L. Ed. 2d 839,
__ (1984); Scooba Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 694 F.2d 82, 84-85 (5th Cir.
1982) (“Purely personal disputes are not within the protection of
the Act. The [Board] must show that some sort of collective worker
action is contemplated.”)
What the Board calls the “concerted precipitating event” of
185 (5th Cir. 1998). However, when (as here) the NLRB has rejected
the findings of the ALJ, our review for substantial evidence
involves heightened scrutiny. See Centre Property Management v.
NLRB, 807 F.2d 1264, 1268 (5th Cir. 1987) (“Such scrutiny is more
searching than it is when the Board and the ALJ are in
agreement.”); U.S. Contractors, Inc. v. NLRB, 697 F.2d 692, 695 (5th
Cir. 1983); Earle Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 75 F.3d 400, 404 (8th
Cir. 1996) (“We examine the Board’s findings more critically when,
as here, the Board’s conclusions are contrary to the ALJ’s, because
the ALJ’s opinion is part of the record we must consider.”); Ewing
v. NLRB, 732 F.2d 1117, 1120 (2d Cir. 1984) (“When the Board
overturns the determinations made by an ALJ . . . its own findings
must be stronger than would be [otherwise] required.”); cf. Garcia
v. Secretary of Labor, 10 F.3d 276, 280 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Although
this heightened scrutiny does not alter the substantial evidence
standard of review, it does require us to apply it with a
particularly keen eye.”).
97-60789.CV0 51
Pemberton’s dismissal is his statement, to fellow employees, that:
[Mobil] is trying to fire me, they have gotten a security
guy, John Burton after me because I was trying to right
a wrong. John Burton will dig something up on me. You
know what I’ll do, I’ll sue the shit out of them.
[Waszczak]’s the one who turned me in to John Burton.
She knows about it. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had
this phone tapped so he can hear what I’m saying out
here. Do you know where [Mobil] gets its investigators
. . . from the military. John Burton called me at my
home on Friday and Saturday night. People say to me,
‘Bob, you are just out to get Thibodeaux.’ I tell them
they are wrong, I’m not out to get him. He is wrong, he
is giving things to [Mobil], we don’t have a union, we
need to get in with the OCAW, we can’t do anything
because of the [union]. He’s not going to be president
much longer.
The majority agrees with the Board that these statements were
“another attempt to enlist the support of other employees in
opposition to the policies and alleged derelictions of the
incumbent Union leadership, not merely a personal complaint.”
Mobil, 1997 WL 713342 at * 3.
This assertion is simply not supported by the record.7 The
7
Despite the majority’s statements to the contrary, see
Maj. Op. n. 1, all of the evidence considered by this opinion was
part of the record in this case. The parties agreed that the
record would include not only the stipulation of facts but also the
“attached Exhibits” to which the stipulations refer. Pemberton’s
testimony before the arbitrator (a portion of which appears in the
text below), where he himself described that the statements for
which he was fired had nothing to do with a desire to spark group
activity, was part of the record on which the ALJ ruled, and which
the Board and this Court must consider. See Stipulation of Facts,
¶ 42 (“A copy of the arbitration transcript is attached hereto as
Exhibit 15.”); see also 29 U.S.C. § 160(f) (mandating that Courts
of Appeals review Board action by examining the “record considered
as a whole”). I do not dispute that we are bound by the stipulated
facts. However, none of the stipulated facts, alone or in
combination, establish that the statements for which Pemberton was
97-60789.CV0 52
evidence suggests that Pemberton was merely verbalizing his ongoing
personal dispute with Thibodeaux, not attempting to mobilize group
support for any “concerted” effort. At the arbitration hearing,
when asked to describe the aforementioned conversation, Pemberton
replied:
The conversation was about Glenn Thibodeaux, and it was
about me stating that))I was being investigated, that I
was pretty much in fear of my job and that the))I brought
up the time, the overtime. I brought up about, oh, some
other incidents that had happened further back in the
past with Glenn too.
Neither Pemberton nor the majority identifies what “group action”
the statements were intended to prompt, and it is impossible to
conjecture such intent from the statements or the context in which
they were made. There is thus no basis in the record for the
majority’s assertion that Pemberton’s statement was intended “to
serve as the catalyst for future group action.” Rather, the record
indicates that Pemberton was solely addressing his personal
vendetta against Thibodeaux.
Considering only the evidence in the record, the facts in the
instant case are akin to those in Buddies Supermarkets, 481 F.2d at
718-720. There, an employee was fired because of his complaints to
fellow employees about his terms of compensation. We held that
fired were “engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing or
preparing for group action.” Buddies Supermarkets, 481 F.2d at
718. At best, the stipulations prove that, in the past, Pemberton
may have been involved in some “concerted” activity. Pemberton’s
testimony, which does not contradict any of the stipulated facts,
proves that the particular acts for which he was fired were not
“concerted.”
97-60789.CV0 53
activity was not “concerted” because “it appears from the
conversations themselves that no group action of any time is
intended, contemplated, or even referred to.” Id. at 718. The
employee at issue there, like Pemberton, had not been designated by
other employees as a group representative, and there was no
evidence in the record that any other employees shared his
concerns. Rejecting the Board’s assertion that “since he was
speaking on matters of common concern to all of the [employees], he
was ipso facto engaged in concerted activity,” we held the
employee’s activity to be mere personal griping, not concerted
activity. Id. at 719.
Furthermore, the majority’s distinction of NLRB v. Datapoint
Corp., 642 F.2d 123, 125-27 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981), is not
persuasive. There, an employee was discharged for complaining to
fellow employees that planned company layoffs were “illegal.” We
reversed the Board’s determination that this activity was
“concerted,” citing the lack of evidence to indicate that the
statements were intended to initiate group action even though other
employees obviously shared the dismissed employee’s concern (that
they would be fired). Id. Here, as in Datapoint, neither the
Board nor the majority has pointed to any evidence in the record
showing that Pemberton intended to spark group activity.8 If the
8
The majority seems to argue that our decision in
Datapoint was based in some respects on the manner in which the
employee made his statements: “loudly” and “using profanity.”
97-60789.CV0 54
employee in Datapoint was, as the majority claims, a “disgruntled
loner,” there is no evidence in the record by which to distinguish
that employee from Pemberton. The Board’s argument that Pemberton
somehow sought to enlist group support for an anti-Thibodeaux or
anti-union effort is mere conjecture.9
The Board and the majority point to several other facts which
they claim support the construction of Pemberton’s activity as
concerted. None, however, sufficiently support that construction.
First, the fact that Pemberton may have mentioned a “union” at the
end of his speech is insufficient basis to hold his activity
“concerted.” See Scooba, 694 F.2d at 84 (“[T]he Board urges that
if any employee uses the word “union” . . . he or she is
However, the decision in Datapoint clearly rested on our finding
that the employee’s statements were not “concerted,” not on any
finding they were not “protected.” See Datapoint, 642 F.2d at 128
(“The Board’s notion of concerted activity runs contrary to the law
of this circuit.”).
9
The majority’s reliance on Blue Circle Cement Co. v.
NLRB, 41 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 1994) is inapposite. In Blue Circle,
we held that an employee’s use of the company copy machine to
duplicate articles protesting the company’s proposed burning of
hazardous waste was concerted activity. Id. We supported that
holding with several facts specific to that case: first, that the
union “had appointed [the employee] to lead the fight against [the
company’s] plan to use hazardous waste”, id. at 207; second, that
the actions were the logical outgrowth of the union’s plan to
oppose the company’s proposal, id. at 208; and, third, that the
Board had merely affirmed the findings of the ALJ on all fronts,
id. None of these facts are present in the case at bar. There is
no evidence that Pemberton was appointed a group representative for
the purpose of fighting Thibodeaux’s alleged corruption, no
evidence that any other employee or group thereof was engaged in
this activity, and the Board reversed the findings of the ALJ.
97-60789.CV0 55
automatically engaged in protected concerted activity. We do not
agree. . . . The [Board] must show that some sort of collective
worker action is contemplated..”). Second, the fact that possible
corruption of a union leader may affect all employees is
insufficient to establish that speaking about it is
“concerted”))the speaker must intend that group activity result
from his speech. See Datapoint, 642 F.2d at 125-27; Pelton
Casteel, Inc. v. NLRB, 627 F.2d 23, 28 (7th Cir. 1980) (“[P]ublic
venting of a personal grievance, even a grievance shared by others,
is not a concerted activity.”).
The arbitral award in this case was not “clearly repugnant” to
the policies of the Act protecting “concerted” activities. In
fact, there is a strong argument that Pemberton’s statements were
not “concerted” at all. The Board, therefore, failed to defer
despite the reasonableness of the arbitrator and ALJ’s decisions.
The Board and the majority also assert that Pemberton’s
activities were of the type of concerted activities considered
“protected.” Even if they are “concerted,” statements can lose §
7 protection based on (1) their subject matter, see International
Bus. Machs. Corp., 265 N.L.R.B. 638, 638-39 (1982) (upholding
dismissal based on employee revelation of wage data to other
employees), or (2) the manner in which they are made, see United
Parcel Service, Inc., 311 N.L.R.B. 974, 975 (1993) (upholding
dismissal based on employee’s failure to stop inquiring into a
97-60789.CV0 56
company investigation, and stating that “[T]he manner in which an
employee exercises a statutory right can be so extreme as to lose
the Act’s protections.”). See also City Disposal Sys., 465 U.S. at
836, 104 S. Ct. at 1514, 79 L. Ed. 2d at __ (holding that concerted
activities can be conducted “in such an abusive manner that [the
employee] loses the protection of § 7”).
Pemberton’s statements contain elements of both improper
subject matter, in that they arguably disclosed information about
a confidential investigation, and inappropriate manner, in that the
statements were rude and insubordinate. The arbitrator and the ALJ
upheld the dismissal both because Pemberton’s disclosure of Mobil’s
internal investigation was unreasonable and because, by disclosing
the investigation to his co-workers, Pemberton “breached his freely
given confidentiality promise.”
The Board, conducting a balancing test, held that the
Pemberton’s interest in conducting “concerted activity” outweighed
Mobil’s “exceedingly minimal” interests in keeping the information
confidential. The Board and majority agree that Mobil’s interest
was minimal because, in their words, “nothing in Pemberton’s July
17th remarks could have alerted Thibodeaux or anyone else to the
fact that Thibodeaux was under investigation.”10 Essentially, they
10
The Board and majority also argue that Mobil’s
confidentiality interest is “exceedingly minimal” because
Thibodeaux was already alerted to the fact that he was being
investigated. Therefore, the Board asserted, the company no longer
had any interest in keeping the investigation secret. This
argument ignores the fact that the company certainly, among of
97-60789.CV0 57
opine that because Pemberton’s statements did not reveal the
existence of an investigation, the statements did not disclose
confidential information or breach Pemberton’s promise not to
disclose.11
The arbitrator found that Pemberton had revealed the existence
of the investigation after hearing the testimony of Pemberton,
several co-workers, and Waszczak. Pemberton, while admitting the
conversation involved both an “investigation” and “Thibodeaux,”
asserted that he never discussed the investigation of Thibodeaux.
Waszczak (who allegedly overheard the conversation) testified that
Pemberton did discuss the company’s investigation of Thibodeaux.
While Pemberton’s stipulated statement was admittedly vague, the
arbitrator held that, in context, it revealed the existence of the
investigation and thus constituted insubordination of Burton’s
direct order not to reveal such information.
Whether or not Pemberton’s conversation with his co-workers
plethora of potential reasons, had an interest in keeping the
investigation secret to promote disclosure on the part of other
employees and prevent the destruction of evidence. Neither Board
nor majority has provided any analysis behind which to overturn the
ALJ’s finding that Mobil had a “substantial and legitimate business
interest in keeping such internal investigations confidential.”
11
There is a clear inconsistency in the majority’s analysis
of Pemberton’s statements. On one hand, the majority argues that
the statements are “concerted” because they were intended to incite
group action to protest Thibodeaux’s improper activity. One the
other hand, the majority argues, the statements were “protected”
because no one could understand the statements to refer to
Thibodeaux’s alleged corruption. Both these statements cannot be
true, and both must be for the majority’s analysis to be correct.
97-60789.CV0 58
disclosed the existence of the security agreement, a subject of
conflicting testimony, was a factual matter for the trial examiner
to decide. It is difficult to see how the Board, two steps removed
from hearing live testimony on the subject, could have come to a
contrary conclusion with enough certainty to declare the
arbitrator’s finding “palpably wrong.” When there is conflicting
testimony on an issue, Board deference to the findings of
arbitrators and ALJs should be at its apex, as credibility
determinations are involved. See Blue Circle Cement Co., 41 F.3d
at 206; ASARCO, Inc. v. NLRB, 86 F.3d 1401, 1406 (5th Cir. 1996)
(“We are bound by the credibility choices of the ALJ unless one of
the following factors exists (1) the credibility choice is
unreasonable, (2) the choice contradicts other findings, (3) the
choice is based upon inadequate reasons or no reason, or (4) the
ALJ failed to justify his choice.”). There is not substantial
evidence in the record to support the Board’s decision to overrule
the trial examiner.
Deprived of its assertion that Pemberton did not actually
disclose the confidential information in his statements, the
majority’s analysis falls of its own weight. First, it is well-
settled that employers may dismiss employees for disclosing
confidential information to the detriment of the company. See
Texas Instruments Inc., 637 F.2d 822, 826-28 (1st Cir. 1981)
(upholding dismissal of employee for disclosing confidential
97-60789.CV0 59
employer information); NLRB v. Knuth Bros., Inc., 537 F.2d 950, 956
(7th Cir. 1975) (“In revealing the information, Popovitch acted in
reckless disregard of his employer’s business interests.);
International Bus. Machs. Corp., 265 N.L.R.B. at 638 (affirming
discharge because of employee disclosure of confidential wage
information); Altoona Hospital, 270 N.L.R.B. 1179, 1180 (1984) (“An
employee’s violation of an employer’s rule against the disclosure
of confidential information may also be the subject of lawful
discipline even when the disclosure is made for reasons arguably
protected by the Act.”)12 Second, the law clearly allows for
dismissal based on employee insubordination. “The legal principle
12
The majority attempts to distinguish Altoona as well as
several cases cited by Mobil and the ALJ by arguing that the
employee in those cases had “weak” claims of protected activity
balanced against employers’ “clearly legitimate” interests in
confidentiality. As described above, however, Pemberton’s claim of
“concerted” activity was extremely weak, far weaker than the
employees in Craig Hospital, 308 N.L.R.B. 158, 165 (1992), who
sought to use the confidential information to assist aggrieved
colleagues, Altoona, 270 N.L.R.B. at 1180, which involved an
employee use of confidential information to support a statutorily
protected grievance, and Bell Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n of
Bellevue, 214 N.L.R.B. 75, 76-8 (1974) which involved an employee’s
using confidential information to alert the union to possible
improprieties on the part of the company president. The majority
supports its interpretation by citing 110 Greenwich Street Corp.,
319 N.L.R.B. 331, 334 (1993). However, Greenwich involved
employees displaying signs on their automobiles asking their
employer to honor its commitments. See id. Not only was that an
obvious case of concerted activity, but it did not involve (as in
this case) any employee disclosure of confidential information. In
fact, neither the Board nor the majority cites any authority
describing a situation in which an employer’s interest in
confidentiality of information was outweighed by employee interests
in disclosure.
97-60789.CV0 60
that insubordination, disobedience or disloyalty is adequate cause
for discharge is plain enough.” NLRB v. Local Union No. 1229,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 344 .S. 464, 475,
74 S. Ct. 172, 178, 98 L. Ed. 195 (1953); see also NLRB v.
Finesilver Manu. Co., 400 F.2d 644, 649 (5th Cir. 1968) (“An
employee cannot ordinarily be selective in the manner of obeying a
supervisor’s instructions. If instructions are flagrantly
disobeyed, the employee is properly discharged.”); cf. NLRB v.
Mueller Brass Co., 509 F.2d 704, 713 (5th Cir. 1975) (reversing the
Board because “[a]ny employer has the right to demand that its
employees be honest and truthful in every facet of their
employment”).
Therefore, there is a substantial question as to whether
Pemberton’s statements are the type of conduct “protected” by § 7.
The arbitrator’s and ALJ’s decisions holding that Pemberton’s
insubordination was sufficient grounds for his dismissal were thus
not “palpably wrong” and should have been affirmed by the Board.
Whether Pemberton’s conduct was both “concerted” and
“protected” is, at the very least, debatable among jurists of
reason. Thus, I cannot agree that the arbitral award was “not
susceptible to an interpretation consistent with the act.”
Recognizing our duty to enforce Board adherence to its own
standards, see South Cent. Bell Tele., 688 F.2d at 350, and the
NLRA policy favoring arbitration of labor disputes, see Richmond
97-60789.CV0 61
Tank Car, 721 F.2d at 501, I believe that the Board abused its
discretion in failing to defer to the arbitrator’s and ALJ’s
decisions and that the Board’s order should not be enforced.
Accordingly, I dissent.
97-60789.CV0 62
Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date filed: 1999-12-27
Citations: 200 F.3d 230
Copy Citations