United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
April 2, 2019
Petitions for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of
Orders of the National Labor Relations Board
P. Simon argued the cause for petitioner DirectSat USA LLC.
With him on the briefs were Daniel Schudroff and Douglas J.
T. Carter argued the cause for petitioner DIRECTV, LLC. With
him on the briefs were A. John Harper III and Arrissa K.
Gregoire Sauter, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board,
argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were
Peter B. Robb, General Counsel, John W. Kyle, Deputy General
Counsel, David S. Habenstreit, Assistant General Counsel, and
Usha Dheenan, Supervisory Attorney.
Before: Griffith and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges, and
Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge.
SRINIVASAN, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
installs and services satellite television equipment for
DirecTV. During negotiations with a union representing its
employees, DirectSat proposed that any new work that arose
during the term of the agreement would not count as
bargaining unit work unless it was "pursuant to its Home
Service Provider agreement with DirecTV." The union
repeatedly asked to see the full Home Service Provider
agreement to understand the proposed scope of bargaining unit
work, but the company provided it only a redacted, partial
National Labor Relations Board found that DirectSat had
refused to disclose information relevant to the union's
statutory duties and thus violated its duty to bargain in
good faith under the National Labor Relations Act. After the
Board issued its decision, DirecTV filed a motion to
intervene in the proceedings, which the Board denied. Each of
the companies now seeks review of the Board's orders
Board reasonably concluded that DirectSat's bargaining
proposal rendered the entire agreement relevant. And we see
no basis to set aside the Board's denial of DirecTV's
motion to intervene on the ground that it was filed too late.
We therefore deny the companies' petitions for review and
grant the Board's cross application for enforcement.
USA, LLC, installs and services satellite television
equipment for DirecTV, LLC, a satellite television provider.
From September 2014 until May 2016, DirectSat and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
21, AFL-CIO (the Union) engaged in negotiations over a
collective bargaining agreement. One issue that arose
concerned whether future products or services other than
installation and service of satellite television services
would constitute bargaining unit work. The parties exchanged
a series of "New Product Lines" proposals over that
November 4, 2015, DirectSat submitted a New Product Lines
proposal containing the following term: "In the event
[DirectSat] is engaged with respect to products or services
other than those provided pursuant to its Home Service
Provider agreement with DirecTV . . ., such work shall not be
deemed bargaining unit work." Bargaining Proposal No. 78
(Nov. 4, 2015), J.A. 83. On November 23, 2015, the Union
responded via email: "[O]ne of the company proposals
references the HSP agreement with [DirecTV]. We'd like a
copy of the agreement referenced in the proposal." Email
from Dave Webster to Lauren Dudley (Nov. 23, 2015), J.A. 84.
Two weeks later, DirectSat responded with a heavily redacted
copy of the Home Service Provider agreement, which it
described as "relevant to scope of work." Email
from Lauren Dudley to Dave Webster (Dec. 4, 2015), J.A. 87.
ensuing months, the Union repeatedly demanded the full Home
Service Provider agreement and DirectSat repeatedly refused.
On February 16, 2016, the Union requested the information
"to understand the relationship between AT&T
[DirecTV's parent company] & DirectSat and the shared
work." Email from Dave Webster to Eric Simon (Feb. 16,
2016), J.A. 92. On March 18, the Union again asked for
"a FULL copy of the HSP agreement between DirectSat
& DirecTV particularly because of the ...