76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page cov-1 No. 12-1281 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD , Petitioner, v. NOEL CANNING , A D IVISION OF THE NOEL CORP ., and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , L OCAL 760, Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 760 IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BRADLEY T. R AYMOND 25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Of counsel: JAMES B. C OPPESS (Counsel of Record) LAURENCE GOLD 815 Sixteenth Street, N.W. 805 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 637-5337 Peake DeLancey Printers, LLC - (301) 341-4600 - Cheverly MD 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page cov-2 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................... ii STATEMENT ..................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................ 4 ARGUMENT ....................................................... 5 I. THE RECESS APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GRANTS THE PRESIDENT THE POWER TO FILL VACANCIES DURING INTRASESSION RECESSES OF THE SENATE .................................... 5 II. THE PRESIDENT HAS THE POWER TO FILL UP ALL VACANCIES DURING THE RECESS OF THE SENATE, REGARDLESS OF WHEN THOSE VACANCIES FIRST AROSE .... 18 III. UNDER THE PRESIDENT AND SENATE’S INTERPRETATION OF THE RECESS APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE, THE SENATE WAS IN RECESS ON JANUARY 4, 2012 ............. 22 CONCLUSION ................................................... 29 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page ii ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page Evans v. Stephens, 387 F. 3d 1220 (11 th Cir. 2004) ........................................... 10, 19, 20 Gould v. United States , 19 Ct. Cl. 593 (1884) .. 9 INS v. Chadha , 462 U.S. 919 (1983) ............... 13 New Process Steel v. NLRB , 560 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2635 (2010 ) .................................... 25 Nippon Steel Corp. v. International Trade Comm’n , 239 F.Supp.2d 1367 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) .................................................... 10 NLRB v. Enterprise Leasing Co ., ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 3722388 (4th Cir. 2013) .. 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 NLRB v. New Vista Nursing and Rehabilitation , 719 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2013). passim The Pocket Veto Case , 279 U.S. 655 (1929) ... 12 United States v. Allocco , 305 F.2d 704 (2d Cir. 1962) ................................................. 20 United States v. Woodley , 751 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................................ 14, 20 Youngstown Steel Co. v. Sawyer , 343 U.S. 579 (1952) ........................................ 12 Constitution and Statutes : U.S. Const.: Art. II § 2, Cl. 2 (Appointments Clause) ..... 5 Art. II § 2, Cl. 3 (Recess Appointments Clause) ............................................................ 4, 5 5 U.S.C. § 5503 ................................................... 14, 19 29 U.S.C. § 15 8(a)(5) ........................................ 2 Legal Opinions: Appointments – Recess Appointments , 28 Comp. Gen. 30 (1948) .............................. 19 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page iii iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Executive Authority to Fill Vacancies , 1 Op. Att’y Gen. 631(1823) ........................... 11 Executive Power-Recess Appointments , 33 Op. Att’y Gen. 20 (1921) .......................... passim Intrasession Recess Appointments , 13 Op. O.L.C. 271(1989) ................................ 17 President – Appointment of Officers – Holiday Recess, 23 Op. Att’y Gen. 599 (1901) .............................................................. 15 Recess Appointments, 41 Op. Att’y Gen. 463 (1960) .............................................................. 8, 10 Legislative Materials : 38 Cong. Rec. 113 (1903) ..................................... 16 38 Cong. Rec. 1438 (1904 ) ................................... 16 38 Cong. Rec. 1605 (1904 ) ................................... 16 39 Cong. Rec. 3828 (1905) ................................... 16 157 Cong. Rec. H9932 (daily ed., Dec. 19, 2011 ) 28 157 Cong. Rec. S8783 (daily ed., Dec. 17, 2011) ......................... 23, 25, 27, 28 157 Cong. Rec. S8789 (daily ed., Dec. 23, 2011) .................................. 26 158 Cong. Rec. S1 (daily ed., Jan. 3, 2012) ........ 24 158 Cong. Rec. S13 (daily ed., Jan. 23, 2012) ... 25, 28 158 Cong. Rec. S37 (daily ed., Jan. 23, 2012) ... 23, 24 158 Cong. Rec. S5954 (daily ed., Aug. 2, 2012) 23, 24 S. Con. Res. 1, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. (Jan. 5, 2011) ...................................................... 24 S. Con. Res. 1, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. (Jan. 11. 2011) ................................................ 26 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page iv iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page S. Exec. J. 1st Cong., 1st Sess. (1789) ............ 20, 21 S. Exec. J. 1st Cong., 2d Sess. (1790) ............. 21 S. Pub. 112-12, Official Congressional Directory, 112thCongress (2011) .............. 9, 24, 28 S. Rep. No. 4389, 58th Cong., 3d Sess. (1905) ................................... 6, 15, 16, 18, 27 Miscellaneous: Vivian S. Chu, Cong. Res. Serv., Recess Appointments: A Legal Overview (2011) . 16 Christopher M. Davis, Cong. Res. Serv., Memorandum to Senate Minority Leader (March 8, 2012) ............................................. 23 Alexander Hamilton, Federal No. 76 (“The Appointing Power of the Executive.”) ....... 17 Henry B. Hogue, Cong. Res. Serv., Intrasession Recess Appointments (2004) 10 Henry B. Hogue, et al., Cong. Res. Serv., The Noel Canning Decision and Recess Appointments Made From 1981-2013 (2013) .............................................................. 10 Floyd M. Riddick & Alan S. Frumin , Riddick’s Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices (1992) ..................... 16, 17, 24, 25, 27 Mary K. Bonsteel Tachau, Federal Courts in the Early Republic: Kentucky 1789- 1816 (1978) ................................................... 21 The Writings of George Washington , vol. 30 (John C. Fitzpatrick ed., 1939). .............. 22 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page 1 1 BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 760 IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 760 – the charging party before the National Labor Relations Board and the intervenor in the court of appeals – files this brief in support of the petitioner National Labor Relations Board . STATEMENT This case arises out of the 2010 negotiations between Noel Canning and Teamsters Local 760 over a successor collective bargaining agreement. Pet. App. 65a-66a . At the December 8 bargaining session, the Company and Union negotiators reached agree - ment on all the terms of a new collective bargaining agreement. Id . at 66a-67a. One element of the agree - ment was that the covered employees would be allowed to vote to select one of two wage-benefit packages. Id . at 67a. On December 15, the employ - ees voted to select one of the packages. Id . at 7 5a. The Union then drafted a collective bargaining agree - ment containing the agreed upon terms, including the wage-benefit package selected by the employees, and presented it to Noel Canning. Id . at 80a. The Company refused to execute the collective bargain - ing agreement, insisting that the parties had not reached agreement on the alternative wage-benefit packages. Id . at 83a-84a . The Union filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that the Company’s refusal to execute the agreed-upon con - (1) 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page 2 2 tract constituted bad faith bargaining in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. Pet. App. 63a. The NLRB General Counsel conclud - ed that the Union’s charges had merit and issued a complaint alleging that Noel Canning had violated NLRA § 8(a)(5). Id . at 64a. Noel Canning “conceded to the Board that ‘[i]t is not in dispute that an employer violates [the NLRA] by refusing to execute a Collective Bargaining Agreement incorporating all of the terms agreed upon by the parties during negotiations.’” Pet. App. 10a. “[T]he company’s chief argument before the Board [was] that the parties failed to reach any agreement at the December 2010 negotiation ses - sion.” Id . at 9a (emphasis in original). The Board, however, accepted the administrative law judge’s determination that the witnesses who testified that an agreement had been reached were more credible than the witnesses who testified that an agreement had not been reached. Id . at 81a-82a. On this basis, the Board found that an agreement had been reached and that Noel Canning’s failure to execute a collec - tive bargaining agreement containing the agreed- upon terms was a violation of the Company’s duty to bargain in good faith. Id . at 84a. In challenging the Board’s decision, Noel Canning advanced two perfunctory arguments on the merits. The Company argued first – contrary to the position it had taken before the Board and contrary to well- settled law – that it had a right under the State of Washington’s statute of frauds to repudiate the oral agreement it had reached with the Union. Second, the Company challenged the credibility determina - (2) 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page 3 3 tion of the administrative law judge