CONSTELLATION BRANDS, U.S. OPERATIONS, INC. D/B/A WOODBRIDGE WINERY

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Apr 13, 2018

32-CA-148431 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 13, 2018)

1
KMcE
Acampo, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONSTELLATION BRANDS,
U.S. OPERATIONS, INC.,
d/b/a WOODBRIDGE WINERY
Employer
and Case 32-CA-148431
32-RC-135779
CANNERY, WAREHOUSEMEN,
FOOD PROCESSORS, DRIVERS AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 601,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS
Petitioner
ORDER REMANDING
This test-of-certification proceeding is on remand to the National Labor Relations Board
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. For the reasons explained
below, the Board has decided in turn to remand this proceeding to the Regional Director for
Region 32 for further processing, consistent with the court’s opinion and this Order.
Constellation Brands (the Employer) produces wine for domestic and international
distribution and bottles wine for other wineries at its facility located in Acampo, California. On
September 2, 2014, Cannery, Warehousemen, Food Processors, Drivers and Helpers, Local
Union No. 601, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Petitioner) filed a petition seeking
to represent a unit of all full-time and regular part-time general operators, master operators,
senior operators, and working foremen employed by the Employer in the Employer’s cellar
operation at the Facility. Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election finding that the
2
petitioned-for unit was an appropriate unit under Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center
of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011), enfd. sub nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB,
727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013), an election was held on February 6, 2015.1 The Tally of Ballots
showed 31 for and 13 against the Petitioner, with zero determinative challenged ballots. On
March 12, 2015, the Regional Director issued a Certification of Representative.2
On July 29, 2015, the Board granted the General Counsel's motion for summary
judgment and found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and
refusing to recognize and bargain with the Petitioner as the exclusive representative of all
employees employed by the Employer in the appropriate unit. Constellation Brands, U.S.
Operations, Inc. d/b/a Woodbridge Winery, 362 NLRB No. 151 (2015). The Employer refused
to comply with the Board’s Order and filed a petition for review with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the Board filed a cross-application for enforcement.
On November 1, 2016, the court granted the Employer’s petition for review, denied the
Board’s cross-application for enforcement, and remanded this proceeding to the Board.
Constellation Brands, U.S. Operations, Inc. v. NLRB, 842 F.3d 784, 795 (2016). The Second
Circuit approved the Board’s use of the Specialty Healthcare framework, but remanded the case
to the Board for the limited purpose of explaining whether, under step one of Specialty
Healthcare, the excluded employees (particularly the barrel employees) have “meaningfully

1 The Employer’s request for review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election was denied on February 16, 2015.
2 The certified unit consisted of “[a]ll full-time and regular part-time operator I, operator II,
senior operator, and foremen employees working in the outside cellar department and employed
by the Employer at its Acampo, California Facility, excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, temporary workers, employees working in the following departments: barrel, cellar
services, recycling, wine info, facilities maintenance, engineering, bottling, bottling sanitation,
bottling maintenance, quality control, laboratories, warehouse, and winemaking, guards, and
managers and supervisors as defined in the Act.”
3
distinct interests in the context of collective bargaining that outweigh similarities with unit
members.” Id. at 795.
On February 21, 2017, the Board advised the parties that it had accepted the court’s
remand and invited the parties to file statements of position. Subsequently, the Employer and the
Petitioner each filed a timely statement of position. The Employer’s statement of petition
included a request to remand the case for additional fact finding, and the Petitioner opposed that
request.
On December 15, 2017, while the remand was pending at the Board, the Board issued
PCC Structurals, 365 NLRB No. 160 (2017), which overruled Specialty Healthcare and
reinstated the traditional community of interest standard as articulated in, e.g., United
Operations, Inc., 338 NLRB 123 (2002). In doing so, the Board drew in part on the Second
Circuit decision in Constellation Brands. PCC Structurals, 365 NLRB No. 160, slip op. at 9-10,
11. The Board found that “[i]n weighing both the shared and the distinct interests of petitioned-
for and excluded employees, we take guidance from Constellation Brands.” Id., slip op. at 11
(emphasis in original). The Board agreed with the Second Circuit that it “must determine
whether ‘excluded employees have meaningfully distinct interests in the context of collective
bargaining that outweigh similarities with unit members.’” Id., quoting Constellation Brands,
842 F.3d at 794.
Following the issuance of PCC Structurals, on February 13, 2018, the Petitioner filed a
supplemental statement of position contending that due to the change in applicable law, the
“most expeditious and efficient way to resolve the certification question, both factually and
legally” requires “[i]mmediate remand to the Regional Director for appropriate fact-finding and
analysis” under PCC Structurals. The Petitioner contends that doing so will better effectuate the
4
policies and purposes of the Act, rather than deciding the case based on the existing record
created under the Specialty Healthcare standard.
On February 20, 2018, the Employer filed a motion to dismiss this case, contending that
the underlying unfair labor practice was based upon now overruled precedent and that the Board
must therefore reconsider the case in accordance with PCC Structurals. The Employer claims
that the evidence establishes that the petitioned-for employees do not share a community of
interest sufficiently distinct from the interest of the excluded employees to warrant finding them
to constitute an appropriate unit. On March 7, the Petitioner filed an opposition to the
Employer’s motion to dismiss.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
We find that the issue whether the petitioned-for unit is appropriate can best be resolved
by remanding this proceeding to the Regional Director for further analysis in light of PCC
Structurals, including reopening the record. In doing so, we note that 1) both parties agree that
PCC Structurals is the correct standard to apply in this case; 2) the Petitioner has requested that
the Board remand the case to the Regional Director to reopen the record in order to best evaluate
the case under PCC Structurals; 3) although the Employer has filed a motion to dismiss, it also
agrees that the unit determination must be revisited in some form; and 4) the Employer’s original
position in its statement of position, prior to its filing of the motion to dismiss, was that the case
should be remanded. Under these circumstances, we find that remand is warranted in order to
give the parties an opportunity to supplement the evidence in the record so that this case can be
better evaluated under PCC Structurals. As such, the Employer’s motion to dismiss is denied.
5
Accordingly, we reopen the record in Case 32-RC-135779 and remand that case to the
Regional Director for Region 32 for further appropriate action consistent with this Order,
including reopening the record and the issuance of a Supplemental Decision.3
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the record in Case 32-RC-135779 is reopened, and the case is
remanded to the Regional Director for Region 32 for further consideration and to take additional
evidence.
Dated, Washington, D.C., April 13, 2018.
_________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Chairman
_________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
_________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

3 Member McFerran concurs in the judgment to remand the case, observing that both parties
agree that a remand is appropriate, and neither party contends that Specialty Healthcare should
apply, either as the law of the case or because PCC Structurals was wrongly decided.