I

II
II
--
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Utffm Sr;\TES COUOF APPEALS
fOA DISm:CT OF COLUMBIA CIRruT
RLEO
MAY 3,t12013
I MAY 302013 1
RECEIVED
STATES COURT OF CLERK
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
IN RE CSC HOLDINGS, LLC,
AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS
NEW YORK CITY CORP., PETITIONERS
Case No. 13-1191
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
Doreen S. Davis
JONES DAY
222. East 41 st Street
New York, N.Y. 10017
(212) 326-3833
Jerome B. Kauff
MUFF, McGUIRE & MARGOLIS LLP
950 Third Avenue
14th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10022
(212) 644-1010
Matthew D. McGill
Counsel of Record
Eugene Scalia
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 955-8500
MMcGill@gibsondunn.com
Counsel for Petitioners CSC Holdings, LLC and
Cablevision Systems New York City Corp.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
RELIEF SOUGHT ..................................................................................................... 3
ISSUE PRESENTED ................................................................................................. 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................... 4
REASONS WHY THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE ...................................................... 6
I. THE COMPANIES HAVE NO OTHER REMEDY TO PREVENT THE
BOARD AND ITS AGENTS FROM CONDUCTING UNLAWFUL
PROCEEDINGS. ........................................................................................ 7
II. THE COMPANIES HAVE A CLEAR AND INDISPUTABLE RIGHT
NOT TO FACE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE BOARDS AGENTS
LACK POWER TO CONDUCT. ................................................................. 10
A. Neither The Board Nor Its Agents May Exercise The
Boards Powers Under The Act Because The Board
Lacks A Quorum. ...................................................................... 11
B. The Commencement And Continued Conduct Of
Unfair-Labor-Practice Proceedings By The Boards
Agents Is Clearly Unlawful. ..................................................... 14
C. The Board And Its Agents Lack Authority To
Commence Federal-Court Litigation To Seek Injunctive
Relief Under Section 10(j). ....................................................... 19
III. MANDAMUS IS APPROPRIATE TO ENFORCE THIS COURTS
ORDERS, PROTECT ITS JURISDICTION, CONFINE THE AGENCY
TO THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION, AND
PREVENT IRREPARABLE HARM. ............................................................ 21
A. Mandamus Is Necessary To End The Boards Ongoing
Defiance Of This Courts Rulings. ........................................... 21

ii
B. Mandamus Is Appropriate To Protect This Courts
Jurisdiction. ............................................................................... 25
C. Mandamus Would Avert Irreparable Harm To The
Companies And The Public. ..................................................... 27
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 30

CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES AND AMICI CURIAE
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ADDENDUM

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Assn of Natl Advertisers, Inc. v. FTC,
627 F.2d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ............................................................................. 9
Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Govt of Belize,
668 F.3d 724 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 7, 21
Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., Inc. v. Feinstein,
103 F.3d 151 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................. 19
Bloomingdales, Inc.,
359 NLRB No. 113, 2013 WL 1901335 (2013) ................................... 4, 9, 16, 24
* Cheney v. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Columbia,
542 U.S. 367 (2004) ............................................................................ 7, 21, 22, 23
* City of Cleveland v. Fed. Power Commn,
561 F.2d 344 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ...................................................................... 22, 23
Conkright v. Frommert,
129 S. Ct. 1861 (2009) (Ginsburg, J., in chambers) ............................................. 25
Evans v. Stephens,
387 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 25
FTC v. Dean Foods Co.,
384 U.S. 597 (1966) ............................................................................................. 26
In re City of New York,
607 F.3d 923 (2d Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 26
In re Sealed Case,
151 F.3d 1059 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................. 2
_______________
* Authorities upon which we chiefly rely are marked with asterisks.

iv
* Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC,
135 F.3d 535 (8th Cir. 1998) ................................................................... 22, 23, 27
* Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB,
564 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 2009) .............................. 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 23
MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. FCC,
580 F.2d 590 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ...................................................................... 22, 30
Mills v. Dist. of Columbia,
571 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................... 28
Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbldg. Corp.,
303 U.S. 41 (1938) ............................................................................................... 29
Nara v. Frank,
494 F.3d 1132 (3d Cir. 2007) ............................................................................... 25
* New Process Steel, LP v. NLRB,
130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010) ........................................................................ 4, 10, 11, 20
* NLRB v. New Vista Nursing & Rehab.,
__ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2099742 (3d Cir. May 16, 2013) ......... 1, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20
* Noel Canning v. NLRB, 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013) .......................... 1, 4, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 28
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Scott,
131 S. Ct. 1 (2010) (Scalia, J., in chambers) ........................................................ 28
Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn,
319 U.S. 21 (1943) ............................................................................................... 21
* Telecomms. Res. & Action Ctr. v. FCC,
750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ........................................................................ 26, 27
United States v. Allocco,
305 F.2d 704 (2d Cir. 1962) ................................................................................. 25
United States v. Mendoza,
464 U.S. 154 (1984) ............................................................................................. 24

v
United States v. Woodley,
751 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 25
Wash. Metro. Area Transit Commn v. Holiday Tours, Inc.,
559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ............................................................................. 28
Will v. United States,
389 U.S. 90 (1967) ............................................................................................... 21
* Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of Am.,
454 F.2d 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1971) .................................................................... 22, 23
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const. art. I, 5, cl. 4 ....................................................................................... 14
U.S. Const. art. II, 2, cl. 2 ..................................................................................... 13
U.S. Const. art. II, 2, cl. 3 ..................................................................................... 13
Statutes
28 U.S.C. 1292 ...................................................................................................... 10
28 U.S.C. 1651 ........................................................................................................ 4
29 U.S.C. 153 ............................................................................................. 4, 11, 17
29 U.S.C. 154 ................................................................................................... 6, 15
* 29 U.S.C. 160 .......................................... 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 26
Regulations And Rules
* 29 C.F.R. 102.15 ................................................................................... 15, 16, 17
29 C.F.R. 102.17 ................................................................................................... 18
29 C.F.R. 102.19 ................................................................................................... 17
29 C.F.R. 102.23 ................................................................................................... 18

vi
29 C.F.R. 102.25 ................................................................................................... 18
29 C.F.R. 102.26 ................................................................................................... 18
29 C.F.R. 102.29 ................................................................................................... 18
29 C.F.R. 102.30 ................................................................................................... 18
29 C.F.R. 102.31 ................................................................................................... 18
29 C.F.R. 102.33 ................................................................................................... 18
29 C.F.R. 102.34 ................................................................................................... 18
29 C.F.R. 102.45 ................................................................................................... 18
* 29 C.F.R. 102.6 .................................................................................................. 18
Fed. R. App. P. 41 .................................................................................................... 25
Sup. Ct. R. 23 ........................................................................................................... 25
Other Authorities
112th Cong., 2011-2012 Congressional Directory (2011) ...................................... 20
157 Cong. Rec. S8783 (Dec. 17, 2011) ................................................................... 14
158 Cong. Rec. S1 (Jan. 3, 2012) ............................................................................ 14
158 Cong. Rec. S3 (Jan. 6, 2012) ............................................................................ 14
20 Fed. Reg. 2175 (Apr. 6, 1955) ............................................................................ 16
66 Fed. Reg. 65,998 (Dec. 21, 2001) ....................................................................... 20
67 Fed. Reg. 70,628 (Nov. 25, 2002) ...................................................................... 20
76 Fed. Reg. 69,768 (Nov. 9, 2011)......................................................................... 20
77 Fed. Reg. 45,696 (2012) ..................................................................................... 16

vii
Costco Wholesale Corp.,
358 NLRB No. 106 (Sept.7, 2012) ....................................................................... 30
Ctr. for Soc. Change, Inc.,
358 NLRB No. 24, 2012 WL 1064641 (2012) ...................................................... 9
D.R. Horton,
357 NLRB No. 184 (Jan. 3, 2012) ....................................................................... 30
Executive PowerRecess Appointments,
33 Op. Atty Gen. 20 (1921) ................................................................................ 14
Marriot Intl, Inc.,
359 NLRB No. 8 (Sept. 28, 2012) ........................................................................ 30
NLRB, Board Members Since 1935,
http://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-are/board/board-members-1935 .............. 12, 13, 20
NLRB, Jim Paulsen named Regional Director in Brooklyn (Jan. 6, 2012),
http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/announcements/jim-paulsen-named-regional-
director-brooklyn .................................................................................................. 16
NLRB, Karen Fernbach named Regional Director in Manhattan (Jan. 6, 2012),
http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/announcements/karen-fernbach-named-
regional-director-manhattan .................................................................................. 16
S. Journal, 112th Cong., 2d Sess. (2012) ................................................................. 14
Specialty Healthcare,
357 NLRB No. 83 (Aug. 26, 2011) ...................................................................... 30
Teamsters Local 75,
349 NLRB No. 77 (Jan. 26, 2007) ....................................................................... 27
WKYC-TV, Inc.,
359 NLRB No. 30 (Dec. 12, 2012) ...................................................................... 30





INTRODUCTION
The National Labor Relations Board has problems with authority. A panel
of this Court held in Noel Canning v. NLRB, 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013), that
since at least January 3, 2012, the Board has lacked a statutorily mandated quorum
of three validly appointed Members. And under controlling precedent, absent a
quorum, neither the Board nor its agents can wield any power under the National
Labor Relations Act; actions they have purported to take are simply void. Id. at
514. Two weeks ago, the Third Circuit echoed that conclusion, holding that the
Boards lack of authority dates back even earlier. See NLRB v. New Vista Nursing
& Rehab., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2099742, at *11-30 (3d Cir. May 16, 2013).
Yet by Boards lights, neither the absence of statutory authority enabling the
Board to act nor the existence of judicial authority foreclosing further action by the
Board poses any obstacle. It has brushed aside these challenges to its power in
other cases. See In re Geary, No. 13-1029 (D.C. Cir.); In re SFTC, LLC, 13-1048
(D.C. Cir.). And despite failing to seek, much less obtain, a stay in Noel Canning,
the Board boldly proclaims that its authority to act is undiminishedarrogating a
stay of the decision to itself without demonstrating that one is warranted.
The Boards defiance of Congress and the federal courts is at war with the
rule of law. Yet the casualties are not merely respect for the law and the courts
who are its expositors, but also those whom the Boardabsent authorityinsists

2
on regulating, among them petitioners CSC Holdings, LLC (CSC) and Cablevi-
sion Systems New York City Corp. (Cablevision) (collectively, the Compa-
nies). Disregarding this Courts precedent, the Board has issued unfair-labor-
practice complaints against the Companies and haled them to appear before the
agency to defend themselves against the complaints groundless allegations. If that
were not enough, the Board also is now considering additional litigation to obtain
even more intrusive injunctive relief.
The burdens these unauthorized proceedings will foist on the Companies are
immense, including the massive time and resources needed to prepare for the
Boards proceedings. And the costs spill over to the employees conscripted as
witnesses, to the judges that must adjudicate the ultra vires complaints, and ulti-
mately to the taxpayers, who must underwrite this spectacle.
Lacking any other recourse against the Boards overreaching, the Companies
seek a writ of mandamus or prohibition from this Court to halt the Boards illegal
actions.
1
Controlling precedent already establishes that the agencys continued ac-
tions are unlawful. Neither the Board nor its agents had authority to issue the
complaints; indeed, the officers who issued them were not validly holding office at


1
The standards for issuing writs of mandamus and prohibition are virtually
identical, In re Sealed Case, 151 F.3d 1059, 1063 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citation
omitted), and petitioners here are entitled to the relief they seek regardless of the
label. For simplicity and clarity, this petition refers hereafter only to mandamus.

3
all. Moreover, both the Board and its agents, including ALJs, are equally power-
less to adjudicate the dispute. It would be senseless and unfair to force private par-
ties to litigate the merits of a case that the agency cannot lawfully decide.
Yet without a writ, the Companies have no means to avoid the unjust bur-
dens that the Boards actions thrust upon them. The Boards suggestion that par-
ties to its unlawful proceedings should litigate their challenge to the agencys au-
thority to act before the Board itself and only then come to court is decidedly Kaf-
kaesque: The Board has made clear that it will not even entertain such challenges;
indeed, this Court has held that litigants need not even ask. And, of course, an em-
ployer could follow the Boards suggested path only by enduring the very harms
for which it needs and seeks relief from this Court.
Such a procedure has no place in a system of limited, accountable govern-
ment. The Companies respectfully request that this Court issue a writ immediate-
ly. At minimum, the Companies ask that their case be heard together with those
this Court has already determined warrant plenary consideration.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The Companies seek a writ of mandamus or prohibition to prevent the Board
from prosecuting unfair-labor-practice complaints, and any related proceedings
under 29 U.S.C. 160(j), against CSC or Cablevision.

4
ISSUE PRESENTED
Unless the National Labor Relations Board has a quorum of three lawfully
appointed Members, see 29 U.S.C. 153(b), the Board cannot exercise any author-
ity under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., see New Pro-
cess Steel, LP v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635, 2640, 2644-45 (2010), nor may agents of
the Board exercise authority that the Board has previously delegated to them, see
Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469, 472-76 (D.C.
Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3498 (2010). This Court has held that the
Board has lacked a quorum since at least January 3, 2012. See Noel Canning v.
NLRB, 705 F.3d 490, 499-514 (D.C. Cir. 2013), petition for cert. filed, No. 12-
1281 (Apr. 25, 2013). The Board does not believe this Courts rulings constrain its
ability to act. See Bloomingdales, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 113, 2013 WL 1901335, at
*1 (2013). Should the Court issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition under the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, to prevent the Board or its agents from continuing to
prosecute unfair-labor-practice complaints and conducting any related litigation
under 29 U.S.C. 160(j) against the Companies?
STATEMENT OF FACTS
CSC provides telecommunications and media services to millions of cus-
tomers in the New York metropolitan area and the Western United States. CSC is

5
headquartered in New York and employs over 17,000 employees. Cablevision is a
CSC subsidiary charged with field operations in New York.
In February 2012, the Board certified the Communication Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO (the Union) as the exclusive bargaining representative for 277
technician employees of Cablevision in Brooklyn, New York. Since then, Ca-
blevision and the Union have met regularly to negotiate an initial collective-
bargaining agreement with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment. Cablevision has provided the Union with information and made
numerous offers to facilitate the finalizing of an agreement. The parties have not
yet reached an agreement, but negotiations continue.
Despite progress at the bargaining table, the Union recently filed several
unfair-labor-practice charges against Cablevision or against Cablevision and CSC.
In Case Nos. 02-CA-085811 and 02-CA-090823 (the Bronx Case), the Union al-
leged that both Cablevision and CSC violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
supposedly by discouraging non-covered employees in the Bronx and elsewhere
from selecting the Union as their bargaining representative.
2
Similarly, in Case
Nos. 29-CA-097013, 29-CA-097557, and 29-CA-100175 (the Brooklyn Case),
the Union alleged that Cablevision violated Sections 8(a)(1), (3) and (5) of the Na-


2
The complaint in the Bronx Case names CSC as well as Cablevision because it
alleges that the Companies constitute a single employer under the Act. Add. 2-3.

6
tional Labor Relations Act by engaging in surface bargaining and other acts that
interfered with covered employees exercise of rights protected by the Act.
3

On behalf of the Board, Karen Fernbach, Regional Director for Region 2 of
the Board, issued an unfair-labor-practice complaint in the Bronx Case on April
17, 2013. Add. 1. The Regional Director for Region 29, James Paulsen, did the
same in the Brooklyn Case on April 29, 2013, Add. 13, and is now seeking author-
ization from the Board to petition for injunctive relief in that case under Section
10(j) of the Act, Add. 29.
4
A joint hearing for both cases has been scheduled be-
fore an Administrative Law Judge for July 8, 2013. Add 32.
5

REASONS WHY THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE
This Court has authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), to
issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [its] jurisdiction and agreeable to
the usages and principles of law. Id. A writ of mandamus is warranted when
(1) there is no other adequate means to attain the relief [the petitioner] desires;


3
The cases have since been consolidated. Add. 37 (Consolidated Complaint).

4
As discussed below, see infra at 15-16, the appointments of both Ms. Fernbach
and Mr. Paulsen were unlawful because at the time the Board purported to name
them as Regional Directors pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 154(a), the Board lacked a
quorum, and therefore could not lawfully make the appointments. Accordingly,
Mr. Fernbach and Mr. Paulsen do not lawfully hold office as Regional Directors.
For simplicity and clarity, however, this brief refers to both as Regional Directors.

5
The Acting General Counsel also has declined a request by the Companies that
he suspend prosecution of the Bronx and Brooklyn Cases, as well as any related
existing or potential litigation under Section 10(j) of the Act, until the Board re-
gains a quorum of three lawfully appointed members. Add. 33, 51.

7
(2) the petitioners right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable; and
(3) the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, [is] satisfied that the writ is
appropriate under the circumstances. Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Govt of Belize,
668 F.3d 724, 729-30 (D.C. Cir.) (quoting Cheney v. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Colum-
bia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 274 (2012).
Those criteria are readily satisfied here. The Companies have no alternative
means to obtain the relief they request: being freed from the immense burdens of
the Boards harmful and illegitimate proceedings. The Companies are clearly enti-
tled to that relief, indeed, controlling precedent establishes that the Board lacks a
statutorily mandated quorum, and therefore neither it nor any of its agents have au-
thority to act. They are powerless to issue complaints or decide cases. Mandamus
is plainly appropriate to halt the Boards defiance of this Courts clear commands,
and its attempt to evade this Courts prospective jurisdiction over Board actions,
see 29 U.S.C. 160(f). The Boards unlawful proceedings, if left unchecked, not
only would irreparably injure the Companies, but also would seriously undermine
the rule of law and cause severe and lasting harm to labor-management relations.
I. THE COMPANIES HAVE NO OTHER REMEDY TO PREVENT THE BOARD AND
ITS AGENTS FROM CONDUCTING UNLAWFUL PROCEEDINGS.
There can be no serious dispute that the Companies have no other ade-
quate means besides mandamus to attain the relief [they] desir[e]. Belize
Soc. Dev., 668 F.3d at 729 (citation omitted). The relief the Companies request,

8
and to which they are legally entitled, is the cessation of the illegitimate proceed-
ings before the Board in the Bronx and Brooklyn Cases and any related litigation
stemming from those actions. There is no other avenue open to the Companies to
obtain that relief other than mandamus. As the Board itself has asserted, the Com-
panies cannot petition for review directly from non-final actions by the Board or its
agentsincluding the issuance of an unfair-labor-practice complaint, Respts
Opp. to Pet. for Mandamus 9, In re SFTC LLC, No. 13-1048 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 10.
2013) (SFTC Opp.), or the Acting General Counsels refusal to direct Board per-
sonnel under his supervision to suspend the proceedings, see supra at 6 n.5.
The Board has argued in opposing other mandamus petitions that parties
whom the Boards agents have forced to litigate similar unlawful proceedings do
have an adequate remedy because they may litigate their cases before the Board,
and then seek judicial review of a final Board order under Section 10(f), 29 U.S.C.
160(f). SFTC Opp. 15-16. But that supposed alternative deprives the Companies
of the very relief they seek: It would require them to expend massive resources lit-
igating before the agencyfirst taking part in a costly hearing before an ALJ, and
then pursuing appellate review by the Boardwhich is precisely the harm that the
Companies and other similarly situated litigants ought not suffer. Review after fur-
ther agency proceedings cannot afford the Companies the desired relief.

9
Indeed, the Boards demand that litigants first challenge the agencys author-
ity to act before the Board is disingenuous. The Board has steadfastly refused to
entertain such challenges. Before this Courts ruling in Noel Canning, 705 F.3d
490, the Board explicitly declined to determine the merits of claims attacking the
validity of Presidential appointments to positions involved in the administration of
the Act, including claims assailing the validity of the January 2012 appointments.
Ctr. for Soc. Change, Inc., 358 NLRB No. 24, 2012 WL 1064641, at *1 (2012).
And since Noel Canning, the Board has simply rejected this Courts ruling, assert-
ing that the Board and its agents can continue acting because the January 2012 ap-
pointments validity remains in litigation, and other courts have taken different
views on the limits on recess appointments. Bloomingdales, Inc., 359 NLRB No.
113, 2013 WL 1901335, at *1 (2013). But see infra at 23-25.
Forcing litigants to press their claims before the agencyand requiring the
use of government resources to hear and contest those claimsthus would be fu-
tile. What is more, under Noel Canning, parties may assail the Boards authority to
act, including based on the January 2012 appointments invalidity, whether or not
they raised such claims before the Board. 705 F.3d at 496-98; cf. Assn of Natl
Advertisers, Inc. v. FTC, 627 F.2d 1151, 1156-57 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (exhaustion
doctrine did not bar review of challenge to FTC Chairmans continued participa-
tion in proceedings). The Boards claim that review only after the agency litiga-

10
tion is complete offers an adequate remedy is thus plainly incorrect. Only relief
from this Court stopping the litigation now can redress the Companies grievance.
6

II. THE COMPANIES HAVE A CLEAR AND INDISPUTABLE RIGHT NOT TO FACE
PROCEEDINGS THAT THE BOARDS AGENTS LACK POWER TO CONDUCT.
The Companies are plainly entitled to mandamus relief to halt the Boards
unlawful proceedings because, under the Act and controlling precedent, those pro-
ceedings are ultra vires. The Supreme Courts and this Courts case law establish
that the Board itself, and any agent to whom the Board delegates its authority, can-
not wield any power the Act confers on the Board unless the Board has a quorum
of three validly appointed Members when the action is taken. See New Process
Steel, 130 S. Ct. at 2644-45; Laurel Baye, 564 F.3d at 472-76. And this Court has
held that the Board has in fact lacked a quorum since at least January 3, 2012. See
Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at 499-514. Neither the Board nor its delegees, therefore,
could lawfully issue the unfair-labor-practice complaints against the Companies in
April 2013, and cannot now prosecute those complaints or initiate other litigation.
The Companies right to relief is therefore clear and indisputable.


6
The same is true of litigation that the Board or its agents might commence un-
der Section 10(j) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(j), seeking preliminary-injunctive re-
lief against the Companieswhich Board personnel in Region 29 are currently
seeking authorization to pursue. Add. 29. Although the Companies could contest
a suit seeking to impose a Section 10(j) injunction, 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1), they
could do so only by engaging in further burdensome litigation that the quorum-less
agency has no authority to initiate or prosecute.

11
A. Neither The Board Nor Its Agents May Exercise The Boards
Powers Under The Act Because The Board Lacks A Quorum.
1. Both Congress and the Supreme Court have made clear that the Board
may exercise its powers under the Act only when it has a lawful quorum. Sec-
tion 3(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 153(b), establishes that three members of the
Board shall, at all times, constitute a quorum. Id. That provision, the Supreme
Court held, means exactly what it says, and requires three participating members
at all times for the Board to act. New Process Steel, 130 S. Ct. at 2640 (quoting
29 U.S.C. 153(b)). When the Boards membership falls below three lawfully ap-
pointed Members, the Board has no authority to act. See id. at 2644-45. Any ac-
tion it purports to take is void ab initio. Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at 493.
As this Court has further explained, the Boards loss of a quorum prevents
not only the Board itself from exercising authority under the Act, but also pre-
cludes anyone else from wielding that authority on the Boards behalf. See Laurel
Baye, 564 F.3d at 472-76. [B]asic tenets of agency and corporation law establish
that an agents delegated authority terminates when the powers belonging to the
entity that bestowed the authority are suspended or upon the resignation or ter-
mination of the delegating authority. Id. at 473. It follows that no agent to whom
the Board has delegated authority may continue exercising it when the Board loses
its own ability to act. See id. (The delegees authority to act on behalf of the
Board therefore ceased the moment the Boards membership dropped below its

12
quorum requirement of three members.). The Board, in short, cannot by delegat-
ing its authority circumvent the statutory Board quorum requirement, because this
requirement must always be satisfied. Id.
2. Under these controlling precedents, both the Board and its agents have
been powerless to act at all times relevant to the unfair-labor-practice actions at is-
sue. Indeed, as this Court recently held, the Board has lacked a quorum of three
validly appointed Members since at least January 3, 2012, long before the events at
issue began. See Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at 499-514. Until then, the Board pur-
portedly had three Members: Chairman Mark G. Pearce, and Members Brian
Hayes, whose term expired in December 2012, and Craig Becker. Id. at 498.
7

Even assuming that Beckers appointment was valid,
8
that putative appointment
expired, and the Board lost its quorum, when the Senates Session ended on Janu-
ary 3. See 705 F.3d at 512-14.
On January 4, the President attempted to restore the Boards quorum by
naming three new Members: Sharon Block, Terence F. Flynn, and Richard F.


7
See NLRB, Board Members Since 1935, http://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-
are/board/board-members-1935 (all Internet materials last visited May 29, 2013).

8
Unlike Pearce and Hayes, who were confirmed by the Senate, Becker was sit-
ting pursuant to a recess appointment purportedly made in March 2010. See
New Vista, 2013 WL 2099742, at *6, *11. As the Third Circuit correctly held,
Beckers recess appointment was not valid. Id. at *30.

13
Griffin. See Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at 498.
9
But as this Court held in Noel Can-
ning, each of those appointments was invalid. Id. at 499-514. Article II of the
Constitution permits the President to appoint principal officers (which includes
Board Members) only with the Senates consent, see U.S. Const. art. II, 2, cl. 2,
subject to just one exception: The Recess Appointments Clause, id. art. II, 2,
cl. 3, allows him to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the
Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Ses-
sion. Id. As Noel Canning explained, that Clause permits appointments only dur-
ing intersession recessesi.e., sine die adjournments between numbered Senate
Sessionsand only to vacancies that first arise during the recess in which the
appointment is made. 705 F.3d at 499-514.
10
On January 4, 2012, however, the
Senate was not in the midst of an intersession recess, but an intrasession adjourn-
ment. See Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at 506. In any event, each of the vacancies
Block, Flynn, and Griffin filled did not arise during that break. Id. at 512-14. Be-
cause none was confirmed by the Senate, they could not and cannot lawfully hold
office. Since January 3, 2012, therefore, the Board has had no quorum. Id. at


9
Flynns appointment expired in July 2012. Board Members Since 1935, supra.

10
The Third Circuit agreed that recess appointments are permissible only during
intersession recesses. See New Vista, 2013 WL 2099742, at *11-30. As Noel
Canning noted, other circuits have interpreted the Clause differently, but this Court
specifically rejected their analyses and holdings. See 705 F.3d at 505-06, 509-12.

14
514. Any actions by the Board (or its agents, see Laurel Baye, 564 F.3d at 472-76)
thus are void. Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at 514.
11

B. The Commencement And Continued Conduct Of Unfair-Labor-
Practice Proceedings By The Boards Agents Is Clearly Unlawful.
Because both the Board and its agents have been unable to exercise the
Boards statutory authority since January 3, 2012, its issuance of the unfair-labor-
practice complaints giving rise to the Bronx and Brooklyn Cases and its continued
prosecution of those actions are plainly unlawful. Indeed, neither the Board nor
any of its agents, including ALJs, have authority to oversee the litigation, or to
bring Section 10(j) litigation seeking an injunction.


11
Moreover, the Block, Flynn, and Griffin appointments were independently un-
lawful because on January 4, 2012, the Senate was not in Recess even by the Ex-
ecutives own longstanding definition. Since the Executive first claimed power to
make intrasession recess appointments of any kind, it has maintained that the Sen-
ate cannot be deemed in Recess unless it breaks for more than three days (i.e.,
long enough to require consent of the House of Representatives, U.S. Const. art. I,
5, cl. 4). See Pet. for Cert. 21, NLRB v. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281 (U.S. Apr.
25, 2013); Respondents Letter Brief 3, New Process Steel, 130 S. Ct. 2635; Exec-
utive PowerRecess Appointments, 33 Op. Atty Gen. 20, 24-25 (1921). The Sen-
ate, however, held sessions on both January 3 and 6, 2012. S. Journal, 112th
Cong., 2d Sess. 1-2 (2012); 158 Cong. Rec. S1 (Jan. 3, 2012); 158 Cong. Rec. S3
(Jan. 6, 2012). And, as the Third Circuit correctly determined, see New Vista,
2013 WL 2099742, at *19-20, those sessions cannot be discounted merely because
the Senate described them as pro forma . . . with no business conducted, 157
Cong. Rec. S8783 (Dec. 17, 2011). The Senates determination that it was in ses-
sion is dispositive, and in any case it was unquestionably available to act on ap-
pointments or other matters at those sessions, just as it had during identical pro
forma sessions before January 4. New Vista, 2013 WL 2099742, at *12, *19.

15
1. The Bronx and Brooklyn complaints were unlawful exercises of Board
authority. The Act provides that the Board, or any agent or agency designated by
the Board for such purposes, shall have power to issue complaints alleging unfair
labor practice[s]. 29 U.S.C. 160(b). The Board, by regulation, has designated
its regional director[s] as the agents responsible to issue complaints in the name
of the Board.
12
When the Regional Directors for Regions 2 and 29 issued the
complaints, they purported to exercise authority belonging to the Board, which it
had delegated to them. But because the Board lacked a quorum in April 2013,
when each complaint was issued, see Add. 1, 13, the Regional Directors could not
wield that authority on the Boards behalf. See Laurel Baye, 564 F.3d at 472-76.
The complaints are therefore void, Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at 514, and the pro-
ceedings that they instituted are unlawful.
The Regional Directors issuance of the complaints and their continued
prosecution of the administrative proceedings are independently unlawful, moreo-
ver, because the Regional Directors themselves were invalidly appointed. Both the
Act and longstanding Board policy establish that appointment of Regional Direc-
tors requires Board approval. See 29 U.S.C. 154(a); 20 Fed. Reg. 2175, 2176


12
29 C.F.R. 102.15 ([a]fter a charge has been filed, if it appears to the region-
al director that formal proceedings in respect thereto should be instituted, he shall
issue and cause to be served on all other parties a formal complaint in the name of
the Board).

16
(Apr. 6, 1955), as amended, see, e.g., 77 Fed. Reg. 45,696 (2012). The Board an-
nounced its appointments of Ms. Fernbach and Mr. Paulsen on January 6, 2012.
13

But the Board had already ceased to have a quorum at least three days earlier, see
Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at 499-514; in fact, the Board had lacked a quorum since
August 2011, see New Vista, 2013 WL 2099742, at *11-30. Both the Fernbach
and Paulsen appointments thus were void ab initio. Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at
493. Because neither one legally held office, neither one could wield authority that
the Boards regulations (29 C.F.R. 102.15) confer exclusively on as a Regional
Director.
2. The Board has countered, in both its own rulings and other litigation, that
its lack of a quorum does not bar the issuance of complaints because Section 3(d)
of the Act gives the General Counsel final authority, on behalf of the Board, in
respect of the investigation of charges and issuance of complaints under [29 U.S.C.
160], and in respect of the prosecution of such complaints before the Board. 29
U.S.C. 153(d); see Bloomingdales, 2013 WL 1901335, at *1; SFTC Opp. 11-12.
That assertion is both incorrect and irrelevant.


13
See NLRB, Karen Fernbach named Regional Director in Manhattan (Jan. 6,
2012), http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/announcements/karen-fernbach-named-
regional-director-manhattan; NLRB, Jim Paulsen named Regional Director in
Brooklyn (Jan. 6, 2012), http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/announcements/jim-
paulsen-named-regional-director-brooklyn.

17
a. The Act explicitly confers authority to issue complaints only on the
Board, and permits the Board to delegate that task to others as it chooses, 29
U.S.C. 160(b) (emphasis added), which the Board has done by assigning the task
to Regional Directors, 29 C.F.R. 102.15. Section 3(d) itself makes clear, moreo-
ver, that whatever authority the General Counsel wields with respect to the prose-
cution of complaints, he exercises on behalf of the Board. 29 U.S.C. 153(d)
(emphasis added). The General Counsel thus does not issue complaints in his own
name, but is acting for the Board, exercising a portion of the authority that Con-
gress conferred explicitly on the Board, see id. 160(b), but merely allocated with-
in the Board to the General Counsel.
14

b. Even if the General Counsel did have some freestanding authority apart
from the Board when it has lost a quorum, however, that authority would have no
bearing here. To begin with, the Acting General Counsel himself did not issue the
complaints in the Bronx and Brooklyn Cases. Each was issued instead by a Re-
gional Director, explicitly invoking the authority delegated exclusively to them un-
der 29 C.F.R. 102.15. Add. 1, 7, 13, 22.


14
The Boards regulations confirm this: They permit appeal[s] to the [G]eneral
[C]ounsel from decisions by Regional Directorsthe officers to whom the Board
has expressly delegated authority to issue complaints, 29 C.F.R. 102.15not to
issue unfair-labor-practice complaints in particular cases. See id. 102.19.

18
c. In any event, whoever issued the complaints, the litigation cannot proceed
because neither the Board nor any agent can adjudicate it. The Board itself cannot
hear and decide the case, either in the first instance or on review from an ALJs
recommendation. See Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at 493, 514. Any final ruling it is-
sues would be void ab initio. Id. at 493. The Board is equally powerless to ren-
der interlocutory rulings during the course of the litigation, as its own regulations
contemplate. See 29 C.F.R. 102.26. The Board thus is incapable of performing
its fundamental supervisory function in the proceedings it itself has commenced.
Just as importantly, no Board agentincluding an ALJmay conduct a
hearing or oversee litigation on the Boards behalf. An ALJ is the agent of the
Board, 29 C.F.R. 102.6, and wields authority to hold hearings, subpoena wit-
nesses, and perform other tasks only because the Board has delegated to him the
power to do so.
15
But, as this Court has held, if the Board itself cannot convene
hearings or compel parties or witnesses to appear, neither can its agent do so on
its behalf. See Laurel Baye, 564 F.3d at 472-76. It would be a truly bizarre system
of civil enforcement that permitted an officer to bring complaints and initiate pro-
ceedings notwithstanding the absence of any body to adjudicate such complaints.
The Board also has asserted in other cases that Congress intended to pre-
clude all judicial review of the General Counsels decisions to issue complaints or


15
See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. 102.17, .23, .25, .29, .30, .31, .33, .34, .45.

19
not. SFTC Opp. 12-13 & n.11. But the case law the Board has invoked is con-
cerned with interference with the agencys prosecutorial discretioni.e., the
weighing of all [the] considerations such as culpability, evidence, prosecutorial
resources, and the public interest that facto[r] into the issuance of a complaint.
Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., Inc. v. Feinstein, 103 F.3d 151, 153 (D.C. Cir.
1997). At issue here is not the Boards or any other officials exercise of discre-
tion, but the agencys raw power to issue a complaint. Surely if the Board began
issuing complaints asserting not breaches of the National Labor Relations Act, but
of the Clean Air Act or the Securities Act, the agencys exclusive discretion over
the balancing of prosecutorial interests would not insulate its action from judicial
review. A fortiori, such discretion cannot bar judicial relief to prevent prosecution
of complaints when the agency cannot issue them at all.
C. The Board And Its Agents Lack Authority To Commence Federal-
Court Litigation To Seek Injunctive Relief Under Section 10(j).
For many of the same reasons that neither the Board nor its agents may initi-
ate or continue unfair-labor-practice litigation before the agency itself, they are
equally powerless to commence federal-court litigation seeking injunctive relief
under Section 10(j) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(j)as the Board is considering do-
ing in the Brooklyn Case, see supra at 6. Section 10(j) confers power exclusively
on the Board to file a petition in district court seeking appropriate temporary relief
or [a] restraining order pending resolution of unfair-labor-practice proceedings

20
before the agency. 29 U.S.C. 160(j). But neither the Board nor any delegee act-
ing for it may seek such relief while the Board lacks a quorum, see Laurel Baye,
564 F.3d at 472-76as it currently does, see Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at 499-514.
Moreover, the Boards alleged delegation of authority to the Acting General
Counsel to seek Section 10(j) relief, 76 Fed. Reg. 69,768 (Nov. 9, 2011), was itself
unlawful. When that delegation was purportedly made in November 2011, the
Board already lacked a quorum because one of the Boards then-Members, Craig
Becker, held office pursuant to an invalid recess appointment. See New Vista,
2013 WL 2099742, at *11-30.
16
In any case, the November 2011 delegation was
invalid because, by its terms, it would take effect only after the Board lost a quor-
um and was powerless to act or assign its powers to someone else. Allowing such
evasion of the quorum requirement would not merely create a tail that . . . would
continue to wag after the dog died, New Process Steel, 130 S. Ct. at 2645, but in-
deed a tail that does not even begin to wag until the dog has met its demise.
*****
Under binding Supreme Court and Circuit precedent, the Board and its
agents had no basis to commence, and have no authority now to continue, proceed-


16
The same was true of two earlier, similar delegations on which the Board has
relied. See 67 Fed. Reg. 70,628 (Nov. 25, 2002); 66 Fed. Reg. 65,998 (Dec. 21,
2001); compare Board Members Since 1935, supra (showing dates of recess ap-
pointments of Members Walsh, Hurtgen, Bartlett, and Cowen), with Joint Comm.
on Printing, 112th Cong., 2011-2012 Congressional Directory 535-36 (2011)
(showing dates of Senate sessions).

21
ings against the Companies. Despite the Companies request, the agency has re-
fused to halt the proceedings. The Companies are clearly entitled to a writ direct-
ing the Board and all of its agents to suspend the unlawful litigation.
III. MANDAMUS IS APPROPRIATE TO ENFORCE THIS COURTS ORDERS,
PROTECT ITS JURISDICTION, CONFINE THE AGENCY TO THE LAWFUL
EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION, AND PREVENT IRREPARABLE HARM.
Notwithstanding the Companies clear entitlement under this Courts rulings
to be free of these unlawful proceedings, the Board has pressed on, defying this
Courts holdings that its actions in the absence of a quorum are void. Noel Can-
ning, 705 F.3d at 514. Mandamus is manifestly appropriate under the circum-
stances (Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd., 668 F.3d at 730 (quoting Cheney, 542 U.S. at
381)) to end the Boards open disobedience of this Courts directives and its una-
bashed usurpation of power. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967). A
writ also is appropriate to prevent the Boards efforts to evade this Courts jurisdic-
tion and avert imminent, irreparable harm to the Companies and others whom the
Board continues to assail with a club it lacks authority to wield.
A. Mandamus Is Necessary To End The Boards Ongoing Defiance
Of This Courts Rulings.
1. The mandamus relief the Companies seek falls squarely within the writs
traditional use . . . in aid of appellate jurisdiction both at common law and in the
federal courts of confin[ing] an entity to a lawful exercise of its prescribed ju-
risdiction. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943). The array of

22
ultra vires actions the writ can remedy is wide-ranging, but at the core are actions
[that] would threaten the separation of powers. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381. Indeed,
[a] federal courts power to utilize mandamus to enforce its prior mandate against
an administrative agency is firmly established. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 135 F.3d
535, 541 (8th Cir. 1998), vacated on other grounds, 525 U.S. 1133 (1999). A
federal court of appeals can use mandamus to preclude an agency from taking steps
to evade the effect of its mandate, even if those steps were not expressly contem-
plated by the prior decision. Id. at 542. That power enables a court to halt agency
action that is clearly inconsistent even with the basic themes of [a] decision,
17

or to rectify any deviation from either the letter or spirit of [the courts prior]
mandate construed in the light of the opinion of the court deciding the case.
18

Having resolved an issue once, a court plainly may issue a writ to prevent relitiga-
tion of issues already decided. Yablonski, 454 F.2d at 1038.
The Boards unapologetic refusal to obey this Courts clear directives exem-
plifies the contumacy that the writ exists to police. As discussed above, this
Courts controlling precedent leaves no ambiguity about the Boards lack of a
quorum and the consequent inability of the Board or its agents to exercise any au-


17
MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. FCC, 580 F.2d 590, 597 (D.C. Cir.) (emphasis add-
ed), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 980 (1978)

18
City of Cleveland v. Fed. Power Commn, 561 F.2d 344, 346 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
(quoting Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of Am., 454 F.2d 1036, 1038 (D.C. Cir.
1971)) (emphasis added)

23
thority under the Act. See Noel Canning, 705 F.3d 499-514; Laurel Baye, 564
F.3d at 472-76. By issuing and prosecuting complaints in the absence of a quorum
(and threatening additional, more burdensome litigation), the agency thus is acting
manifestly in the teeth of the definitive rulings of this Court. Yablonski, 454
F.2d at 1042. That disobedience poses a severe threa[t] [to] the separation of
powers that amply justifies mandamus. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381. Indeed, the
Boards action flouts not only this Courts authority and Congresss prescription of
the quorum requirement, but also the Senates constitutional role in appointments:
Allowing invalidly appointed Board Members to wield federal authority wholly
defeat[s] the purpose of the Framers in the careful separation of powers structure
reflected in the Appointments Clause. Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at 503. This
Court undeniably has power to compel the Boards compliance with the letter
[and] spirit of those rulings. Iowa Utils. Bd., 135 F.3d 542; City of Cleveland,
561 F.2d at 348.
2. The Board has countered in other cases that issuance of a writ to end its
illegal activities is inappropriate because it is entitled to disregard Noel Canning
until such time as the Supreme Court resolves the merits of the issue against the
Board. Though it did not seek a stay of this Courts decision pending further ap-
peal, the Board nevertheless claims the right to disregard it simply [b]ecause the
question of the validity of the Presidents recess appointments remains in litiga-

24
tion, and other courts (addressing other appointments) have arrived at different
answers. SFTC Opp. 8-10, 20-21; cf. Bloomingdales, 2013 WL 1901335, at *1. It
contends, moreover, that even though Congress established review as of right of
Board rulings in this Court, 29 U.S.C. 160(f), the Board can continue acting be-
cause it can seek enforcement of its orders elsewhere, see id. 160(e). See SFTC
Opp. 7, 19-21, 27. The Boards claim that its disagree[ment] with this Courts
ruling itself authorizes the Board to refuse to comply with the ruling is antithetical
to the rule of law. No decision of this Court or any other even remotely supports it.
The Board invokes the principle that federal agencies are immune from
nonmutual estoppel, see United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 (1984), SFTC
Opp. 21 & n.20, but that has no relevance. Mendoza merely recognized a limited
exception to issue preclusion to ensure the development of important questions of
law that otherwise would be hindered by freezing the first final decision ren-
dered on a particular legal issue. 464 U.S. at 160. That exception exists primarily
for the Supreme Courts benefit, to enable several courts of appeals to explore a
difficult question before [the Court] grants certiorari. Id. This rationale has no
application here. The premise of the agencys disregard of this Courts decisions is
that a split already exists.
19
Its reliance on other courts recess-appointments rul-


19
See Bloomingdales, 2013 WL 1901335, at *1; Pet. for Cert. 11-12, 23-24, 31,
Noel Canning, No. 12-1281.

25
ingsnone of which involved the Board, or indeed any executive agency
20
to
evade a ruling from this Court to which it was a party is badly misplaced.
3. Indeed, by claiming an entitlement to ignore this Courts rulings until a
higher court addresses them, the Board asserts an unprecedented authority to stay
judicial decisions unilaterally. The Board did not even request, much less obtain, a
stay of the Noel Canning ruling from either this Court, see Fed. R. App. P.
41(d)(2), or the Supreme Court, see Sup. Ct. R. 23. It has not even asserted, let
alone demonstrated to the satisfaction of a federal court, that the stringent require-
ments of a stay pending disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorariincluding
a likelihood of irreparable harm
21
are satisfied. Instead it has arrogated to
itself the power to decide when an Article III courts ruling shall take effect, seek-
ing to shift onto private parties the burden of proving such harm. The Boards
broad claim of power to delay the effect of judicial decisions with which it disa-
gree[s] is only further reason why its overreaching should be repudiated.
B. Mandamus Is Appropriate To Protect This Courts Jurisdiction.
Mandamus also is appropriate to aid, and prevent evasion of, this Courts ju-
risdiction. A final Board decision in the underlying actions is directly reviewable


20
Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220, 1222 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v.
Woodley, 751 F.2d 1008, 1009 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Allocco, 305 F.2d
704, 705-06 (2d Cir. 1962).

21
Conkright v. Frommert, 129 S. Ct. 1861, 1861-62 (2009) (Ginsburg, J., in
chambers); see also, e.g., Nara v. Frank, 494 F.3d 1132, 1133 (3d Cir. 2007).

26
in this Court. See 29 U.S.C. 160(f). To be sure, the Courts direct review of
Board rulings is limited to final orders. See id. A court, however, need not wait
for a matter to become final and within its appellate jurisdiction to issue a writ
of mandamus, but instead may act even though no appeal has been perfect-
ed . . . to protect its prospective jurisdiction.
22
A court is not powerless when an
agency seeks to forestall legally required action and deprive injured parties of an
expeditious path to a reviewable final disposition. TRAC, 750 F.2d at 72.
A court likewise need not sit idly where, as here, an agency prosecutes un-
lawful proceedings that impose tremendous harms on private parties. The Court,
of course, can later declare the agencys actions illegal. But waiting until then
would preclude the Court from preventing the severe and unjustified consequences
of the Boards actions on unwilling litigants, and the attendant abuse of the public
fisc. And until the agencys ability to act is definitively adjudicated by an authori-
ty it is willing to recognize, the Companies will have no repose, at risk of facing
future complaints without a resolution of the Boards authority to bring them. Un-
til the Board regains a lawful quorum, neither the Companies nor any other party
will realize even the benefits of agency expertise, let alone secure the certainty to
which they are entitled. TRAC, 750 F.2d at 79.


22
Telecomms. Res. & Action Ctr. v. FCC (TRAC), 750 F.2d 70, 76 (D.C. Cir.
1984) (quoting FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 603-04 (1966)) (emphasis
added); see also In re City of New York, 607 F.3d 923, 939 (2d Cir. 2010).

27
The Board elsewhere has suggested that a writ is nevertheless inappropriate
because review of final Board action or a Section 10(j) injunction might lie in an-
other circuit, and thus this Court might never have jurisdiction to protect.
23
But the
power to protect prospective jurisdiction is not diminished by the fact that another
court may share in that jurisdiction. See, e.g., Iowa Utils. Bd., 135 F.3d at 542 (re-
jecting argument that mandamus relief was inappropriate because review of agency
action inconsistent with prior court order was available only in another court). As
this Court has explained, moreover, its authority to issue writs in aid of its jurisdic-
tion supports an ultimate power of review and extends to those cases which are
within its appellate jurisdiction although no appeal has been perfected. TRAC,
750 F.2d at 76 (citation omitted). The Boards reasoning would eviscerate this au-
thority, restricting the Court only to the issuance of writs in aid of jurisdiction al-
ready acquired by appeal. Id. (emphasis added). This is not the law.
24

C. Mandamus Would Avert Irreparable Harm To The Companies
And The Public.
There is no question that the ultra vires actions of the Board and its agents
will cause irreparable harm absent the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The only


23
See, e.g., Respts Opp. to Pet. for Mandamus 12-13, In re Geary, No. 13-1029
(D.C. Cir. Mar. 25. 2013) (Geary Opp.).

24
See, e.g., Teamsters Local 75, 349 NLRB No. 77, 84 (Jan. 26, 2007)
(Schaumber, dissenting) (noting Courts issuance of writ of mandamus to Board);
see also Iowa Utils. Bd., 135 F.3d at 542.

28
question is whether the harms threatened by the Boards illegitimate activities are
sufficiently grave and irreparable to warrant mandamus relief. They are. Indeed,
the fact that the Boards continued action is premised on purported appointments
that this Court has held unconstitutional, see Noel Canning, 705 F.3d at 499-514,
by itself establishes irreparable harm, for [i]t has long been established that the
loss of constitutional freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably
constitutes irreparable injury. Mills v. Dist. of Columbia, 571 F.3d 1304, 1312
(D.C. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Moreover, the Companies will be compelled to expend massive resources in
litigation fighting action this Court already has declared void ab initio. Noel
Canning, 750 F.3d at 493. Once expended, those resources can never be recouped.
Even a ruling by this Court holding that the Bronx and Brooklyn complaints were
unlawfully issued could not recompense the Companies for the burdens of litigat-
ing.
25
Worse, if the Bronx and Brooklyn Cases are deemed nullities, the Compa-
nies may be forced to incur these costs a second time if the Board seeks to restart
the litigation and conduct a second trial once it regains a quorum.


25
See Wash. Metro. Area Transit Commn v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841,
843 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (economic harm can be irreparable injury if no adequate
compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later date (citation
omitted)); see also Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Scott, 131 S. Ct. 1, 4 (2010) (Scalia,
J., in chambers) ([i]f expenditures cannot be recouped, the resulting loss may be
irreparable).

29
To be sure, in ordinary cases the cost of litigation necessary to determine the
merits of claims before the Board does not constitute irreparable harm. See Myers
v. Bethlehem Shipbldg. Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 51 (1938). For while claims may well
prove groundless on their merits, no way has been discovered of relieving a de-
fendant from the necessity of a trial to establish the fact. Id. at 51-52. But this
case is anything but ordinary, and the Companies are not requesting the writ here
simply because the Bronx and Brooklyn complaints lack merit (though that is
true) or even because of a departure from the regularity of [the Boards] proceed-
ings. Id. at 49. The proceedings must stop because this Court has determined that
the Board has no authority to prosecute them at all and the Board simply refuses to
acknowledge that determination. There is nothing to litigate before the agency;
there is no need for agency expertise or a factual record. Indeed, there is no need
for any litigation: This Court has already answered the dispositive questions in
Noel Canning and Laurel Baye. Forcing the Companies to litigate them again be-
fore the agency, which will not entertain them, before this Court can apply its con-
trolling case law would needlessly injure the Companies.
Nor are the harms confined to the Companies. The Boards action also
causes real harm to the corporations, unions, and employees affected by the ever-
increasing body of rules and decisions issued by the Board acting absent the safe-
guards of the National Labor Relations Act and Constitution. These rules and de-

30
cisionsincluding hundreds issued after Noel Canningare significant and, in
some cases, overturn decades of established precedent.
26
Their effect on labor re-
lations and the economy is substantial. And their adverse effects cannot be easily
repaired. Nor can the loss to the public that results from invalidly appointed offic-
ers depleting the federal coffers to litigate cases they have no authority to bring.
The Court has ample power to stop the illegal actions of the Board and its
agents and compel obedience to Noel Canning and Laurel Baye. See MCI Tele-
comms. Corp., 580 F.2d at 597. It is plainly appropriate to exercise that power
here to prevent further evasion of this Courts precedents, protect its jurisdiction,
and save the Companies and many others from needless but irreparable harm.
CONCLUSION
The petition for mandamus or prohibition should be granted without delay.
If the Court does not immediately grant the writ, the Companies respectfully re-
quest that their case be heard together with In re Geary, No. 13-1029 (D.C. Cir.),
and In re SFTC, LLC, 13-1048 (D.C. Cir.).


26
See, e.g., WKYC-TV, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 30 (Dec. 12, 2012) (overturning fifty
years of precedent regarding dues deductions after expiration of collective bargain-
ing agreement); Marriot Intl, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 8 (Sept. 28, 2012) (overturning
longstanding precedent governing off-duty-access policies); see also Costco
Wholesale Corp., 358 NLRB No. 106 (Sept.7, 2012); Banner Health System, 358
NLRB No. 93 (July 30, 2012); D.R. Horton, 357 NLRB No. 184 (Jan. 3, 2012);
Specialty Healthcare, 357 NLRB No. 83 (Aug. 26, 2011).
Dated: May 30, 2013
Doreen S. Davis
JONES DAY
222 East 41 st Street
New York, N.Y. 10017
(212) 326-3833
Jerome B. Kauff
KAUFF, MCGUIRE & MARGOLIS LLP
950 Third Avenue
14th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10022
(212) 644-1010
Respectfully 0 1 /J

Matthew D. McGill
Counsel of Record
Eugene Scalia
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 955-8500
MMcGill@gibsondunn.com
Counsel for Petitioners CSC Holdings, LLC and
Cablevision Systems New York City Corp.
31
CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES AND AMICI CURIAE
Pursuant to Circuit Rules 21(d) and 28(a)(I)(A), petitioners CSC Holdings,
LLC and Cablevision Systems New York City Corp. respectfully submit the fol-
lowing certificate of parties and amici curiae:
The parties to this petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition are petition-
ers CSC Holdings, LLC and Cablevision Systems New York City Corp.; the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board; and Communications Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, which is the charging party in both actions before the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
There currently are no intervenors or amici.
May 30, 2013
1/hd;c11!0i1/
Matthew D. McGill
Counsel for Petitioners CSC Holdings, LLC
and Cablevision Systems New York City
Corp.


CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Cablevision Systems New York City Corporation is a direct subsidiary of
CSC Holdings, LLC, which is a direct subsidiary of Cablevision Systems Corpora-
tion. Cablevision Systems Corporation is a publicly held corporation organized in
Delaware with headquarters in Bethpage, New York. Cablevision Systems Corpo-
ration has no parent corporation. The following publicly held corporations own
10% or more of Cablevision Systems Corporations common stock: (1) Clear-
Bridge Investments LLC, and (2) T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.






























ADDENDUM


[Add. i]
ADDENDUM: TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Complaint, CSC Holdings, LLC & Cablevision Systems New
York City Corp., Nos. 02-CA-085811, 02-CA-090823
(Apr. 17, 2013) ....................................................................................... Add. 1
Complaint, Cablevision Systems New York City Corp.,
Nos. 29-CA-097013, 29-CA-097557, 29-CA-100175
(Apr. 29, 2013) ..................................................................................... Add. 13
Letter from D. Gribben, Counsel for Acting General Counsel,
to Hon. J. Biblowitz, 1 (May 14, 2013) ............................................... Add. 29
Scheduling Order, CSC Holdings, LLC & Cablevision Systems
New York City Corp., Nos. 02-CA-085811, 02-CA-
090823; Cablevision Systems New York City Corp.,
Nos. 29-CA-097013, 29-CA-097557, 100175 ..................................... Add. 32
Letter from E. Scalia et al. to L. Solomon (May 21, 2013) ............................ Add. 33
Order Further Consolidating Cases, CSC Holdings, LLC & Ca-
blevision Systems New York City Corp., Nos. 02-CA-
085811, 02-CA-090823; Cablevision Systems New York
City Corp., Nos. 29-CA-097013, 29-CA-097557, 100175
(May 24, 2013) ..................................................................................... Add. 37
Letter from L. Solomon to E. Scalia (May 28, 2013) ..................................... Add. 51
Statutes and Regulations ................................................................................. Add. 54
U.S. Const. art. II, 2, cl. 2 .................................................................. Add. 54
U.S. Const. art. II, 2, cl. 3 .................................................................. Add. 54
28 U.S.C. 1651(a) .............................................................................. Add. 54
29 U.S.C. 153(b), (d) ......................................................................... Add. 54
29 U.S.C. 154(a) ................................................................................ Add. 55
29 U.S.C. 160(b), (e), (f), (j) .............................................................. Add. 56

[Add. ii]
29 C.F.R. 102.6 .................................................................................. Add. 58
29 C.F.R. 102.15 ................................................................................ Add. 59
29 C.F.R. 102.19 ................................................................................ Add. 59
[Add. 1]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REGION 2
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC and
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS
NEW YORK CITY CORP., as a
single employer
Respondent
and
Case Nos. 02-CA-OB5Bll
02-CA-090B23
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
Charging Party
ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
AND NOTICE OF HEARING
Pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board) and to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, IT IS ORDERED THAT Cases 02-CA-
OB5B11 and Case 02-CA-090B23, which are based on charges filed by Communication Workers
of America, AFL-ClO, herein called the Union, against CSC Holdings, LLC and Cablevision Systems
New York City Corp., as a single employer, herein called Respondent, are consolidated.
This Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing, which is
based on these charges, is issued pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. (the Act) and Section 102.15 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and
alleges Respondent has violated the Act as described below:
1. (a) The charge in Case No. 02-CA-OB5B11 was filed by the Union on July 23,
2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on July 24,2012.
( b) The charge in Case No. 02-CA-090B23 was filed by the Union on October
5, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on October 10,2012.
[Add. 2]
(c) An amended charge in Case No. 02-CA-090823 was filed by the Union
on November 16,2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on November 19,
2012.
(d) A second amended charge in this matter was filed by the Union on
November 29, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on December 4,
2012.
2. (a) At material' times CSC Holdings LLC, herein individually called CSC
Holdings, has been a domestic corporation with an office and headquarters located at 1111
Stewart Avenue, Bethpage, New York, engaged in various business enterprises, including the
provision of cable television and communications services in various parts of the United States.
(b) At material times Cablevision Systems New York City Corp., herein called
Cablevision New York City, has been a domestic corporation with an office and place of business
at 500 Brush Avenue, Bronx New York, herein called the Bronx facility, engaged in providing
broadband cable communication services to residential and commercial customers in the Bronx
and other locations in New York, New York.
(c) At all material times, CSC Holdings and Cablevision Systems New York
City Corp have been affiliated business enterprises with common officers, ownership, directors,
management, and supervision; have (formulated and) administered a common labor policy;
have shared common premises and facilities; have provided services for and made sales to each
other; have interchanged personnel with each other; have interrelated operations with common
management and have held themselves out to the public as a single-integrated business
enterprise.
(d) Based on its operations described above in subparagraph (c), CSC
2
[Add. 3]
Holdings and Cablevision New York City constitute a single-integrated business enterprise and a
single employer within the meaning of the Act.
(e) Annually, in course and conduct oftheir business operations CSC Holdings
and Cablevision New York City separately and collectively derive revenues in excess of $500,000.
(f) Annually, in course and conduct of their business operations CSC Holdings
and Cablevision New York City separately and collectively purchase and receive at their facilities
in New York State goods and services valued in excess of $5,000 directly from suppliers located
outside the State of New York.
3. At material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. At material times the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
5. At material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite
their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act and agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act):
James L. Dolan
Barry Monopoli
Richard House
John Lynn
Andre Diaz
Ewan Isaacs
Randy Reed
3
Chief Executive Officer
Vice President Field Operations
Construction Manager
Construction Manager
Fiber Department Supervisor
Plant Maintenance Supervisor
Construction Supervisor
[Add. 4]
Winston Mcintosh Construction Supervisor
6. In or about April, 2012, the precise date being unknown to General Counsel, but
within the knowledge of Respondent, the Employer, by Dolan, at ameeting of employees at the
Bronx facility:
a. Promised its 'employees improved wages and benefits;
b. Promised its employees an improved system for registering their
witbout fear of retaliation;
c. By soliciting employee complaints and grievances, promised its employees
increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment.
d. Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in subparagraphs a
through c in order to discourage employees from selecting the Union as their collective
bargaining representative.
7. (a) On or about April 15, 2012, the Employer, by various methods, including
a power point presentation shown to employees at the Bronx facility and other locations not
presently known to General Counsel, but within the knowledge of Respondent, announced the
implementation of wage and benefit improvements.
(b) In or about May 2012, the exact date not presently known to General
Counsel, but within the knowledge of Respondent, Respondent implemented the first phase of
its wage and benefit improvements.
(c) Respondent engaged in conduct described above in subparagraphs
(a) and (b) because certain employees of Respondent joined or supported the Union and
engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.
4
[Add. 5]
8. On or about June 26, 2012, Respondent by Dolan, at a meeting of employees at
the Bronx facility impliedly threatened employees with the loss of opportunities for training, and
advancement and loss of work if they selected the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative.
9. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 6 through 8, Respondent has been
interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
10. By the conduct described above in paragraph 7, Respondent has been
discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its
employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
11. The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
WHEREFORE as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged above in
paragraphs 6 through 8, the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring that the Notice be read to
employees during working time by James L. Dolan.
Wherefore as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged above in
paragraphs 6 through 8 General Counsel seeks an Order requiring that the notice be read at
Respondent's facilities in the Bronx, New York, Shelton, Connecticut, White Plains, New York,
Newark, New Jersey and at its facilities in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York .
5
[Add. 6]
ANSWER REQUIREMENT
Respondent is notified that, pursuant to Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, it must file an answer to the (consolidated) complaint. The answer must
be received by this office on or before May 1. 2013. or postmarked on or before April 30.
2013. Respondent should file an original and four copies of the answer with this office and
serve a copy of the answer on each of the other parties.
An answer may, also be filed electronically through the Agency's website. To file
electronically, go to www.nlrb.gov.click on File Case Documents, enter the NLRB Case Number,
and follow the detailed instructions. The responsibility for the receipt and usability of the
answer rests exclusively upon the sender. Unless notification on the Agency's website informs
users that the Agency's E-Filing system is officially determined to be in technical failure because
it is unable to receive documents for a continuous period of more than 2 hours after 12:00 noon
(Eastern Time) on the due date for filing, a failure to timely file the answer will not be excused
on the basis that the transmission could not be accomplished because the Agency's website was
off-line or unavailable for some other reason. The Board's Rules and Regulations require that an
answer be signed by counselor non-attorney representative for represented parties or by the
party if not represented. See Section 102.21. If the answer being filed electronically is a pdf
document containing the required signature, no paper copies of the answer need to be
transmitted to the Regional Office. However, if the electronic version of an answer to a
complaint is not a pdf file containing the required signature, then the E-filing rules require that
such answer containing the required signature continue to be submitted to the Regional Office
by traditional means within three (3) business days after the date of electronic filing. Service of
the answer on each of the other parties must still be accomplished by means allowed under the
6
[Add. 7]
Board's Rules and Regulations. The answer may not be filed by facsimile transmission. If no
answer is filed, or if an answer is filed untimely, the Board may find, pursuant to a Motion for
Default Judgment, that the allegations in the (consolidated) complaint are true.
NOTICE OF HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on May 29,2013, at 9:30 a.m. at the Mary Walker Taylor
Hearing Room on the 36
th
Floor of 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York, and on consecutive
days thereafter until concluded, a hearing will be conducted before an administrative law judge
of the National Labor Relations Board. At the hearing, Respondent and any other party to this
proceeding have the right to appear and present testimony regarding the allegations in this
(consolidated) complaint. The procedures to be followed at the hearing are described in the
attached Form NLRB-4668. The procedure to request a postponement of the hearing is
described in the attached Form NLRB-4338.
Dated this 17th day of April
At New York, New York
~ ~
Karen P. Fernbach, Regional Director
National Labor Relations Board
Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
Room 3614
New York, NY 10278
7
[Add. 8]
FORM NLRB 4338
(6-90)
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
NA TIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NOTICE
Case 02-CA-085811
The issuance of the notice of formal hearing in this case does not mean that the matter
cannot be disposed of by agreement of the parties. On the contrary, it is the policy of this office
to encourage voluntary adjustments. The examiner or attorney assigned to the case will be
pleased to receive and to act promptly upon your suggestions or comments to this end.
An agreement between the parties, approved by the Regional Director, would serve to
cancel the hearing. However, unless otherwise specifically ordered, the hearing will be held at
the date, hour, and place indicated. Postponements will not be granted unless good and
sufficient grounds are shown and the following requirements are met:
(1) The request must be in writing. An original and two copies must be filed with the
Regional Director when appropriate under 29 CFR 1 02.1 6(a) or with the Division of
Judges when appropriate under 29 CFR 1 02.16(b).
(2) Grounds must be set forth in detail;
(3) Alternative dates for any rescheduled hearing must be given;
(4) The positions of all other parties must be ascertained in advance by the requesting
party and set forth in the request; and
(5) Copies must be simultaneously served on all other parties (listed below), and that fact
must be noted on the request.
Except under the most extreme conditions, no request for postponement will be granted during
the three days immediately preceding the date of hearing.
ERIC CHANG, Director of Human Resources
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS OF NEW YORK
CITY CORPORATION
500 BRUSH AVE
BRONX, NY 10465-1803
Peter Clark, ESQ.
KAUFF MCGUIRE & MARGOLIS LLP
950 Third Avenue
14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
[Add. 9]
TIMOTHY DUBNAU
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF
AMERICA
WEISSMAN & MINTZ LLC
9602-D MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
HIGHWAY
LANHAM, MD 20706
DANIEL E. CLIFTON, ESQ.
LEWIS, CLIFTON & NIKOLAIDIS, P.C.
350 7TH AVE
STE 1800
NEW YORK, NY 10001-5013
MARY K. O'MELVENEY, GENERAL
COUNSEL
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO, CLC
501 3RD ST., NW, SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-2797
GABRIELLE SEMEL, District Counsel
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF
AMERICA, DISTRICT 1 - LEGAL
DEPARTMENT
350 7TH AVE
FL 18
NEW YORK, NY 10001-5013
[Add. 10]
NOTICE
The Complaint attached hereto alleges that the Respondent has violated certain
seotions of the National labor Relations Act and a fonnal hearing has been scheduled with
respect thereto. By this notice I wish to call the attention of all parties to the polioy of this
Agency favoring a settlement of cases notwithstanding that a Complaint has issued. It is
the position of t h ~ Agency that an early settlement will be an advantage to all parties
because it eliminates, among other things, the time and expense involved in formal
litigation of a matter. In furtherance of this polioy the Board agent with whom you have
dealt or the attomey to whom the matter has been assigned for trial, will contact the
representatives of the Respondent and the Charging Party within a matter of days for the
purpose of engaging in intensive disoussions to detennine whether or not a settlement
can be achieved. All of the facilities of this office are available to the parties in furthering
the .achievement of a satisfactory disposition of the matter which will be consistent with
the purposes and policies of the National Labor Relations Act.
it-P, ~
Regional Director
National labor Relations Board
Region 2
[Add. 11]
Form NLRB-4668
(4-05)
SUMMARY OF STANDARD PROCEDURES IN FORMAL HEARINGS HELD
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 10 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
The hearing will be conducted by an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board who will preside
at the hearing as an independent, impartial finder of the facts and applicable law whose decision in due time will be served on
the parties. The offices of the administrative law judges are located in Washington, DC; San Francisco, California; New York,
N.Y.; and Atlanta, Georgia.
At the date, hour, and place for which the hearing is set, the administrative law judge, upon the joint request of the
parties, will conduct a "prehearing" conference, prior to or shortly after the opening of the hearing, to ensure that the issues are
sharp and clearcut; or the administrative law judge may independently conduct such a conference. The administrative law
judge will preside at such conference, but may, if the occasion arises, permit the parties to engage in private discussions. The
conference will not necessarily be recorded, but it may well be that the labors of the conference will be evinced in the ultimate
record, for example, in the form of statements of position, stipulations, and concessions. Except under unusual circumstances,
the administrative law judge conducting the prehearing conference will be the one who will conduct the hearing; and it is
expected that the formal hearing will commence or be resumed immediately upon completion of the prehearing conference. No
prejudice will result to any party unwilling to participate in or make stipulations or concessions during any prehearing
conference.
(This is not to be construed as preventing the parties from meeting earlier for similar purposes. To the contrary, the parties are
encouraged to meet prior to the time set for hearing in an effort to narrow the issues.)
Parties may be represented by an attorney or other representative and present evidence relevant to the issues. All
parties appearing before this hearing who have or whose witnesses have handicaps falling within the provisions of Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and 29 C.F.R. 100.603, and who in order to participate in this hearing need
appropriate auxiliary aids, as defined in 29 C.F.R. 100.603, should notify the Regional Director as soon as possible and request
the necessary assistance.
An official reporter will make the only official transcript of the proceedings, and all citations in briefs and arguments
must refer to the official record. The Board will not certify any transcript other than the official transcript for use in any court
litigation. Proposed corrections of the transcript should be submitted, either by way of stipulation or motion, to the
administrative law judge for approval.
All matter that is spoken in the hearing room while the hearing is in session will be recorded by the official reporter
. unless the administrative law judge specifically directs off-the-record discussion. In the event that any party wishes to make
off-the-record statements, a request to go off the record should be directed to the administrative law judge and not to the
official reporter.
Statements of reasons in support of motions and objections should be specific and concise. The administrative law
judge will allow an automatic exception to all adverse rulings and, upon appropriate order, an objection and exception will be
permitted to stand to an entire line of questioning.
All exhibits offered in evidence shall be in duplicate. Copies of exhibits should be supplied to the administrative law
judge and other parties at the time the exhibits are offered in evidence. If a copy of any exhibit is not available at the time the
original is received, it will be the responsibility of the party offering such exhibit to submit the copy to the administrative law
judge before the close of hearing. In the event such copy is not submitted, and the filing has not been waived by the
administrative law judge, any ruling receiving the exhibit may be rescinded and the exhibit rejected.
Any party shall be entitled, on request, to a reasonable period of time at the close of the hearing for oral argument, which shall
be included in the transcript of the hearing. In the absence of a request, the administrative law judge may ask for oral argument
if, at the close of the hearing, it is believed that such argument would be beneficial to the understanding of the contentions of
the parties and the factual issues involved.
(OVER)
[Add. 12]
Form NLRB-4668
(4-05) Continued
In the discretion of the administrative law judge, any patty may, on request made before the close of the hearing, file a
brief or proposed fmdings and conclusions, or both, with the administrative law judge who will fix the time for such filing. Any
such filing submitted shall be double-spaced on 8 112 by 11 inch paper.
Attention of the parties is called to the following requirements laid down in Section 102.42 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, with respect to the procedure to be followed before the proceeding is transferred to the Board: No request for an
extension of time within which to submit briefs or proposed findings to the administrative law judge will be considered unless
received by the Chief Administrative Law Judge in Washington, DC (or, in cases under the branch offices in San Francisco,
California; New York, New York; and Atlanta, Georgia, the Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge) at least 3 days prior to
the expiration of time fixed for the submission of such documents. Notice of request for such extension of time must be served
simultaneously on all other parties, and proof of such service furnished to the Chief Administrative Law Judge or the Associate
Chief Administrative Law Judge, as the case may be. A quicker response is assured if the moving party secures the positions
of the other parties and includes such in the request. All briefs or proposed findings filed with the administrative law judge
must be submitted in triplicate, and may be printed or otherwise legibly duplicated with service on the other parties.
In due course the administrative law judge will prepare and file with the Board a decision in this proceeding, and will
cause a copy thereof to be served on each of the parties. Upon filing of this decision, the Board will enter an order transferring
this case to itself, and will serve copies of that order, setting forth the date of such transfer, on all parties. At that point, the
administrative law judge's official connection with the case will cease.
The procedure to be followed before the Board from that point forward, with respect to the filing of exceptions to the
administrative law judge's decision, the submission of supporting briefs, requests for oral argument before the Board, and
related matters, is set forth in the Board's Rules and Regulations, particularly in Section 102.46 and following sections. A
summary of the more pertinent of these provisions will be served on the parties together with the order transferring the case to
the Board.
Adjustments or settlements consistent with the policies of the National Labor Relations Act reduce government
expenditures and promote amity in labor relations. If adjustment appears possible, the administrative law judge may suggest
discussions between the patties or, on request, will afford reasonable opportunity during the hearing for such discussions.
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REGION 29

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY
CORPORATION
and
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
Case Nos. 29-CA-097013
29-CA-097557
29-CA-100175




ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT AND
NOTICE OF HEARING
Pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board) and to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, IT IS ORDERED THAT Cases 29-
CA-097013, 29-CA-097557, and 29-CA-100175 which are based on charges filed by
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Charging Party) against
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORPORATION (Respondent) are
consolidated.
This Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing, which
is based on these charges, is issued pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. (the Act) and Section 102.15 of the Boards Rules and Regulations,
and alleges Respondent has violated the Act as described below:
1(a). The charge in Case 29-CA-097013 was filed by the Charging Party on
January 24, 2013, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on January 25, 2013.
(b). The first amended charge in Case 29-CA-097013 was filed by the Charging Party
on January 28, 2013, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on January 28, 2013.
[Add. 13]
2

(c). The second amended charge in Case 29-CA-097013 was filed by the Charging Party
on April 26, 2013, and was served by regular mail on Respondent on April 26, 2013.
(d). The charge in Case 29-CA-097557 was filed by the Charging Party on
January 31, 2013, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on February 4, 2013.
(e). The first amended charge in Case 29-CA-097557 was filed by the Charging Party on
February 19, 2013, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on February 21, 2013.
(f). The second amended charge in Case 29-CA- 097557 was filed by Charging Party
on April 25, 2013, and was served by regular mail on Respondent on April 26, 2013.
(g). The charge in Case 29-CA-100175 was filed by the Charging Party on
March 12, 2013, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on March 13, 2013.
2(a). At all material times, Respondent a domestic corporation with its corporate office
located at 1111 Stewart Avenue, Bethpage, New York, and with facilities located in Brooklyn,
New York, has been engaged in the business of providing broadband cable and communication
services to residential and commercial customers in Brooklyn.
(b). Annually, in the course and conduct of its business operation described above in
paragraph 2(a), the Employer has derived gross revenues excess of $500,000, and has purchased
goods, products and materials valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points located outside the
State of New York.
(c). At all material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. At all material times, the Charging Party has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
[Add. 14]
3

4. The following employees of Respondent (the Unit) constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time field service technicians, outside plant
technicians, audit technicians, inside plant technicians, construction
technicians, network fiber technicians, logistics associates, regional control
center (RCC) representatives and coordinators employed by the Employer at
its Brooklyn, New York facilities; excluding all other employees, including
customer service employees, human resource department employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11)
of the Act.
5. On February 7, 2012, following the conduct of an election in Case No. 29-RC-
070897, the Board certified the Charging Party as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the Unit.
6. At all times since February 7, 2012, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Charging
Party has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
7(a). At various times from about May 30, 2012, through March 4, 2013, Respondent
and the Charging Party met for the purposes of negotiating an initial collective-bargaining
agreement with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
(b). During the period described above in paragraph 7(a), Respondent engaged in
surface bargaining with no intent of reaching agreement by: (1) refusing to meet at reasonable
times; (2) refusing to discuss economic issues until non-economic issues were resolved; (3)
insisting on changing the scope of the certified bargaining unit; (4) rigidly adhering to proposals
that are predictably unacceptable to the Charging Party; (5) refusing to discuss a union security
clause and then raising philosophical objections to such clause; (6) submitting regressive
proposals to the Charging Party; (7) withdrawing from a tentative agreement; (8) refusing to
[Add. 15]
4

discuss mandatory subjects of bargaining; and (9) by significantly delaying the provision of
relevant wage information to the Charging Party.
(c). By its overall conduct, including the conduct described above in paragraph 7(b),
Respondent has failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
8(a). Since about August 23, 2012, the Charging Party has requested, in writing, that
Respondent furnish it with the following information: Documents related to changes made
during the period April 1, 2012, to the present, with respect to the wages and benefits, Career
Progression Plan, and Salary Matrix of all non-Brooklyn Cablevision employees, employed in
the same or similar job classifications as the Brooklyn CWA bargaining unit employees.
(b). The information requested by the Charging Party, as described above in paragraph
8(a) is necessary for, and relevant to, the Charging Party's performance of its duties as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
(c). From about September 5, 2012, to about March 6, 2013, Respondent
unreasonably delayed in furnishing the Union with the information requested by it as described
above in paragraphs 8(a) and (b).
9. At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth
opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act:
Daryl Gaines Area Operations Manager
Rick LaVesque Vice President

[Add. 16]
5

10. At all material times, Harry Hughes held the position of Respondent's Corporate
Investigator for Respondents Security Department and has been an agent of Respondent within
the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
11. About January 24, 2013, Respondent, through Daryl Gaines, instructed employees
not to engage in activities in support of the Charging Party.
12. About February 7, 2013, Respondent, by Harry Hughes, in front of the Madison
Square Garden Arena in New York City, engaged in surveillance of employees engaged in union
activities.
13. About the first week of February 2013, Respondent, by Rick LaVesque, in his
office at Respondents 96
th
Street facility, informed a Unit employee that it was futile for the
employee to support the Charging Party because bargaining for a contract with Respondent was
futile.
14(a). About January 30, 2013, certain employees of Respondent ceased work
concertedly and engaged in a strike.
(b). The strike described above in paragraph 13(a) was caused by Respondent's unfair
labor practices described above in paragraphs 7(a) through (c).
15(a). About January 30, 2013, Respondent, by Rick LaVesque, informed the following
employees engaged in the unfair labor practice strike described above in paragraphs 14(a) and
(b), that they had been permanently replaced:
Clarence Adams Eric Ocasio
David Gifford Malik Coleman
Lakesia Johnson Andre Riggs
Courtney Graham Raymond Reid
Miles Watson Borris H. Reid
[Add. 17]
6

Andre Bellato Steven Ashurst
Jerome Thompson Shaun Morgan
Trevor Mitchell Stanley Galloway
Ray Meyers Brent Randein
Marlon Gayle Corey Williams
Richard Wilcher Raymond Williams

(b). About January 30, 2013, Respondent directed the employees described above in
paragraph 15(a) to, among other things, turn in their identification badges, keys, and radios, and
had these employees escorted out of the facility by NYPD officers.
(c). By the conduct described above in paragraphs 15(a) and (b), Respondent
discharged the named employees on January 30, 2013.
(d). On various dates beginning on February 6, 2013, and ending on March 20, 2013,
Respondent reinstated the named employees to their former positions of employment without
back pay.
(e). Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 15(a) through
(d) because the named employees of Respondent assisted the Charging Party and engaged in
concerted activities,

and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.
16. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 7 and 8, Respondent has been
failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
17. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 11 through 13, Respondent has
been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
[Add. 18]
7

18. By the conduct described above in paragraph 15, Respondent has been
discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its
employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
19. The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
As part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged above, the Acting General
Counsel seeks an Order requiring that the Notice be read to employees during working time by a
high level official of Respondent.
As part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged above in paragraphs 7 and 8,
the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to: (1) bargain on request within 15
days of a Board Order; (2) bargain on request for a minimum of 15 hours a week until an
agreement or lawful impasse is reached or until the parties agree to a respite in bargaining; (3)
prepare written bargaining progress reports every 15 days and submit them to the Regional
Director and also serve the reports on the Charging Party to provide the Charging Party with an
opportunity to reply; and (4) make whole employee negotiators for any earnings lost while
attending bargaining sessions.
As part of the remedy for Respondent's unfair labor practices alleged above in paragraphs
7 and 8, the Acting General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to bargain in good
faith with the Charging Party, on request, for an additional period of 12 months as provided for
by Mar-Jac Poultry, 136 NLRB 785 (1962), as the recognized bargaining representative in the
appropriate unit. The General Counsel further seeks all other relief as may be just and proper to
remedy the unfair labor practices alleged.
[Add. 19]
8

As part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged above in paragraphs 15(a)
through (e), the Acting General Counsel seeks an order requiring reimbursement of amounts
equal to the difference in taxes owed upon receipt of a lump-sum payment and taxes that would
have been owed had there been no discrimination. The Acting General Counsel further seeks
that Respondent be required to submit the appropriate documentation to the Social Security
Administration so that when backpay is paid, it will be allocated to the appropriate periods. The
Acting General Counsel further seeks all other relief as may be just and proper to remedy the
unfair labor practices alleged.

ANSWER REQUIREMENT
Respondent is notified that, pursuant to Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Boards Rules
and Regulations, it must file an answer to the Consolidated complaint. The answer must be
received by this office on or before May 13, 2013, or postmarked on or before May 11,
2013. Respondent should file an original and four copies of the answer with this office and serve
a copy of the answer on each of the other parties.
An answer may also be filed electronically through the Agencys website. To file
electronically, go to www.nlrb.gov, click on File Case Documents, enter the NLRB Case
Number, and follow the detailed instructions. The responsibility for the receipt and usability of
the answer rests exclusively upon the sender. Unless notification on the Agencys website
informs users that the Agencys E-Filing system is officially determined to be in technical failure
because it is unable to receive documents for a continuous period of more than 2 hours after
12:00 noon (Eastern Time) on the due date for filing, a failure to timely file the answer will not
be excused on the basis that the transmission could not be accomplished because the Agencys
[Add. 20]
9

website was off-line or unavailable for some other reason. The Boards Rules and Regulations
require that an answer be signed by counsel or non-attorney representative for represented parties
or by the party if not represented. See Section 102.21. If the answer being filed electronically is a
pdf document containing the required signature, no paper copies of the answer need to be
transmitted to the Regional Office. However, if the electronic version of an answer to a
complaint is not a pdf file containing the required signature, then the E-filing rules require that
such answer containing the required signature continue to be submitted to the Regional Office by
traditional means within three (3) business days after the date of electronic filing. Service of the
answer on each of the other parties must still be accomplished by means allowed under the
Boards Rules and Regulations. The answer may not be filed by facsimile transmission. If no
answer is filed, or if an answer is filed untimely, the Board may find, pursuant to a Motion for
Default Judgment, that the allegations in the Consolidated complaint are true.
Any request for an extension of time to file an answer must, pursuant to Section
102.111(b) of the Boards Rule and Regulations, be filed by the close of business on May 10,
2013. The request should be in writing and addressed to the Regional Director of Region 29.

NOTICE OF HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on May 29, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. and on consecutive
days thereafter until concluded, a hearing will be conducted before an administrative law judge
of the National Labor Relations Board. At the hearing, Respondent and any other party to this
proceeding have the right to appear and present testimony regarding the allegations in this
Consolidated complaint. The procedures to be followed at the hearing are described in the


[Add. 21]
10

attached Form NLRB-4668. The procedure to request a postponement of the hearing is
described in the attached Form NLRB-4338.
Dated: April 29, 2013


/s/

JAMES PAULSEN
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REGION 29
TWO METRO TECH CENTER STE 5100
FL 5
BROOKLYN, NY 11201-3838

Attachments
[Add. 22]
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REGION 29
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY
CORPORATION and CABLEVISION SYSTEMS
OF NEW YORK CITY CORPORATION
and
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
Case 29-CA-097013; 29-CA-
097557; 29-CA-100175



AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF: Complaint and Notice of Hearing (with forms NLRB-
4338 and NLRB-4668 attached)
I, the undersigned employee of the National Labor Relations Board, being duly sworn, say that
on , I served the above-entitled document(s) by certified or regular mail, as noted below, upon
the following persons, addressed to them at the following addresses:
PAUL HILBNER , Vice President, Human
Resources for Field Operations
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK
CITY CORPORATION
9502 AVENUE D
BROOKLYN, NY 11236-1811
CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED
G. PETER CLARK , ESQ.
950 3RD AVE
14TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10022-2705
REGULAR MAIL
RICK LEVESQUE
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS OF NEW YORK
CITY CORPORATION
9502 AVENUE D
BROOKLYN, NY 11236-1811
CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED
PETER CLARK , Attorney
KAUFF MCGUIRE & MARGOLIS LLP
950 3RD AVE
FL 14
NEW YORK, NY 10022-2773
REGULAR MAIL
[Add. 23]
12

GABRIELLE SEMEL , District Counsel
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF
AMERICA, DISTRICT 1 - LEGAL
DEPARTMENT
350 7TH AVE
FL 18
NEW YORK, NY 10001-5013
REGULAR MAIL
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO
80 PINE ST
FL 37
NEW YORK, NY 10005-1728
CERTIFIED MAIL
DANIEL E. CLIFTON , ESQ.
LEWIS, CLIFTON & NIKOLAIDIS, P.C.
350 7TH AVE
STE 1800
NEW YORK, NY 10001-5013
REGULAR MAIL

Enter NAME, Designated Agent of NLRB
Date Name



Signature
[Add. 24]
FORM NLRB 4338
(6-90)
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NOTICE

Case 29-CA-097013
The issuance of the notice of formal hearing in this case does not mean that the matter
cannot be disposed of by agreement of the parties. On the contrary, it is the policy of this office
to encourage voluntary adjustments. The examiner or attorney assigned to the case will be
pleased to receive and to act promptly upon your suggestions or comments to this end.

An agreement between the parties, approved by the Regional Director, would serve to
cancel the hearing. However, unless otherwise specifically ordered, the hearing will be held at
the date, hour, and place indicated. Postponements will not be granted unless good and
sufficient grounds are shown and the following requirements are met:

(1) The request must be in writing. An original and two copies must be filed with the
Regional Director when appropriate under 29 CFR 102.16(a) or with the Division of
Judges when appropriate under 29 CFR 102.16(b).
(2) Grounds must be set forth in detail;
(3) Alternative dates for any rescheduled hearing must be given;
(4) The positions of all other parties must be ascertained in advance by the requesting
party and set forth in the request; and
(5) Copies must be simultaneously served on all other parties (listed below), and that fact
must be noted on the request.
Except under the most extreme conditions, no request for postponement will be granted during
the three days immediately preceding the date of hearing.

PAUL HILBNER, Vice President, Human
Resources for Field Operations
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK
CITY CORPORATION
9502 AVENUE D
BROOKLYN, NY 11236-1811


G. PETER CLARK, ESQ.
950 3RD AVE
14TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10022-2705


[Add. 25]
14

GABRIELLE SEMEL, District Counsel
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF
AMERICA, DISTRICT 1 - LEGAL
DEPARTMENT
350 7TH AVE
FL 18
NEW YORK, NY 10001-5013


COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO
80 PINE ST
FL 37
NEW YORK, NY 10005-1728


[Add. 26]
Form NLRB-4668
(4-05)




(OVER)
SUMMARY OF STANDARD PROCEDURES IN FORMAL HEARINGS HELD
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 10 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT

The hearing will be conducted by an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board who will preside
at the hearing as an independent, impartial finder of the facts and applicable law whose decision in due time will be served on
the parties. The offices of the administrative law judges are located in Washington, DC; San Francisco, California; New York,
N.Y.; and Atlanta, Georgia.
At the date, hour, and place for which the hearing is set, the administrative law judge, upon the joint request of the
parties, will conduct a "prehearing" conference, prior to or shortly after the opening of the hearing, to ensure that the issues are
sharp and clearcut; or the administrative law judge may independently conduct such a conference. The administrative law
judge will preside at such conference, but may, if the occasion arises, permit the parties to engage in private discussions. The
conference will not necessarily be recorded, but it may well be that the labors of the conference will be evinced in the ultimate
record, for example, in the form of statements of position, stipulations, and concessions. Except under unusual circumstances,
the administrative law judge conducting the prehearing conference will be the one who will conduct the hearing; and it is
expected that the formal hearing will commence or be resumed immediately upon completion of the prehearing conference. No
prejudice will result to any party unwilling to participate in or make stipulations or concessions during any prehearing
conference.
(This is not to be construed as preventing the parties from meeting earlier for similar purposes. To the contrary, the parties are
encouraged to meet prior to the time set for hearing in an effort to narrow the issues.)
Parties may be represented by an attorney or other representative and present evidence relevant to the issues. All
parties appearing before this hearing who have or whose witnesses have handicaps falling within the provisions of Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and 29 C.F.R. 100.603, and who in order to participate in this hearing need
appropriate auxiliary aids, as defined in 29 C.F.R. 100.603, should notify the Regional Director as soon as possible and request
the necessary assistance.
An official reporter will make the only official transcript of the proceedings, and all citations in briefs and arguments
must refer to the official record. The Board will not certify any transcript other than the official transcript for use in any court
litigation. Proposed corrections of the transcript should be submitted, either by way of stipulation or motion, to the
administrative law judge for approval.
All matter that is spoken in the hearing room while the hearing is in session will be recorded by the official reporter
unless the administrative law judge specifically directs off-the-record discussion. In the event that any party wishes to make
off-the-record statements, a request to go off the record should be directed to the administrative law judge and not to the
official reporter.
Statements of reasons in support of motions and objections should be specific and concise. The administrative law
judge will allow an automatic exception to all adverse rulings and, upon appropriate order, an objection and exception will be
permitted to stand to an entire line of questioning.
All exhibits offered in evidence shall be in duplicate. Copies of exhibits should be supplied to the administrative law
judge and other parties at the time the exhibits are offered in evidence. If a copy of any exhibit is not available at the time the
original is received, it will be the responsibility of the party offering such exhibit to submit the copy to the administrative law
judge before the close of hearing. In the event such copy is not submitted, and the filing has not been waived by the
administrative law judge, any ruling receiving the exhibit may be rescinded and the exhibit rejected.
Any party shall be entitled, on request, to a reasonable period of time at the close of the hearing for oral argument, which shall
be included in the transcript of the hearing. In the absence of a request, the administrative law judge may ask for oral argument
if, at the close of the hearing, it is believed that such argument would be beneficial to the understanding of the contentions of
the parties and the factual issues involved.
[Add. 27]
Form NLRB-4668
(4-05) Continued


16

In the discretion of the administrative law judge, any party may, on request made before the close of the hearing, file a
brief or proposed findings and conclusions, or both, with the administrative law judge who will fix the time for such filing. Any
such filing submitted shall be double-spaced on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper.
Attention of the parties is called to the following requirements laid down in Section 102.42 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, with respect to the procedure to be followed before the proceeding is transferred to the Board: No request for an
extension of time within which to submit briefs or proposed findings to the administrative law judge will be considered unless
received by the Chief Administrative Law Judge in Washington, DC (or, in cases under the branch offices in San Francisco,
California; New York, New York; and Atlanta, Georgia, the Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge) at least 3 days prior to
the expiration of time fixed for the submission of such documents. Notice of request for such extension of time must be served
simultaneously on all other parties, and proof of such service furnished to the Chief Administrative Law Judge or the Associate
Chief Administrative Law Judge, as the case may be. A quicker response is assured if the moving party secures the positions
of the other parties and includes such in the request. All briefs or proposed findings filed with the administrative law judge
must be submitted in triplicate, and may be printed or otherwise legibly duplicated with service on the other parties.
In due course the administrative law judge will prepare and file with the Board a decision in this proceeding, and will
cause a copy thereof to be served on each of the parties. Upon filing of this decision, the Board will enter an order transferring
this case to itself, and will serve copies of that order, setting forth the date of such transfer, on all parties. At that point, the
administrative law judge's official connection with the case will cease.
The procedure to be followed before the Board from that point forward, with respect to the filing of exceptions to the
administrative law judge's decision, the submission of supporting briefs, requests for oral argument before the Board, and
related matters, is set forth in the Board's Rules and Regulations, particularly in Section 102.46 and following sections. A
summary of the more pertinent of these provisions will be served on the parties together with the order transferring the case to
the Board.
Adjustments or settlements consistent with the policies of the National Labor Relations Act reduce government
expenditures and promote amity in labor relations. If adjustment appears possible, the administrative law judge may suggest
discussions between the parties or, on request, will afford reasonable opportunity during the hearing for such discussions.
[Add. 28]

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REGION 29
TWO METRO TECH CENTER STE 5100
BROOKLYN, NY 11201-3838
Agency Website: www.nlrb.gov
Telephone: (718)330-7713
Fax: (718)330-7579
May 14, 2013
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
Hon. J oel P. Biblowitz
Associate Chief Administrative Law J udge
National Labor Relations Board
Division of J udges
120 West 45
th
Street, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10036

RE: CSC Holdings, LLC and Cablevision Systems
New York City Corp. as a single employer

Case Nos. 02-CA-085811 & 02-CA-090823

Cablevision Systems New York City Corp.

Case Nos. 29-CA-097013, 29-CA-097557 &
29-CA-100175

Dear J udge Biblowitz:

Counsel for the Acting General Counsel submits this letter in response to the May 13,
2013 hearing postponement request submitted by CSC Holdings, LLC and Cablevision Systems
New York City Corporation (jointly Cablevision). Cablevision seeks to postpone the hearing
from May 29, 2013 to J uly 10, 2013. Counsel for the Acting General Counsel seeks to postpone
the hearing to J une 25, 2013.

On April 17, 2013, Regional Director for Region 2, Karen Fernbach, issued a complaint
in Case Nos. 02-CA-085811 & 02-CA-090823 against Cablevision. On April 29, 2013,
Regional Director for Region 29, J ames G. Paulsen, issued a complaint in Case Nos. 29-CA-
097013, 29-CA-097557 & 29-CA-100175 against Cablevision Systems New York City
Corporation. The hearings in the above-referenced matters are currently scheduled on May 29,
2013, before Administrative Law J udge Steven Fish.

Counsel for the Acting General Counsel strenuously opposes Cablevisions request to
postpone the hearing to J uly 10, 2013. The allegations at issue here are serious: among other
things, the complaints allege that Cablevision violated Sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act by
unlawfully implementing wage and benefit improvements, discharging 22 employees, and
engaging in surface bargaining during a first contract. Moreover, Region 29 is currently seeking
authorization to petition for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the Act. Therefore, the
hearing in these matters should begin as quickly as possible.

[Add. 29]
Hon. Joel P. Biblowitz
May 14, 2013
Page | 2

Cablevision argues that it would lack sufficient time to prepare its defense for a J une 25,
2013 hearing date because its witnesses are unavailable in May and J une 2013, due to
Cablevisions mediation with Charging Party Union Commercial Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, and the companys fiscal quarter end, respectively. Additionally, Cablevision cites the
unavailability of co-trial counsel during the week of J uly 1, and the complexity of the allegations
in the instant cases, as its reasons for submitting its postponement request. As explained below,
Cablevisions reasons for seeking a postponement do not warrant postponement of the hearing
date.

While Cablevision notes that a substantial number of its management personnel are
participating in mediation until May 21st, it does not demonstrate that preparation cannot occur
during the remainder of May. Cablevision also fails to explain how the end of its fiscal quarter
in J une somehow prevents it from conducting trial preparation before the Acting General
Counsels proposed hearing date of J une 25, 2013. Cablevision has not contended that any of its
management personnel are unavailable to attend a J une 25, 2013 hearing because of any duties or
responsibilities attributed to the end of Cablevisions fiscal quarter. Furthermore, counsels
unavailability during the week of J uly 1 should in no way prevent the hearing in this matter from
moving forward on J une 25
th
. Cablevision has retained three different law firms to represent it,
and none have asserted an unavailability to attend a J une 25
th
hearing.

Cablevision has had sufficient time to prepare for its defense. Cablevision retained
counsel during the investigation process, the Regions promptly notified Cablevision of the
decisions to issue complaint in April 2013, and Cablevision has filed answers to both complaints.
Further, the Regions have decided to consolidate the Region 2 and Region 29 complaints in
Region 29, and this decision does not change the nature of the allegations alleged against
Cablevision, or its litigation strategy.

Accordingly, Counsel for the Acting General Counsel respectfully requests that
Cablevisions May 13, 2013 request to postpone the hearing to J uly 10, 2013 be denied, and that
no further postponement requests be granted, absent extraordinary circumstances.

Very truly yours,

/s/ David Gribben
David Gribben
Counsel for the Acting General Counsel
National Labor Relations Board
Region 2


/s/ RyAnn McKay Hooper
RyAnn McKay Hooper
Counsel for the Acting General Counsel
National Labor Relations Board
Region 29
[Add. 30]
Hon. Joel P. Biblowitz
May 14, 2013
Page | 3

/s/ Annie Hsu

Annie Hsu
Counsel for the Acting General Counsel
National Labor Relations Board
Region 29


/s/ Genaira L. Tyce
Genaira L. Tyce
Counsel for the Acting General Counsel
National Labor Relations Board
Region 29


Cc:
Peter Clark, Esq. clark@kmm.com
Harlan Silverstein, Esq. silverstein@kmm.com
Doreen Davis, Esq. ddavis@jonesday.com
Eugene Scalia, Esq. escalia@gibsondunn.com
Gabrielle Semel, Esq. gsemel@cwa-union.org

[Add. 31]
[Add. 32]
MAY-21-2013 13:31
NLRB NY JUDGES
212 944 4904
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS SOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY
Case Nos, 29-CA97103
and 29CA97557
29CA100115
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA
1
AFL.CIO
esc HOLDINGS, LLC and CABLEVISION SYSTEMS
NEW YORK CITY CORP., as a single employer
and
Case Nos. 2-CA85811
2CAw90823
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL.CIO
ORDER
On May 14, 2012, Respondent's counsel requests that these cases, scheduled for
hearings on May 29,2013, be postponed to July 10, 2013. On May 16,2013, I granted the
request of counsel to postpone these cases, but only until June 25, 2013. Counsel for the
Respondent, by letter dated May 17, 2013, requests reconsideration of my Order
and to have these cases postponed to JUly 10, 2013.
Counsel for the Acting General Counsel opposes the July 10 date because
counsel is considering seeking injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(1) of the
Act. Counsel for the Respondent states that having the hearings scheduled for June
25, 2013 is no longer as urgent inasmuch as the discrimlnatees have returned to
work.
After due review, the reconsideration request of counsel for the
Respondent is partially granted. The hearing(s) herein shall commence on July 8,
2013, at 9:30 a.m., at a hearing room on the 14th Floor at the New York JUdges' Office,
120 West 45th Street, New York, NY.
Dated: May 21,2013
New York, NY
a.
W. Chu .
A'oting AssOCiate Chief,
..... Administrative Law Judge
P.02/02
TOTAL P.02
GIBBON DUNN
May 22, 2013
BY UPS NEXT DAY AIR
Lafe E. Solomon, Esq.
Acting General Counsel
National Labor Relations Board
1099 14 th St., N.W.
Wash ington, D.C. 20570-0001
Gibson, Dunn & Crutch er LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Wash ington, DC 20036-5306
Tel 202.955.8500
www.gibsondunn.com
Eugene Scalia
Direct. + 1202.955.8206
F ax : + 1 202.530.9606
EScalia@g ibsond un n.com
Re: CSC Holdings, LLC & Cablevision Systems New York City Cori., Nos. 02-CA-
085811, 02-CA-090823; Cablevision Systems New York City Corp., Nos. 29-CA-
097013, 29-CA-097557, 29-CA-100175
Dear Mr. Solomon:
I represent CSC Holdings, LLC ("CSC") , a Respondent in Case Nos. 02-CA-085811
and 02-CA-090823 (th e "Bronx Case") , and Cablevision Systems New York City Corp.
("Cablevision") , also a Respondent in th e Bronx Lase and th e sole Respondent in Case Nos.
29-CA-097013, 29-CA-097557, and 29-CA-100175 (th e "Brooklyn Case") . Th e Regional
Director for Region 2, Karen F ernbach , issued an unfair-labor-practice complaint in th e
Bronx Case on April 17, 2013, and th e Regional Director for Region 29, James Paulsen, did
th e same in th e Brooklyn Case on April 29, 2013. I write nn beh alf of CSC and Cablevision
to respectfully request th at, pursuant to section 3 (d) of th e National Labor Relations Act, 29
U.S.C. 153(d) , you direct th e two Regional Directors, th eir staffs, and all oth er attorneys or
oth er personnel under your supervision to suspend prosecution of th e Bronx and Brooklyn
Cases and any related proceedings until such time as th e Board regains a lawful quorum of
th ree validly appointed Members as required by 29 U.S.C. 153(b) and New Process Steel,
LP v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010) and th e Regional Directors are properly appointed.
Continued prosecution of th e Bronx and Brooklyn Cases is inappropriate, and a.
suspension of th e litigation is warranted, for several reasons. As an initial matter, th e
complaints in both cases are nullities because th e Regional L) irectors h ad no auth ority to
issue th em. Th e Act makes clear th at issuance of a complaint is an ex ercise of th e Board's
auth ority. 29 U.S.C. 160(b) (complaint may be issued only by "th e Board, or any agent or
agency designated by th e Board for such purposes") . Th e Board itself cannot ex ercise any of
th e auth ority conferred by th e Act, h owever, unless it possesses a quorum of th ree validly
appointed members. See id. 153(b) ; New process Steel, 130 S. Ct. at 264 4-4 5. And as th e
Brussels Century City Dallas Denver Dubai Hong Kong London Los Angeles ~ Munich New York
Orange County Palo Alto ~ Paris San F rancisco Sao Paulo Singapore Wash ington, D.C.
[Add. 33]
GIBSON DUNN
May 22, 2013
BYUPS1Ecr DAYAIR
r ,are E. Solomon, b:sq.
Acting General
National boor Relations Board
10')<1 14th St., N, W',
Washingtoll, D.C. 205700()O I
Re:
])car Mr. Solomon:
G< t><on , [)un o &0",,00< _ 'Y
1'''' ' .W
LlC ",-"",." ",",
202,''"."'''"
.ei-"'n."'m

Diroot '1202,$.8200
' ''': m.03O,oo))

1 rcprc'i.Cnt esc Holdings, LLC ("eSC"), RqxJIldenl in Calie 02-CA-08581 1
and 02-CA-()9{)823 (the "'Bronx Case"), and Cablcvision Systems Kcw York City Corp.
("Cllblevision"), also a in the Bronx Case and the sole Respondent in Case Nos.
29-C1\-097013. 29-CA-097557, 29-CA-J 00175 "Fln,)okl)'n Ca<;e"j. TllC Regional
Director for Rcvon 2, Karen l 'crnbach, issued an 1IIlf!lir-labor-pral'tice in lhe
Bronx Ca<;e on April 17, 2013, and the Regional Director for James Paulsen, did
the swne in lhe Brooklyn on April 29, 2013. I on behalf ofCSC and Cabkvision
to respectfully request thm, pursu.ant to 3(d) or the National I.a'bor Relations Act , 29
U.S. C. IS3( d), you direct the two Regional tIleir <lnu <III other aUorneys or
other pcrsormcl your sUlX'rvision to suspend prosecution of BroIL,( anu Bro<)k I yn
Ch.ses and any related proccedings until such time as iloard regains a lav,ful quorum of
three validly appointed Mem \.,.,n; as req lIired hy 29 lJ oS. C. I 53(h) and l'"ic fI' Process Steel,
LI' v. }lLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010) and are properly appointcd.
Continued prosecution of the Bronx llllU Brook!Y)l il; iU<lppropriate, and a
slispension of the litigation is warranted, for scveral reasons. As an initial m<ltter, the
complaints in both are nl111i ties the Regional Directors had no authority to
issuc them. The Act makes that isslwllce or il nnnplaint is an of the Hoard's
authmity. 29 U.s.C. J60(b) (complaint may be issued only by "the Board, or IDl) or
hy the Board for such purpo>es"). Thc B-oard itsdf cannot exerci se filly of
the authority by the Ad, it a quorum of threc validly
appointed members. See id. J53(b); New Proce.n Sffd, 130 S. 0. <It 2044-45. And as the
B< . Ceo< ,. " . Cit, . n." '" . 'Jon',., . ", "" . Hono "'" '"""",,, ' ''' "',"" '" " 1",.
c",,,, " to, P,"", ". .. ,,,,,, . w. . .., .... ",. "."
GIBBON DUNN
Lafe E. Solomon, Esq.
May 22, 2013
Page 2
D.C. Ci r c u i t r ec ent ly h eld , t h e Boar d h as lac k ed a qu or u m si nc e at least J anu ar y 3, 2012:
Alt h ou gh t h e Pr esi d ent p u r p or t ed t o name t h r ee ad d i t i onal member s t o t h e Boar d on J anu ar y
4, 2012, w i t h ou t t h e Senat e' s ad v i c e or c onsent , t h ose ap p oi nt ment s w er e not and ar e not
v ali d u nd er t h e Rec ess Ap p oi nt ment s Clau se, U.S. Const . ar t . II, 2, c l. 3, bec au se t h ey w er e
not mad e " d u r i ng t h e Rec ess of t h e Senat e," i d ., and bec au se t h e v ac anc i es t h at t h ey
alleged ly fi lled d i d not " h ap p en" d u r i ng su c h a r ec ess, i d .; see Noel Canni ng v . NLRB, 705
F .3d 490, 499-514 (D.C. Ci r . 2013) , p et i t i on for c ent . fi led , No. 12-128 1 (Ap r . 25, 2013) .
Last w eek , t h e T h i r d Ci r c u i t si mi lar ly h eld t h at t h e Pr esi d ent ' s p u r p or t ed ap p oi nt ment of
Cr ai g Bec k er i n 2010 w as i nv ali d bec au se t h e Clau se p er mi t s ap p oi nt ment s only d u r i ng
i nt er sessi on r ec esses of t h e Senat e. See NLRB v . New V i st a Nu r si ng & Reh abi li t at i on,
F .3d _, 2013 WL 2099742, at *11-30 (3d Ci r . May 17, 2013) . Bec au se t h e Boar d lac k ed
and c ont i nu es t o lac k a qu or u m, not only ar e i t s ow n p u t at i v e ac t i ons " v oi d ," Noel Canni ng,
705 F .3d at 514, bu t any alleged ly d elegat ed au t h or i t y also no longer i nay be ex er c i sed , see
Lau r el Baye Healt h c ar e of Lak e Lani er , Inc . v . NLRB, 564 F .3d 469, 472-76 (D.C. Ci r .
2009) . Alt h ou gh t h e Boar d may d elegat e many of i t s st at u t or y p ow er s t o c er t ai n p er sons and
ent i t i es, see, e.g., 29 j J .S.C. 153(b) , 160(b) , i t " c annot by d elegat i ng i t s au t h or i t y
c i r c u mv ent t h e st at u t or y Boar d qu or u m r equ i r ement , bec au se t h i s r equ i r ement mu st alw ays
be sat i sfi ed ," Lau r el Baye, 564 F .3d at 473. Nei t h er t h e Boar d nor any d elegee, t h er efor e,
c ou ld law fu lly i ssu e t h e c omp lai nt s i n t h e Br onx or Br ook lyn Cases.l
T h e Boar d and i t s Regi onal Di r ec t or s w ou ld h av e ev en less basi s t o asser t au t h or i t y t o
seek a p r eli mi nar y i nj u nc t i on or ot h er j u d i c i al ac t i on u nd er sec t i on 10(j ) of t h e Ac t . T h e
" p ow er " t o seek su c h r emed i es i s c onfer r ed ex c lu si v ely on " t h e Boar d ." 29 U.S.C. 160(j ) .
Bec au se t h e Boar d lac k s a qu or u m, i t c annot w i eld t h at p ow er . Alt h ou gh Regi onal Di r ec t or s
h av e c lai med i n ot h er li t i gat i on t h at t h ey may ex er c i se t h at p ow er on t h e Boar d ' s beh alf
p u r su ant t o a d elegat i on by t h e Boar d i n Nov ember 2011, w h en i t -st i ll su p p osed ly p ossessed
a qu or u m, see 76 F ed . Reg. 69,768 (Nov . 9, 2011) , t h at asser t i on i s mer i t less for nu mer ou s
r easons, i nc lu d i ng t h at : Und er Lau r el Baye, su c h a d elegat i on i s i r r elev ant , as no au t h or i t y
d elegat ed by t h e Boar d may be ex er c i sed onc e t h e Boar d lost a qu or u m, see 564 F .3d at 473;
t h at p ar t i c u lar d elegat i on w as i t self u nlaw fu l, mor eov er , bec au se t h e Boar d lac k ed a qu or u m
ev en at t h at t i me, see New V i st a, 2013 WL 2099742, at * 11-30, and bec au se by i t s ow n t er ms
i t sp r ang i nt o effec t only aft er t h e Boar d lost a qu or u m and t h er eby bec ame p ow er less t o ac t
or t o d elegat e au t h or i t y; and t h at d elegat i on (u nlaw fu lly) p u r p or t s t o c onfer au t h or i t y t o seek
sec t i on 10(j ) r eli ef on t h e Gener al Cou nsel, not on t h e Regi onal Di r ec t or s=w h o i n any c ase
c annot ac t bec au se t h ei r ow n ap p oi nt ment s w er e u nlaw fu l. Sec t i on 10(j ) p r oc eed i ngs also
w ou ld need lessly c onsu me t h e sc ar c e t i me and r esou r c es of fed er al c ou r t s and u nj u st i fi ably
seek t o i mp ose i nj u nc t i ons p end i ng fi nal r u li ngs by t h e Boar d t h at i f c annot i ssu e.
[Add. 34]
GIBSON DUNN
I.ali: F. Solomon, Esq .
May 22, 2013
Page 2
D.C. Circuit held, toc I:loard has lacked a qUllrlUn since at January 3, 2012 :
Although the President p\!lv'rli:d to name three additional members to Board on January
4,2012, withollllhc Senate's advice or c'()Menl, lho;;" appointments were not and are 00\
valid lillder ll"" Recess Appointments Clause, U,S. Const. urt. 11 , 2, d, 3, because they were
not made "during the of lhe Senate," id , and because the vac:andes that they
allegedly filled did not "happen" duruJg weh 1I recess, id; see Nod Canning v. ,vLRB, 705
F.3d 490, 499-514 (D.L eif. 2013). petirion jor eert. No. 12" 1281 (Apr. 25, 2013).
Last week. the TIl;n} Circuit similarly held that the President's puqxlrled apyx,imrncm of
Craig Uecker in 20 1 0 was invalid the Clausc pormits appointments on I)' during
rocesses of the Senate. ,'We }IT.RR v_ ,."iew Vista !'iufsinjJ & Rehabilitation,_
F.3(1 -' 20 13 WL 20'f9742, at *11-30 (3d Cir. May 17,2013). B<ocausc thc Board lacked
and continues to bel<" quorum, lIot only are its own puultive "void," Noel CannirljJ,
7051'.3d at 514, but filly illlegedly delegatcd authority also no longer may]x, see
fdlurel Raye llealrhcare of Lalre Lanier, Jnc. v_,\lf.RH, 504 F.3d 469, 472-76 (D.c. CU-.
2(09). Allhough the Board may dekgate lllilll}' of its slalutory powers to certain porsons and
see, e,g., 29l;.S.C. I 53(h), 160(b). it "eannot by delegaling il8 uuthority
e.ircumvent the. statutory Board quorum req l1ircmont, occausc this requirement mus t always
bt' {,,,w'e! /Jaye. 564 FJd at 473, Neilher Ihe Board nor any dele-gce.. therefore.
could isslie the complaints in thc Uronx or Ilrooklyn
1 The iloard fmd its Directors would have cvenless basis to a,,;serl mdh{)lily to
a preliminary injunction or judidal adiOlI under section lOU) of the Act. The
"power" 10 <;cok such remedies is conferred on the Board." 29 U.S ,C. 16I)(j).
Becau>t' the Bom-d lacks a quorum. it e.allilot wield tlm! A lIlwugh Directors
have el3imed in other li(igalion that they may excrcise th3t power on the behalf
pursuant to a deleglltion by 1he Board in November 201 L when it still
aqllorum, 8ee 761'ed, Reg. G9,768 (Nov_ 9, 2011), that assertion is mcritless for numerous
re,l);on,;, inc1l1ding that: Uncler Laurel Baye, such a (kkgatioll is irrelevant, as no authority
delegated by Board may he exercised Ollce the Il-omd lost a quorum, we 564 F.3d at 473;
that particular delegution i r unlawflll, bceause tile Board lucked a qUilrum
even at Ihat time, see New Visra. 2013 WL 2099742, at "II-30, and because by its ov.n temlS
it sprang into only aller the Uoard lost a quorum ,md hecu1l1c lwwerless to aet
or to delegate authority; and lhal delegation (unlawfully) to confer aUlhorily to
section 1 O{j) relief on the General Counsel, nlllllll the RcgionalOircc.tors-who in any cu>t'
cmmllt ad hec;.llC<;.e their own appoinilncnts were unliP",!'ul. 1 O(j) procecdings also
would needle:;sly the searce lime and rcsources of federal and
to impose injunction;; ]Xnding linal by the Uoard tlwt it cannot issue.
GIBBON DUNN
Lafe E. Solomon, Esq.
May 22, 2013
Page 3
Even i f t h e c omp lai nt s were vali d ly i ssu ed , t h e R egi onal Di rec t ors of R egi ons 2 and
29 c annot lawfu lly p rosec u t e t h em b ec au se t h ey t h emselves were not vali d ly ap p oi nt ed . Th e
Ac t and longst and i ng Board p oli c y est ab li sh t h at ap p oi nt ment of R egi onal Di rec t ors requ i res
Board ap p roval. See 29 U.S.C. 15 4 ( a) ; 20 Fed . R eg. 2175 , 2176 ( Ap r. 6, 195 5 ) . Wh en
b ot h Ms. Fernb ac h and Mr. Pau lsen rec ei ved t h ei r ap p oi nt ment s, h owever, t h e Board lac k ed
a qu oru m ( and i nd eed h as b een wi t h ou t one si nc e Au gu st 2011) and t h u s h ad no p ower t o
ac t . Th ei r ap p oi nt ment s t h erefore li k ewi se were " voi d ," and ac c ord i ngly t h ey c ou ld not and
c annot ac t for t h e Board .2 It wou ld mak e no sense t o c ont i nu e li t i gat i on of t h ese ac t i ons
wh en nei t h er t h e Board nor any of i t s d elegees h ave any p ower t o c ond u c t fu rt h er
p roc eed i ngs, and t h e Board c annot i ssu e a fi nal ord er.
We rec ogni z e t h at t h e Board h as ex p ressed t h e vi ew t h at , d esp i t e t h e D.C. Ci rc u i t ' s
Noel Canni ng d ec i si on, t h e Board may c ont i nu e t o t ak e ac t i on u nd er t h e Ac t . See, e.g.,
Bloomi ngd ale' s, Inc ., 35 9 NLR B No. 113 ( 2013) . Not wi t h st and i ng t h at erroneou s p osi t i on,
t h ere i s no reason wh y R egi onal Di rec t ors and ot h er Board st aff sh ou ld b e p ermi t t ed t o
c ont i nu e ex p end i ng p u b li c resou rc es i n p u rsu i ng li t i gat i on t h at , u nd er t h e law of t h e D.C.
Ci rc u i ti n wh i c h CSC and Cab levi si on are ent i t led t o seek revi ew of any fi nal Board ru li ng,
see 29 U.S.C. 1600i s u lt ra vi res and wi ll u lt i mat ely b e ad j u d ged a nu lli t y. Su b j ec t i ng
p ri vat e li t i gant s t o t h e massi ve, u nj u st i fi ed b u rd ens of li t i gat i ng t h ese and many ot h er c ases
nonet h elesswh i c h t h e R egi onal Di rec t ors h ad no vali d au t h ori t y t o i ni t i at e, and i n wh i c h
t h e Board c annot i ssu e a fi nal ord eri s mani fest ly u nfai r, i neffi c i ent , and i nc omp at i b le wi t h
c ore p ri nc i p les of equ i t y.
We t h erefore requ est t h at , p u rsu ant t o sec t i on 3( d ) of t h e Ac t , 29 U.S.C. 15 3( d ) ,
you d i rec t t h e R egi onal Di rec t ors of R egi ons 2 and 29, and any and all ot h er Boax d p ersonnel
su b j ec t t o you r su p ervi si on, t o su sp end t h e p rosec u t i on of t h e Bronx and Brook lyn Cases and
any relat ed p roc eed i ngs u nt i l su c h t i me as t h e Board regai ns a vali d qu oru m of t h ree
c onst i t u t i onally ap p oi nt ed Memb ers. At mi ni mu m, we requ est t h at you d i rec t all su c h
p ersonnel t o su sp end su c h li t i gat i on u nt i l t h e D.C. Ci rc u i t resolves alread y p end i ng p et i t i ons
for wri t s of mand amu s t o p revent p rosec u t i on of si mi lar ac t i ons, In re Geary, No. 13-1029
( D.C. Ci r.) ; In re SFTC, LLC, 13-104 8 ( D.C. Ci r.) , and t h e c ou rt ' s resolu t i on of a p et i t i on for
si mi lar reli ef t o b e fi led , i f nec essary, b y CSC and Cab levi si on.
Ac c ord i ngly, wh i le for si mp li c i t y and c lari t y t h i s let t er u ses t h e t erm " R egi onal Di rec t or"
t o refer t o Ms. Fernb ac h and Mr. Pau lsen, t h ey d o not , wi t h all resp ec t , p rop erly h old t h ose
p osi t i ons. We t h u s resp ec t fu lly also requ est t h at Ms. Ferri b ac h and Mr. Pau lsen c ease
ex erc i si ng t h e p owers of R egi onal Di rec t or wi t h resp ec t t o CSC and Cab levi si on, and t h at
t h ey and t h e at t orneys and ot h er p ersonnel su b j ec t t o t h ei r su p ervi si on refrai n from t ak i ng
any fu rt h er st ep s t o p rosec u t e or ot h erwi se p roc ess t h e Brook lyn and Bronx Cases.
[Add. 35]
GJBSON DUNN
llI ie E. Solomon, E<;q.
MlIY 22, 2013
"age 3
llvcn if were validly lhe Regional Directors of 2 "Ti d
29 c" nnOl lawfully prosecute them they themselves were not validly The
Act und &lard policy that appointment of Regional requires
B()9rd approvaL Sec 29 lJ.S.c. 154(n) : 20 2175, 2176 (Apr. 6, 1955). WiJen
both and Mr. Paull;<lfl roceived titcir appointments, however, the Uoard lLlCked
U \.juonl1ll (and indeed has been wi thoul one August 2011) and had n(1 flO"''Cr to
OCI. Their therefore likewise were "void, and acconl ingly dley not and
cannot act for the Bowd l II would malte 00 5e11R 10 wlll inue litigation ofthC3e uetiOllll
when uei lhcr the Uoard noT Blly of ;l$ delcgccs have My power to conduct further
plO\:o:WiJlg:s.. and the Hoard cannot u li nal ()fUer.
We TI!CI'gnizc tbat the DoIlrd hll:; Ihc view thm. despile f).C. Circuit's
Noel Callning the Iloard rOily tl' lake aclion under the Act. &.e,
fJ/oom;ngda/e s. Inc . 3 59 .RB No. I 13 (2013). tnat orroneotls position,
no reason why Regional and other Doard staffsooul d he j'lCnnillcd to
continue e:\pemling public res.ources in lit igation that, uuder law 01' til e D.C.
Circuit- in which esc dnd Cablcvision ru-c: entitkd (0 tel"icw of allY fino.! Dom"\! rulmg,
29 1!'o5.C. l6O(f)-Ls ultT.! and wil l ultimately be adjudg.:d a null ity. Subjecting
privnte 10 tile ma:;sive, unjuslilied of litigating thes!: and mher
nonclhc:Is--,.,hich the Rcgiooal Uire<:ton had no val id authority to initi:l\e. und in wtuch
the Hoord carulot i!Nle a fi nal order mani festly unfair. ;n",ITIc;enL, land illcomp!lti ble ",i lb
core principles ofcquity.
We Iherefore thUl. ptlT"Stll'Itll 10 9CCtion 3(d) of the 29 I i.S.C. 153(d).
you o,l j\"t:l,:t the Regional Directors of 2 and 21,1, and any and ull Rult.d personnel
subject t.., your 10 suspend II'K: pl"Vll-tOCutiotl oftnc 13ronx and Dnx,klyn C"sc:s aoo
(lny "" til such limo a.s the Buul\l a valid qUQnlrn of three
appointed At minimum. we reql)cs\ thai you di 1\."Ct nllsuch
f'l'1"l<I.m,"\I! 1 to sm,pcnd such liligmi.('\l unli l the D.C. Circuit resolve. aireddy pending petitions
for ol"mandamus to prevent ill' actions, III rc Geary, N(l . I 029
(D.C. Cu'.): In rf SFTC. IIC. 13-1048 (D.C. CiT.), and the court's n:solutioll of a petition (,or
similar n:lief to be fileJ, i r nrt:t!S_<:ary, by esc Md
-;------c- --
1 /\ceordingl}. whilt: Cor alld clarity leUer 1I.'ieS the term - kegion(ll Dire<.:tor"
to reCer 10 Ms. l'ernbaeh and Mr. Paul:'.ell. they do not. with 1111 TC::>l"X1, propcrly Mid those:
We thus rc.<!pcctfully also that Ms. Fcmbach lind Mr. P(lul:;l:11
the POWt:r.5 ofRegionaJ Director with respecl to esc and Cablevision, lind that
Ihey and the attorneys and othc personnel subjC\.. 1to their refrain from
furllier steps 10 prosecute or Jlroc.:ss the llrooklyn:md Bronx
GIBBON DUNN
Lafe E. Solomon, Esq.
May 22, 2013
Page 4
We r esp ec t fu lly ask for a d ec i si on on t h i s r equ est by May 28, 2013, so t h at CSC and
Cablev i si on may p r oc eed ex p ed i t i ou sly t o t h e c ou r t s for r eli ef i f nec essar y.
u bmi t t ,
1,
.emu .,,.. Fer nbac h , Nat i onal Labor R elat i ons Boar d R egi onal Di r ec t or , R egi on 2
James Pau lsen, Nat i onal Labor R elat i ons Boar d R egi onal Di r ec t or , R egi on 29
Gabr i elle Semel, Di st r i c t Cou nsel, Legal Dep ar t ment , CWA Di st r i c t 1
St ev en Wei ssman, Esq.
Dor een S. Dav i s, Esq.
Jer ome B. Kau ff, Esq.
[Add. 36]
GIBSON DUNN
Lafe E. Solomon, Esq.
May 22. 2013
Page 4
We respectfully ask for a decision on this reque<;l b} 'vIay 2H, 2013, so t hat esc and
(\Ihkvision may proceed expeditiously to the courts for relief if
R''''"''"' M

cc: Karen l 'crnbach, National Labor Roard Regional Dir&loT, Region 2
National Labor Relations Ikmrd Regional Direcior. Regilm 29
Gabrielk Semd, Dishid COlln>el, Legal Dcpartmcnt, CWA District 1
Steven Weissman, Esq.
Doreen S. Davis, Esq.
Jemme R. Kaufl: E\.'[.
l':-J ED STATES OF ERICA
BEFORE THE LABOR BOARD
REGION
esc HOLDINGS, LLC and CABLEVISION
SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP .. a
Single

and
eOMMl'NICATION "VORKERS OF
AMERICA,
Charging Party.
Nos. 02-C '.\-08:"811
02-C
'9-C/\-0970 I:;
2'>-C:\-()97:" 77
29-C/\-1 O() 17:"
ORDER El1RTHER CONSOLIDATING CASES, SECOND CONSOLIDATED
COMPLAINTAND NOTICE OF HEARING
Pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board). and to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. IT IS ORDERED TI IAT the
Consolidated Complaint and Notice of I !caring issued on April 17. 2013. In C 'ase 02-CA-
085811 and 02-Ci\-09082J alleging that esc lIoldings. LLC (cse lIoldings) and Cable\isiol1
S vstems York City Corp. (Cahlnlsion Systems). a single employer (Respondent) \iolated
the National Lahor Relations Aet. 29 l IS.C. lSI ct seq. (the Act). hy engaging in labor
practices. is further consolidated with Case Nos. 29-C;\-0970 U. '9-C/\-097:::'77. and 19_{';\.,
I ()O 17 . a ('ullsolidated (Olnplaint u! llcari \\ hich ol1\pri I I ,
allcglllg that Respondent has 111 further labor practices \\ ithl11 (he I1K'allillg (II the
\cL
[Add. 37]
l':-J ED STATES OF ERICA
BEFORE THE LABOR BOARD
REGION
esc HOLDINGS, LLC and CABLEVISION
SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP .. a
Single

and
eOMMl'NICATION "VORKERS OF
AMERICA,
Charging Party.
Nos. 02-C '.\-08:"811
02-C
'9-C/\-0970 I:;
2'>-C:\-()97:" 77
29-C/\-1 O() 17:"
ORDER El1RTHER CONSOLIDATING CASES, SECOND CONSOLIDATED
COMPLAINTAND NOTICE OF HEARING
Pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board). and to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. IT IS ORDERED TI IAT the
Consolidated Complaint and Notice of I !caring issued on April 17. 2013. In C 'ase 02-CA-
085811 and 02-Ci\-09082J alleging that esc lIoldings. LLC (cse lIoldings) and Cable\isiol1
S vstems York City Corp. (Cahlnlsion Systems). a single employer (Respondent) \iolated
the National Lahor Relations Aet. 29 l IS.C. lSI ct seq. (the Act). hy engaging in labor
practices. is further consolidated with Case Nos. 29-C;\-0970 U. '9-C/\-097:::'77. and 19_{';\.,
I ()O 17 . a ('ullsolidated (Olnplaint u! llcari \\ hich ol1\pri I I ,
allcglllg that Respondent has 111 further labor practices \\ ithl11 (he I1K'allillg (II the
\cL
This Second ('onsolidated Complaint and Notice of I leming, issued pursuant to Section
I ()( h) the :\ct and Secti,)f1 I ()2, 15 or the Board's Rules and Regulations. is based on these
consolidated cases and alleges that Respondent has violated the Act as described belmv:
I. The charges in the above cases "vere tiled hy the Communication \Vorkers of
.\merica.\FI [0 (('nion) as set forth in the following table, and a copy was served hy regular
mail upon the Respondent(s) on the dates indicated:
('usc So. ,lmendmenl Re.\j)(Jlu!enl
02-CA-tJ858J J Cablevision Systems New
York City Corp.
-
()2-C1-()9()823 Cablevision Systems New J ()1()5112 10110112
York City Corp.
02-C4-()90823 Amended Cablevision Systems J /1161/2 11119112
York Cify Corp.
12104112 fJ2-CA-09()823
,\'ecofld
Systems New
Amended
York Corp.
--
02-CA-()90823
Third
Cablevisioll Systems New
City Corp. llnd
parent co. C'iC Holdings,
LLe, a single employer
OJI251J3
Ol/281/3 {)f128113
04126113 fJ4126113
Cflblevisiofl of
}Tork City Corp. {lnd
[Add. 38]
This Second ('onsolidated Complaint and Notice of I leming, issued pursuant to Section
I ()( h) the :\ct and Secti,)f1 I ()2, 15 or the Board's Rules and Regulations. is based on these
consolidated cases and alleges that Respondent has violated the Act as described belmv:
I. The charges in the above cases "vere tiled hy the Communication \Vorkers of
.\merica.\FI [0 (('nion) as set forth in the following table, and a copy was served hy regular
mail upon the Respondent(s) on the dates indicated:
,- .-
('usc So. ,lmendmenl Re.\j)(Jlu!enl J)ale Filed J)ale .\erved
02-CA-0858J J Cablevision Systems New 07123112 07123112
York City Corp.
-
()2-C1-() 90823 Cablevision Systems New !0105112 JOIJ()112
York City Corp.
Amended Cablevision Systems J /1161/2 11119112
York Cify Corp.

fJ2-CA-09()823
,\'ecofld
Systems New 12104112
Amended
York Corp.
--
02-CA-()90823
Third
Cablevisioll Systems New
City Corp. llnd
parent co. C'iC Holdings,
LLe, a single employer
OJI25113

Ol/281/3 {)J128113
---.---------- .
04126113 fJ4126113
Cflblevisiofl of
}Tork City Corp. {lnd
i 29-C4-097557
29-C4-097557
29-C4-100175
Secolld
Amended
Cablel'ision Systems Sew
York Ci(r Corp.
Cablevision Systems
York Ciry Corp.
Cablevisioll Systems Sew
York Ciry Corp.
Cllblevision Systems New
York Ci(r Corp.
()21041/3
0212JI/3
041261J3
J (a) At all material times. CS(' Iloidings. has ken a domestic corporation \\ith an
office and headquarters located at 1111 Stewart Avenue. Bethpage. New York. engaged in
\ariOllS business enterprises. including the provision of cable television and communications
services in various parts of the United Statcs.
(b) At all material times. Cablevision Systems New York City Corp .. a domestic
corporation with its corporate office located at 11/1 Stewart A venue. Bethpage. New York: "ith
a facility at 500 Brush Avenue. Bronx. New York (Bronx facility): and facilities located in
Brooklyn. York. has been engaged in the business or providing broadband cable
communication services to residential and commercial cllstomers in the Bronx. Brooklyn. and
other locations in Ne\\ York.
(c) /\t all material timcs. esc loldll1gs ('ablcvision Systcms hmc been
affiliated business enterpnses \\ith common ofticers. o\\llership, directors. management and
supcnlSlon 11m c formulated administered a cOl11mon lahor pol hme shared common
premises facilities: ha\e prO\ided scn Ices for and made to each other'
ill ione; \\ ilh c\)mnWI1
Iless se
on I lOllS (cSt'
[Add. 39]
i 29-C4-097557
29-C4-097557
29-C4-100175
Secolld
Amended
Cablel'ision Systems Sew
York Ci(r Corp.
Cablevision Systems
York Ciry Corp.
Cablevisioll Systems Sew
York Ciry Corp.
Cllblevision Systems New
York Ci(r Corp.
()21041/3
0212JI/3
041261J3
031l21l3 031/31J3
J (a) At all material times. CS(' Iloidings. has ken a domestic corporation \\ith an
office and headquarters located at 1111 Stewart Avenue. Bethpage. New York. engaged in
\ariOllS business enterprises. including the provision of cable television and communications
services in various parts of the United Statcs.
(b) At all material times. Cablevision Systems New York City Corp .. a domestic
corporation with its corporate office located at 11/1 Stewart A venue. Bethpage. New York: "ith
a facility at 500 Brush Avenue. Bronx. New York (Bronx facility): and facilities located in
Brooklyn. York. has been engaged in the business or providing broadband cable
communication services to residential and commercial cllstomers in the Bronx. Brooklyn. and
other locations in Ne\\ York.
(c) /\t all material timcs. esc loldll1gs ('ablcvision Systcms hme heen
affiliated business enterpnses \\ith common ofticers. o\\nership, directors. management and
supenlSlon 11m e formulated administered a common lahor pol hme shared common
prcmlses facilities: han; prO\ided sen Ices for and made to each othcr'
ill ione; \\ ilh c\)mnWI1
Iless se
on I lOllS (cSt'
Iioidings and Cablevision Systems constitute a single-integrated business enterprise and a single
cr \\ ithin the meaning of the Act.
(c) !\nnually. in the course and conduct of their business operations CSC
revenues in excess of
s:')oo.ooo.
(n Annually. in the course and conduct of their business operations CSC
! Inldings and Cablcvision Systems separately and collectively purchase and receive at their
tacilities in New York State. goods and services valued in excess of $5.000 directly from
suppliers located olltside the State of Ne\v York.
3. At all material times. Respondent has been an employer engaged III commerce
\\ithin the meaning of Section 2(2). (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. At all material times. the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning
ufSedion )) oftllc Act.
5. (a) At all material times. the following individuals held the positions set
opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent vvithin the meaning of
Section 2( II) of the Act and agents of Respondent \'vithin the meaning of Section 2( 13) of the
/\el):
James .. )ohm
Barry \lol1opol1 Vice President Ileid Operations
Richard I louse ('O!1struel ion \lanager
I \ n ( 'ons! rue! ion
\ I ;\/ Supenisor
4
[Add. 40]
Iioidings and Cablevision Systems constitute a single-integrated business enterprise and a single
cr \\ ithin the meaning of the Act.
(c) !\nnually. in the course and conduct of their business operations CSC
revenues in excess of
s:')oo.ooo.
(n Annually. in the course and conduct of their business operations CSC
! Inldings and Cablcvision Systems separately and collectively purchase and receive at their
tacilities in New York State. goods and services valued in excess of $5.000 directly from
suppliers located olltside the State of Ne\v York.
3. At all material times. Respondent has been an employer engaged III commerce
\\ithin the meaning of Section 2(2). (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. At all material times. the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning
ufSedion )) oftllc Act.
5. (a) At all material times. the following individuals held the positions set
opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent vvithin the meaning of
Section 2( II) of the Act and agents of Respondent \'vithin the meaning of Section 2( 13) of the
/\el):
James .. )ohm
Barry \lol1opol1 Vice President Ileid Operations
Richard I louse ('O!1struel ion \lanager
I \ n ( 'ons! rue! ion
\ I ;\/ Supenisor
4
!:\\an Isaacs Plant Maintenance Supenisor
Randv Reed ('OI1struction Supervisor
Winston rVldntosh Construction Supenisor
Daryl (;aines Area Operations Manager
Rick LaVesque Vice President
(h) At all material times. llarn Ilughes held the position of Respondent's
Corporate Investigator I(.)r Respondent's Security Department and has heen an agent of
Respondent \\ithin the meaning of Section 2( 13) of the Act.
6. In or ahout ApriL 201 the precise date heing unknown. Respondent by James I..
Dolan (Dolan). at a meeting of employees at the Bronx Eteility:
(a) Promised its employees improved wages and benefits:
(h) Promised its employees an improvcd system for registering their complaints.
without fear retaliation:
(c) By soliciting employee complaints and grievances. promised its
employees increased benefits and imprO\ed terms and conditions of cmplo) mcnt.
(d) Respondent cngaged in thc conduct descrihcd ahove in suhparagraphs 6(a)
6( c) 1I1 order to discourage employees tl'om the [Inion as their collective
\c.
7. (a) I' the l.mploycL h) \arious methods. including a
at the I ilit\ and uthcr
[Add. 41]
!:\\an Isaacs Plant Maintenance Supenisor
Randv Reed ('OI1struction Supervisor
Winston rVldntosh Construction Supenisor
Daryl (;aines Area Operations Manager
Rick LaVesque Vice President
(h) At all material times. llarn Ilughes held the position of Respondent's
Corporate Investigator I(.)r Respondent's Security Department and has heen an agent of
Respondent \\ithin the meaning of Section 2( 13) of the Act.
6. In or ahout ApriL 201 the precise date heing unknown. Respondent by James I..
Dolan (Dolan). at a meeting of employees at the Bronx Eteility:
(a) Promised its employees improved wages and benefits:
(h) Promised its employees an improvcd system for registering their complaints.
without fear retaliation:
(c) By soliciting employee complaints and grievances. promised its
employees increased benefits and imprO\ed terms and conditions of cmplo) mcnt.
(d) Respondent cngaged in thc conduct descrihcd ahove in suhparagraphs 6(a)
6( c) 1I1 order to discourage employees tl'om the [Inion as their collective
\c.
7. (a) I' the l.mploycL h) \arious methods. including a
at the I ilit\ and uthcr
(h) In or ahoLlt \lay 201 Rt.:spondt.:nt implemented the first phase of its wage
and ht.:ndit imprmt.:n1etlts.
(c) Respondent engaged in tht.: conduct descrihed ahove in suhparagraphs 7(a)
or engaged in
conccrted activities. and to discourage t.:mployees tt'om engaging in these acti\itit.:s.
8. (a) On or ahout June 26.2012. Respondent. hy Dolan. at a mt.:t.:ting of t.:mployees
at the Bronx tacility impliedly threatened employees vvith the loss of opportunities for training.
and advancement and loss of work if they selected the Union as their collective-hargaining
rcpresentati\e.
(h) On or about June 26. 2012. Respondent. hy Dolan. at a meeting of employees
at thc Bronx t ~ t c i l i t y threatened employees with reduced henefits and more onerous working
conditions if they selected the Union as their collective-hargaining representative.
9. The follovving employees or Respondent (the Unit) constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of eollectin: bargaining \vithin the meaning of Section 9( b) of the Act:
l()
! Il
All full-time and regular part-time field service technicians,
outside plant technicians. audit technicians. inside plant technicians.
construction technicians. netvvork tiber technicians. logistics associates.
regional control center (RC(') representatives and coordinators employed
by the Lmployl'l' at its Brooklyn. New York facilities
;\11 other employees. including customer senice employees.
human resource department employees, professional employees. guards.
and supenisors as dcfil1l'd in Section 11) thl' Act.
On I the conduct an 111
ccrli 111()n lISI \ C 'ng rcprescl1tati\C ot'the
6
[Add. 42]
(h) In or ahoLlt \lay 201 Rt.:spondt.:nt implemented the first phase of its wage
and ht.:ndit imprmt.:n1etlts.
(c) Respondent engaged in tht.: conduct descrihed ahove in suhparagraphs 7(a)
or engaged in
conccrted activities. and to discourage t.:mployees tt'om engaging in these acti\itit.:s.
8. (a) On or ahout June 26.2012. Respondent. hy Dolan. at a mt.:t.:ting of t.:mployees
at the Bronx tacility impliedly threatened employees vvith the loss of opportunities for training.
and advancement and loss of work if they selected the Union as their collective-hargaining
rcpresentati\e.
(h) On or about June 26. 2012. Respondent. hy Dolan. at a meeting of employees
at thc Bronx t ~ t c i l i t y threatened employees with reduced henefits and more onerous working
conditions if they selected the Union as their collective-hargaining representative.
9. The follovving employees or Respondent (the Unit) constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of eollectin: bargaining \vithin the meaning of Section 9( b) of the Act:
l()
! Il
All full-time and regular part-time field service technicians,
outside plant technicians. audit technicians. inside plant technicians.
construction technicians. netvvork tiber technicians. logistics associates.
regional control center (RC(') representatives and coordinators employed
by the Lmployl'l' at its Brooklyn. New York facilities
;\11 other employees. including customer senice employees.
human resource department employees, professional employees. guards.
and supenisors as dcfil1l'd in Section 11) thl' Act.
On I the conduct an 111
ccrli 111()n lISI \ C 'ng rcprescl1tati\C ot'the
6
I 1. At all times si nce February 7. 2012. based on Section 9( a) 0 r the \ct the l n ion
heen the exclusiw collecti\e-bargaining representative or the l ;niL
12. (a) At various times from about May 30. 201 through March 4. 201 J.
Respondent and the Charging Party met for the purposes of negotiating an initial collective-
hargaining agreement \\ith respect to wages. hours. and other terms and conditions of
employment.
(b) During the period described above in paragraph 12(a). Respondent engaged in
bargaining with no intent of reaching agreement by: (I) refusing to meet at reasonable
times: (2) refusing to discllss economic issues until non-economic issues \vere resolved: (3)
insisting on changing the scope of the certitied bargaining unit: (4) rigidly adhering to proposals
that are predictably unacceptable to the Union: (5) refusing to discuss a union security clause and
then raising philosophical to sllch clause: (6) submitting regressive proposals to the
Union: (7) withdnl\ving from a tentative agreement: (8) refusing to discuss mandatory suhjects of
bargaining: and (9) by significantly delaying the provision of relevant \\age information to the
Union.
(c) its O\cra!l conduct including thc conduct described above in paragraph
b). Respondent has failed and refused to bargain in good v"ith thc Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative or the t Init.
1
"
.1 (a) Since about 1.2. the I Illun requested. III \\Tiling. that
Respondent llirnish it with thc !()lio\.\ il1g lIlformation regarding employees at the Bronx tileility:
(I) documents related 10 changes made during thc period \pril l. 1.2. to the present. vvith
to Ii t s: (l Ion a matri.\ or all cmpl()\ecs.
cm \1 illh ;1.\ ! I nit.
[Add. 43]
I 1. At all times si nce February 7. 2012. based on Section 9( a) 0 r the \ct the l n ion
heen the exclusiw collecti\e-bargaining representative or the l ;niL
12. (a) At various times from about May 30. 201 through March 4. 201 J.
Respondent and the Charging Party met for the purposes of negotiating an initial collective-
hargaining agreement \\ith respect to wages. hours. and other terms and conditions of
employment.
(b) During the period described above in paragraph 12(a). Respondent engaged in
bargaining with no intent of reaching agreement by: (I) refusing to meet at reasonable
times: (2) refusing to discllss economic issues until non-economic issues \vere resolved: (3)
insisting on changing the scope of the certitied bargaining unit: (4) rigidly adhering to proposals
that are predictably unacceptable to the Union: (5) refusing to discuss a union security clause and
then raising philosophical to sllch clause: (6) submitting regressive proposals to the
Union: (7) withdnl\ving from a tentative agreement: (8) refusing to discuss mandatory suhjects of
bargaining: and (9) by significantly delaying the provision of relevant \\age information to the
Union.
(c) its O\cra!l conduct including thc conduct described above in paragraph
b). Respondent has failed and refused to bargain in good v"ith thc Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative or the t Init.
1
"
.1 (a) Since about 1.2. the I Illun requested. III \\Tiling. that
Respondent llirnish it with thc !()lio\.\ il1g lIlformation regarding employees at the Bronx tileility:
(I) documents related 10 changes made during thc period \pril l. 1.2. to the present. vvith
to Ii t s: (l Ion a matri.\ or all cmpl()\ecs.
cm \1 illh ;1.\ ! I nit.
(b) During bargaining. as described above in paragraph 12(a). the Union
demonstrated to the Lmployer that the int(mmltion requested in paragraph 13(a) is necessary for.
and reknlI1t to. the Union's performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the Unit.
(c) From about August 2012 to about March 6. 2013. the Respondent
delayed in furnishing the Lnion v"ith the information requested by it as described above 111
paragraph 13(a).
14. About Januar) 24. 2013 Respondent. through Daryl Gains. instructed emplo)ees
not to engage in activities in support orthe Union.
15. Abollt February 7. 2013. Respondent. by Harry Hughes. in front of the Madison
Square Garden Arena in New York City. New York. engaged in surveillance of employees
engaged in union activities.
16. About the first \veek of February 2013. Respondent by Rick LaVesque. in his
office at Respondent's 96
th
Street fttcility int(Jrmed a Unit employee that it vvas Ii.ltile te)r the
employee to support the Union because bargaining for a contract with Respondent was futile.
em
17. (a) On January :Ht 20 U, certain Unit employces of Respondent ceased work
I) tlnd engaged in a ke.
(hi stri descrihed abo\(: in paragraph 17(a) \\as caused by Respondent's
labor practices bed abovc in paragraphs
1 X. (al On .!anumv )0. 1).
111 t 1I1lbir
a) through (c).
Rick LaV
bed
informed the following
c in paragraph I 7. t hal tl1e\
[Add. 44]
(b) During bargaining. as described above in paragraph 12(a). the Union
demonstrated to the Lmployer that the int(mmltion requested in paragraph 13(a) is necessary for.
and reknlI1t to. the Union's performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the Unit.
(c) From about August 2012 to about March 6. 2013. the Respondent
delayed in furnishing the Lnion v"ith the information requested by it as described above 111
paragraph 13(a).
14. About Januar) 24. 2013 Respondent. through Daryl Gains. instructed emplo)ees
not to engage in activities in support orthe Union.
15. Abollt February 7. 2013. Respondent. by Harry Hughes. in front of the Madison
Square Garden Arena in New York City. New York. engaged in surveillance of employees
engaged in union activities.
16. About the first \veek of February 2013. Respondent by Rick LaVesque. in his
office at Respondent's 96
th
Street fttcility int(Jrmed a Unit employee that it vvas Ii.ltile te)r the
employee to support the Union because bargaining for a contract with Respondent was futile.
em
17. (a) On January :Ht 20 U, certain Unit employces of Respondent ceased work
I) tlnd engaged in a ke.
(hi stri descrihed abo\(: in paragraph 17(a) \\as caused by Respondent's
labor practices bed abovc in paragraphs
1 X. (al On .!anumv )0. 1).
111 t 1I1lbir
a) through (c).
Rick LaV
bed
informed the following
c in paragraph I 7. t hal tl1e\
Clarence Adams
Da\id Gifford
La'kesia Johnson
Courtney Graham
\:liles \:x.'atson
Andre Bellato
Jerome Ihompson
Ire\or itehell
Ray Me)ers
i\larlon Gayle
Richard Wilcher
Eric Ocasio
Malik Coleman
Andre Riggs
Raymond Reid
Borris f L Reid
Ste\en Ashurst
Shewn Morgan
Stanlev GallO\v<\\
. .
Brent Ramlcin
Corey Williams
Raymond Williams
(b) On January ~ O . 2013. Respondent directed the employees described
above in paragraph 18(a) to turn in their identification badges, keys. and radios. and had
these employees escorted out of the facility by NYPD officers.
(c) By the conduct described above in paragraphs 18(a) and (b).
Rcspondent discharged the named employees on January ~ O . 2013.
(d) On various dates beginning on February 6. 2013. and ending on
March 20. 2013. Respondent reinstated the named employees to their former positions or
employment.
(e) The reinstatement of the employees as described in paragraph 18(d)
v,as without backpay,
(n Respondent engaged 111 the conduct above in paragraphs
(e) Ilamed or the 'ni,m and
engaged 111 concerted activities. and to discourage 1I1 these
act! vitie;."
q
[Add. 45]
Clarence Adams
Da\id Gifford
La'kesia Johnson
Courtney Graham
\:liles \:x.'atson
Andre Bellato
Jerome Ihompson
Ire\or itehell
Ray Me)ers
i\larlon Gayle
Richard Wilcher
Eric Ocasio
Malik Coleman
Andre Riggs
Raymond Reid
Borris f L Reid
Ste\en Ashurst
Shewn Morgan
Stanlev GallO\v<\\
. .
Brent Ramlcin
Corey Williams
Raymond Williams
(b) On January ~ O . 2013. Respondent directed the employees described
above in paragraph 18(a) to turn in their identification badges, keys. and radios. and had
these employees escorted out of the facility by NYPD officers.
(c) By the conduct described above in paragraphs 18(a) and (b).
Rcspondent discharged the named employees on January ~ O . 2013.
(d) On various dates beginning on February 6. 2013. and ending on
March 20. 2013. Respondent reinstated the named employees to their former positions or
employment.
(e) The reinstatement of the employees as described in paragraph 18(d)
v,as without backpay,
(n Respondent engaged 111 the conduct above in paragraphs
(e) Ilamed or the 'ni,m and
engaged 111 concerted activities. and to discourage 1I1 these
act! vitie;."
q
19. (a) In the alternative. if the strike described above in paragraph 17(a} was not
caused and/or prolonged by the labor pradices. the work stoppage described in paragraph
17(a) \\as an economic strike.
(b) On January 30, 20 LL bv indicating that they would return to their work
" ; ."
duties, the following employees. \\ho engaged in the strike described above in paragraph 19(a)
made an unconditional oner to return to their former positions of employment:
('larence Adams
David (iifford
La 'kesia Johnson
Courtney Graham
Miles Watson
Andre Bcllato
Jerome Thompson
Trevor Mitchell
Ray Meyers
Marlon Gayle
Richard Wilcher
Eric Ocasio
Malik Coleman
Andre Riggs
Raymond Reid
Borris H. Reid
Steven Ashurst
Shaun Morgan
Stanley Galloway
Brent Randein
Corey Williams
Raymond Williams
(c) The Respondent refused to reinstate the employees described above in
paragraph 19(a) upon their unconditional offer to return to work.
(1) Respondent engaged in the conduct dcscribed above in paragraphs 19
(a) through (c) because the named employees or Respondent assisted the Union
in concerted acli\ ities, and to discourage employees from engaging
vities.
Ih the conduct described above 111 paragraphs 6 through X and 14 through 16,
en re<..traini cnerci emplo) ccs lf1 the cxercise or
111 7 u! I\d in II
o
[Add. 46]
19. (a) In the alternative. if the strike described above in paragraph 17(a} was not
caused and/or prolonged by the labor pradices. the work stoppage described in paragraph
17(a) \\as an economic strike.
(b) On January 30, 20 LL bv indicating that they would return to their work
" ; ."
duties, the following employees. \\ho engaged in the strike described above in paragraph 19(a)
made an unconditional oner to return to their former positions of employment:
('larence Adams
David (iifford
La 'kesia Johnson
Courtney Graham
Miles Watson
Andre Bcllato
Jerome Thompson
Trevor Mitchell
Ray Meyers
Marlon Gayle
Richard Wilcher
Eric Ocasio
Malik Coleman
Andre Riggs
Raymond Reid
Borris H. Reid
Steven Ashurst
Shaun Morgan
Stanley Galloway
Brent Randein
Corey Williams
Raymond Williams
(c) The Respondent refused to reinstate the employees described above in
paragraph 19(a) upon their unconditional offer to return to work.
(1) Respondent engaged in the conduct dcscribed above in paragraphs 19
(a) through (c) because the named employees or Respondent assisted the Union
in concerted acli\ ities, and to discourage employees from engaging
vities.
Ih the conduct described above 111 paragraphs 6 through X and 14 through 16,
en re<..traini cnerci emplo) ccs lf1 the cxercise or
111 7 u! I\d in II
o
.
:21. By the conduct described abow in paragraphs 7. 18 and 19. Respondent has been
discriminating in n:gard to the hire or tenure or terms ,)1' conditions of emplo! ment of its
employees. thereby discouraging m.:mb.:rship in a labor organization in \iolation of S.:ction
8(a)( 1) and (3) oCthe Act.
By the conduct described above in paragraphs 1:2 and 13. Respondent has been
and refusing to bargain collectively and in good \vith the exclusiw collective-
bargaining representative orits employees in violation of Section 8(a)( I) and (5) of the Act.
The labor practices of Respondent. described above. alTect commerce
within the meaning or Section 2(6) and (7) orthe Act.
WHEREfORE As part of tbe remedy for the labor practices alleged above. the
Acting General Counsel seeks an Order requiring that the Notice be read to employees during
\vorking time by a high level official of Respondent at its lltcilities in the Bronx. Nev, York:
Shelton. Conneeticut: White Plains. New York: Newark. New Jersey: and in Nassau and Suffolk
Counties. )\ie\" York.
As part of the remedy for the ulltair labor practices alleged above in paragraphs 12 and
13. the Acting General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondellt to: (1) bargain on request
within fiftcen (15) days of a Board Order: ( ) bargain on request a minimum of fifteen (15)
hours a week until an agreement or hl\\ i'lIl impasse is reached or until the parties agree to a
I1l
and submit them to the Regional
Partv to ide the
\s 01
or Reglon and
ever) 11 neen ( I
sene the reports on the
\\ ith an opportunity to reply.
n
11 ! )d Luth \\'
[Add. 47]
.
:21. By the conduct described abow in paragraphs 7. 18 and 19. Respondent has been
discriminating in n:gard to the hire or tenure or terms ,)1' conditions of emplo! ment of its
employees. thereby discouraging m.:mb.:rship in a labor organization in \iolation of S.:ction
8(a)( 1) and (3) oCthe Act.
By the conduct described above in paragraphs 1:2 and 13. Respondent has been
and refusing to bargain collectively and in good \vith the exclusiw collective-
bargaining representative orits employees in violation of Section 8(a)( I) and (5) of the Act.
The labor practices of Respondent. described above. alTect commerce
within the meaning or Section 2(6) and (7) orthe Act.
WHEREfORE As part of tbe remedy for the labor practices alleged above. the
Acting General Counsel seeks an Order requiring that the Notice be read to employees during
\vorking time by a high level official of Respondent at its lltcilities in the Bronx. Nev, York:
Shelton. Conneeticut: White Plains. New York: Newark. New Jersey: and in Nassau and Suffolk
Counties. )\ie\" York.
As part of the remedy for the ulltair labor practices alleged above in paragraphs 12 and
13. the Acting General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondellt to: (1) bargain on request
within fiftcen (15) days of a Board Order: ( ) bargain on request a minimum of fifteen (15)
hours a week until an agreement or hl\\ i'lIl impasse is reached or until the parties agree to a
I1l
and submit them to the Regional
Partv to ide the
01
or Reglon and
ever) 11 neen ( I
sene the reports on the
\\ ith an opportunity to reply.
n 1 '
11 ! )d Luth \\'
Charging Party. on request. 1'01' an additional period of tv,ehe (12) months as provided for by
\/ar-Juc . 136 1\ I JU3 785 (1962). as the recognized bargaining rcprcsentatiw in the
appropriate unit. lhe General Counsd further seeks all other relief as may be just and proper to
remedy the u n l ~ l i r labor practices alleged.
As part of the remedy fIJI' the untair labor practices alleged above in paragraphs 18. and
in the alternative paragraph 19. the Acting (Jeneral Counsel seeks an Order requiring
reimbursement of amounts equal to the difference in taxes owed upon receipt of a lump-sum
payment and taxes that would have been owed had there been no discrimination in accordance
with Latino Etpress. 359 NI.RB No. 44 (2012). The Acting General Counsel further seeks that
Respondent be required to submit the appropriate documentation to the Social Security
Administration so that when backpay is paid. it will be allocated to the appropriate periods.
Finally. the Acting General Counsel seeks all other relief as may be just and proper to remedy
the un1air labor practices alleged.
Respondent is nOlilied that. pursuant to Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations: it must lile an answer to the Consolidated Complaint. The answer must be
Respondent should file an original and rour copies or the ans\ver v"jth this office and serw a
or the ,UlS\\er on each ,)1' the parties.
,\n al1s\\er he tiled electronically through the Agency' website. 0 tile
h. . cl' Oil cnter
(
instructiol1s. 'bilit\ for the l'CCClpt llsabilil\ of
UpOil tIll S \\
[Add. 48]
Charging Party. on request. 1'01' an additional period of tv,ehe (12) months as provided for by
\/ar-Juc . 136 1\ I JU3 785 (1962). as the recognized bargaining rcprcsentatiw in the
appropriate unit. lhe General Counsd further seeks all other relief as may be just and proper to
remedy the u n l ~ l i r labor practices alleged.
As part of the remedy fIJI' the untair labor practices alleged above in paragraphs 18. and
in the alternative paragraph 19. the Acting (Jeneral Counsel seeks an Order requiring
reimbursement of amounts equal to the difference in taxes owed upon receipt of a lump-sum
payment and taxes that would have been owed had there been no discrimination in accordance
with Latino Etpress. 359 NI.RB No. 44 (2012). The Acting General Counsel further seeks that
Respondent be required to submit the appropriate documentation to the Social Security
Administration so that when backpay is paid. it will be allocated to the appropriate periods.
Finally. the Acting General Counsel seeks all other relief as may be just and proper to remedy
the un1air labor practices alleged.
Respondent is nOlilied that. pursuant to Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations: it must lile an answer to the Consolidated Complaint. The answer must be
Respondent should file an original and rour copies or the ans\ver v"jth this office and serw a
or the ,UlS\\er on each ,)1' the parties.
,\n al1s\\er he tiled electronically through the Agency' website. 0 tile
h. . cl' Oil cnter
(
instructiol1s. 'bilit\ for the l'CCClpt llsabilil\ of
UpOil tIll S \\
informs users that the Agency's E-Filing system is officially determined to be in technical failure
hecause it is unahle to recein.' documents f()r a continuous period of more tban :2 hours aftcr
12:00 noon (Eastern Time) on the due date for tiling. a to timely tile the ans\\er will not
he excused on the hases that the transmission could not be accomplished because the Agency's
\vebsite was off-line or unavailable for some other reaSOI1. The Board's Rules and Regulations
require that an answer b) signed by counsel or nun-attorney representatiH': for represenkd
parties or by the part) ifnot represented. Sec Section 10:2.:21. ifthe answer being tiled
electronically is a pdf document containing the required signature. no paper copies of that answer
need to be transmitted to the Regional Ottice. However, if the electronic version of an answer to
a complaint is not a pdf tile containing the required signature. then the E-Filing rules require that
such answer containing the required signature continue to be submitted to the Regional Office by
traditional means within three 0) business days after the date of electronie filing. Service of the
answer on each 0 f the other parties must still be accomplished by means allO\\cd under the
Board's Rules and Regulations. The answer may not be filed by hu:simile transmission. If no
answer is filed, or if an answer is tiled untimely, the Board may find. pursuant to a Motion for
Judgment. that the allegations in the ('onsolidated Complaint are true,
Any request f()f an extension of time to file an answer must pursuant to Section
,Ill (b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, be filed hy the closc of business on June 7,
I] request should be in \\Titing and addressed to the Regional Director Region 2t),
(' IIIAI
'ng \vill
, ,
, ,
and on cOllsecuti\\.: days
bell)\'(: an adminislratin: judgeol'lhe
J
[Add. 49]
informs users that the Agency's E-Filing system is officially determined to be in technical failure
hecause it is unahle to recein.' documents f()r a continuous period of more tban :2 hours aftcr
12:00 noon (Eastern Time) on the due date for tiling. a to timely tile the ans\\er will not
he excused on the hases that the transmission could not be accomplished because the Agency's
\vebsite was off-line or unavailable for some other reaSOI1. The Board's Rules and Regulations
require that an answer b) signed by counsel or nun-attorney representatiH': for represenkd
parties or by the part) ifnot represented. Sec Section 10:2.:21. ifthe answer being tiled
electronically is a pdf document containing the required signature. no paper copies of that answer
need to be transmitted to the Regional Ottice. However, if the electronic version of an answer to
a complaint is not a pdf tile containing the required signature. then the E-Filing rules require that
such answer containing the required signature continue to be submitted to the Regional Office by
traditional means within three 0) business days after the date of electronie filing. Service of the
answer on each 0 f the other parties must still be accomplished by means allO\\cd under the
Board's Rules and Regulations. The answer may not be filed by hu:simile transmission. If no
answer is filed, or if an answer is tiled untimely, the Board may find. pursuant to a Motion for
Judgment. that the allegations in the ('onsolidated Complaint are true,
Any request f()f an extension of time to file an answer must pursuant to Section
,Ill (b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, be filed hy the closc of business on June 7,
I] request should be in \\Titing and addressed to the Regional Director Region 2t),
(' IIIAI
'ng \vill
, ,
, ,
and on cOllsecuti\\.: days
bell)\'(: an adminislratin: judgeol'lhe
J
Office. 1:20 Wesl..J.5
th
Street Nc\v York. NY .. \t the hearing. Respondent and any other party to
this proceeding haw the right to appear and present testimony regarding the allegations in this
Consolidated Complaint. The procedures to be followed at the hearing are described in the
attached Form NLRB-4668. The procedure to request a postponement of the hearing is
dcscribed in the attached Form NLRB-4338.
Dated: May 24. 2013
Brooklyn. Nc\v York
Attachments
/LnJ
JAMES G. PAULSEN
Regional Director. Region 29
l\,Jational Labor Relations Board
2 MetroTech Center. Suite 5100
Brooklyn. l\,Jy 11201-3838
[Add. 50]
Office. 1:20 Wesl..J.5
th
Street Nc\v York. NY .. \t the hearing. Respondent and any other party to
this proceeding haw the right to appear and present testimony regarding the allegations in this
Consolidated Complaint. The procedures to be followed at the hearing are described in the
attached Form NLRB-4668. The procedure to request a postponement of the hearing is
dcscribed in the attached Form NLRB-4338.
Dated: May 24. 2013
Brooklyn. Nc\v York
Attachments
!L-aJ
JAMES G. PAULSEN
Regional Director. Region 29
l\,Jational Labor Relations Board
2 MetroTech Center. Suite 5100
Brooklyn. l\,Jy 11201-3838
[Add. 51]


United States Government
NATlQNI\ ..
Rt:v.rIQN ... IIUI\RU
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Washington, DC 20570
1935 .,. 2010 www.nlrb.gov
Eugene Scalia, Esq.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Dear Mr. Scalia:
May 28,2013
Re: CSC Holdings, LLC & Cablevision Systems
New York City Corp.
Cases 2-CA-085811, et a1.
Cablevision Systems New York City Corp.
Cases 29-CA-097013, et a1.
I write in response to your May 22,2013 letter requesting that I direct the
suspension of proceedings in the above matter. For the reasons below, I am denying your
request.
As an initial matter, the authority to issue complaint lies with me as Acting General
Counsel-an independent officer appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate
to whom staffs engaged in prosecution and enforcement are directly accountable. See
NLRB v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23, 484 U.S. 112, 127-28 (1987)
("UFCW'); NLRB v. FLRA, 613 F.3d 275, 278 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Thus, the authority of the
Acting General Counsel to investigate unfair labor practice charges and prosecute
complaints derives not from any "power delegated" by the Board, but rather directly from
the text of the NLRA. Section 3(d) of the NLRA states, among other things, that the General
Counsel "shall have final authority, on behalf of the Board, in respect of the investigation of
charges and issuance of complaints under section 10, and in respect ofthe prosecution of
such complaints before the Board." 29 U.S.C. 153(d) (2011). In enacting this provision,
"Congress intended to create an officer independent of the Board to handle prosecutions,
not merely the filing of complaints." UFCW, 484 U.S. at 127. It does not detract from the
General Counsel's independence that Congress included in Section 3(d) language "on behalf
of the Board" to make it clear that the General Counsel acts within the agency. As the
Supreme Court has found, the legislative history of the NLRA shows that the acts of the
General Counsel were not to be considered acts of the Board. UFCW,484 U.S. at 128-129.
[Add. 52]
The Eugene Scalia, Esq.
Page 2 of3
Moreover, Regional Directors, who are members of the General Counsel's staffs
engaged in prosecution of unfair labor practices, derive their authority to issue complaints
from the authority of the General Counsel. See United Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Ordman, 258
F.Supp. 758, 760 (D.C.N.Y. 1965) ("[t]he General Counsel has delegated authority to the
Regional Directors for issuing [] complaints."). Thus, regardless of any issue regarding the
composition of the Board, the Regional Directors' authority to issue the complaint, derived
from my independent authority as Acting General Counsel, is unaffected.
In any event, the D.C. Circuit's decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB, _ F.3d --I 2013 WL
276024 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2013) (petition for certiorari filed April 25, 2013) does not
warrant suspending proceedings in this matter. It is correct that Members Griffin and
Block, current Board Members serving alongside Chairman Pearce, were appointed during
an intrasession recess. However, as you also note, the Board has filed a petition for
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the D.C. Circuit's
decision. Furthermore, in Belgrove PostAcute Care Center, 359 NLRB No. 77, slip op. 1, fn.l
(Mar. 13,2013), the Board took note that in Noel Canning, the D.C. Circuit Court itself
recognized that its conclusions concerning the Presidential appointments had been
rejected by the other circuit courts to address the issues. Compare Noel Canning v. NLRB,
2013 WL 276024, at *14-15,19 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2013) with Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d
1220,1226 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc); United States v. Woodley, 751 F.2d 1008, 1012-13
(9th Cir. 1985) (en banc); United States v. Allocco, 305 F.2d 704, 709-15 (2d Cir. 1962).
Thus, in Belgrove, the Board concluded that because the "question [of the validity ofthe
recess appointments] remains in litigation," until such time as it is ultimately resolved, "the
Board is charged to fulfill its responsibilities under the Act"l The Board's conclusion in
Belgrove is equally applicable to me fulfilling my responsibilities under the Act
2
Finally, the Board's most recent experience in continuing to process cases during
the analogous dispute leading to New Process Steel, 130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010) (holding that a
two-member Board lacks the authority to decide cases), provides support for the Board's
judgment that continuing to adjudicate pending cases while the challenges to its authority
are being adjudicated contributes to the resolution of industrial disputes. Of some 550
decisions issued by the two-member Board prior to New Process, only about 100 were
impacted by that decision. Nearly all of the remaining matters decided by the two-member
Board have been closed under the Board's processes with no review required. See
Background Materials on Two-Member Board Decisions, http://www.nlrb.goy/news-
outreach/backgrounders/background-materials-two-member-board-decisions Qast visited
March 25, 2013). This experience supports the Board's present determination to continue
1 The Third Circuit's decision in NLRB v. New Vista Nursing and Rehabilitation, -- F.3d --,
2013 WL 2099742 (3d Cir. May 16, 2013), should not change this result As noted above,
there still remains a split in the circuits regarding the validity of intrasession recess
appointments.
2 The Board's appointments of Regional Directors Paulsen and Fernbach are also in accord
with this conclusion. See Bloomingdale's, 359 NLRB No. 113 (2013).
[Add. 53]
The Eugene Scalia, Esq.
Page 3 of3
to decide cases until the Supreme Court resolves the recess appointments issue. As it was
then, the Board's present determination to continue to decide cases is hardly "manifestly
unfair, inefficient, and incompatible with core principles of equity," as you claim.
Accordingly, I deny your request to suspend proceedings in this matter.

La E. Solomon
A 'ng General Counsel

[Add. 54]
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

U.S. Const. art. II, 2, cl. 2

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nomi-
nate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambas-
sadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all
other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise
provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law
vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the Presi-
dent alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


U.S. Const. art. II, 2, cl. 3

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the
Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of
their next Session.


28 U.S.C. 1651 (excerpt)

(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all
writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable
to the usages and principles of law.



29 U.S.C. 153 (excerpt)

(b) Delegation of powers to members and regional directors; review and stay
of actions of regional directors; quorum; seal
The Board is authorized to delegate to any group of three or more members any or
all of the powers which it may itself exercise. The Board is also authorized to dele-
gate to its regional directors its powers under section 159 of this title to determine
the unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining, to investigate and
provide for hearings, and determine whether a question of representation exists,
and to direct an election or take a secret ballot under subsection (c) or (e) of section

[Add. 55]
159 of this title and certify the results thereof, except that upon the filing of a re-
quest therefor with the Board by any interested person, the Board may review any
action of a regional director delegated to him under this paragraph, but such a re-
view shall not, unless specifically ordered by the Board, operate as a stay of any
action taken by the regional director. A vacancy in the Board shall not impair the
right of the remaining members to exercise all of the powers of the Board, and
three members of the Board shall, at all times, constitute a quorum of the Board,
except that two members shall constitute a quorum of any group designated pursu-
ant to the first sentence hereof. The Board shall have an official seal which shall be
judicially noticed.

(d) General Counsel; appointment and tenure; powers and duties; vacancy
There shall be a General Counsel of the Board who shall be appointed by the Pres-
ident, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of four years.
The General Counsel of the Board shall exercise general supervision over all attor-
neys employed by the Board (other than administrative law judges and legal assis-
tants to Board members) and over the officers and employees in the regional offic-
es. He shall have final authority, on behalf of the Board, in respect of the investiga-
tion of charges and issuance of complaints under section 160 of this title, and in
respect of the prosecution of such complaints before the Board, and shall have such
other duties as the Board may prescribe or as may be provided by law. In case of a
vacancy in the office of the General Counsel the President is authorized to desig-
nate the officer or employee who shall act as General Counsel during such vacan-
cy, but no person or persons so designated shall so act
(1) for more than forty days when the Congress is in session unless a nomination
to fill such vacancy shall have been submitted to the Senate, or
(2) after the adjournment sine die of the session of the Senate in which such nom-
ination was submitted.


29 U.S.C. 154 (excerpt)
(a) Each member of the Board and the General Counsel of the Board shall be eligi-
ble for reappointment, and shall not engage in any other business, vocation, or em-
ployment. The Board shall appoint an executive secretary, and such attorneys, ex-
aminers, and regional directors, and such other employees as it may from time to
time find necessary for the proper performance of its duties. The Board may not
employ any attorneys for the purpose of reviewing transcripts of hearings or pre-
paring drafts of opinions except that any attorney employed for assignment as a le-

[Add. 56]
gal assistant to any Board member may for such Board member review such tran-
scripts and prepare such drafts. No administrative law judges report shall be re-
viewed, either before or after its publication, by any person other than a member of
the Board or his legal assistant, and no administrative law judge shall advise or
consult with the Board with respect to exceptions taken to his findings, rulings, or
recommendations. The Board may establish or utilize such regional, local, or other
agencies, and utilize such voluntary and uncompensated services, as may from
time to time be needed. Attorneys appointed under this section may, at the direc-
tion of the Board, appear for and represent the Board in any case in court. Nothing
in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize the Board to appoint individuals
for the purpose of conciliation or mediation, or for economic analysis.


29 U.S.C. 160 (excerpt)

(b) Complaint and notice of hearing; answer; court rules of evidence inappli-
cable
Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any such
unfair labor practice, the Board, or any agent or agency designated by the Board
for such purposes, shall have power to issue and cause to be served upon such per-
son a complaint stating the charges in that respect, and containing a notice of hear-
ing before the Board or a member thereof, or before a designated agent or agency,
at a place therein fixed, not less than five days after the serving of said complaint:
Provided, That no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice oc-
curring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and
the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made,
unless the person aggrieved thereby was prevented from filing such charge by rea-
son of service in the armed forces, in which event the six-month period shall be
computed from the day of his discharge. Any such complaint may be amended by
the member, agent, or agency conducting the hearing or the Board in its discretion
at any time prior to the issuance of an order based thereon. The person so com-
plained of shall have the right to file an answer to the original or amended com-
plaint and to appear in person or otherwise and give testimony at the place and
time fixed in the complaint. In the discretion of the member, agent, or agency con-
ducting the hearing or the Board, any other person may be allowed to intervene in
the said proceeding and to present testimony. Any such proceeding shall, so far as
practicable, be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence applicable in the
district courts of the United States under the rules of civil procedure for the district

[Add. 57]
courts of the United States, adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States
pursuant to section 2072 of title 28.

(e) Petition to court for enforcement of order; proceedings; review of judg-
ment
The Board shall have power to petition any court of appeals of the United States,
or if all the courts of appeals to which application may be made are in vacation,
any district court of the United States, within any circuit or district, respectively,
wherein the unfair labor practice in question occurred or wherein such person re-
sides or transacts business, for the enforcement of such order and for appropriate
temporary relief or restraining order, and shall file in the court the record in the
proceedings, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. Upon the filing of such peti-
tion, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such person, and there-
upon shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question determined
therein, and shall have power to grant such temporary relief or restraining order as
it deems just and proper, and to make and enter a decree enforcing, modifying and
enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in part the order of the
Board. No objection that has not been urged before the Board, its member, agent,
or agency, shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge
such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances. The find-
ings of the Board with respect to questions of fact if supported by substantial evi-
dence on the record considered as a whole shall be conclusive. If either party shall
apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence and shall show to the sat-
isfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were
reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the hearing before
the Board, its member, agent, or agency, the court may order such additional evi-
dence to be taken before the Board, its member, agent, or agency, and to be made a
part of the record. The Board may modify its findings as to the facts, or make new
findings by reason of additional evidence so taken and filed, and it shall file such
modified or new findings, which findings with respect to questions of fact if sup-
ported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole shall be conclu-
sive, and shall file its recommendations, if any, for the modification or setting
aside of its original order. Upon the filing of the record with it the jurisdiction of
the court shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final, except that
the same shall be subject to review by the appropriate United States court of ap-
peals if application was made to the district court as hereinabove provided, and by
the Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari or certification as
provided in section 1254 of title 28.


[Add. 58]
(f) Review of final order of Board on petition to court
Any person aggrieved by a final order of the Board granting or denying in whole or
in part the relief sought may obtain a review of such order in any United States
court of appeals in the circuit wherein the unfair labor practice in question was al-
leged to have been engaged in or wherein such person resides or transacts business,
or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in
such a court a written petition praying that the order of the Board be modified or
set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the
court to the Board, and thereupon the aggrieved party shall file in the court the rec-
ord in the proceeding, certified by the Board, as provided in section 2112 of title
28. Upon the filing of such petition, the court shall proceed in the same manner as
in the case of an application by the Board under subsection (e) of this section, and
shall have the same jurisdiction to grant to the Board such temporary relief or re-
straining order as it deems just and proper, and in like manner to make and enter a
decree enforcing, modifying, and enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in
whole or in part the order of the Board; the findings of the Board with respect to
questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a
whole shall in like manner be conclusive.

(j) Injunctions
The Board shall have power, upon issuance of a complaint as provided in subsec-
tion (b) of this section charging that any person has engaged in or is engaging in an
unfair labor practice, to petition any United States district court, within any district
wherein the unfair labor practice in question is alleged to have occurred or wherein
such person resides or transacts business, for appropriate temporary relief or re-
straining order. Upon the filing of any such petition the court shall cause notice
thereof to be served upon such person, and thereupon shall have jurisdiction to
grant to the Board such temporary relief or restraining order as it deems just and
proper.


29 C.F.R. 102.6 Administrative law judge; hearing officer.
The term administrative law judge as used herein shall mean the agent of the Board
conducting the hearing in an unfair labor practice or Telegraph Merger Act pro-
ceeding. The term hearing officer as used herein shall mean the agent of the Board
conducting the hearing in a proceeding under section 9 or in a dispute proceeding
under section 10(k) of the Act.

[Add. 59]
29 C.F.R. 102.15 When and by whom issued; contents; service.
After a charge has been filed, if it appears to the regional director that formal pro-
ceedings in respect thereto should be instituted, he shall issue and cause to be
served on all other parties a formal complaint in the name of the Board stating the
unfair labor practices and containing a notice of hearing before an administrative
law judge at a place therein fixed and at a time not less than 14 days after the ser-
vice of the complaint. The complaint shall contain:
(a) A clear and concise statement of the facts upon which assertion of ju-
risdiction by the Board is predicated, and
(b) A clear and concise description of the acts which are claimed to consti-
tute unfair labor practices, where known, the approximate dates and places
of such acts and the names of respondent's agents or other representatives by
whom committed.

29 C.F.R. 102.19 Appeal to the general counsel from refusal to issue or re-
issue.
(a) If, after the charge has been filed, the Regional Director declines to issue a
complaint or, having withdrawn a complaint pursuant to 102.18, refuses to reis-
sue it, he shall so advise the parties in writing, accompanied by a simple statement
of the procedural or other grounds for his action. The person making the charge
may obtain a review of such action by filing the Appeal Form with the General
Counsel in Washington, DC, and filing a copy of the Appeal Form with the Re-
gional Director, within 14 days from the service of the notice of such refusal to is-
sue or reissue by the Regional Director, except as a shorter period is provided by
102.81. If an appeal is taken the person doing so should notify all other parties of
his action, but any failure to give such notice shall not affect the validity of the ap-
peal. The person may also file a statement setting forth the facts and reasons upon
which the appeal is based. If such a statement is timely filed, the separate Appeal
Form need not be served. A request for extension of time to file an appeal shall be
in writing and be received by the office of General Counsel, and a copy of such re-
quest filed with the Regional Director, prior to the expiration of the filing period.
Copies of the acknowledgement of the filing of an appeal and of any ruling on a
request for an extension of time for filing the appeal shall be served on all parties.
Consideration of an appeal untimely filed is within the discretion of the General
Counsel upon good cause shown.
(b) Oral presentation in Washington, DC, of the appeal issues may be permitted a
party on written request made within 4 days after service of acknowledgment of
the filing of an appeal. In the event such request is granted, the other parties shall

[Add. 60]
be notified and afforded, without additional request, a like opportunity at another
appropriate time.
(c) The general counsel may sustain the regional director's refusal to issue or reis-
sue a complaint, stating the grounds of his affirmance, or may direct the regional
director to take further action; the general counsel's decision shall be served on all
the parties. A motion for reconsideration of the decision must be filed within 14
days of service of the decision, except as hereinafter provided, and shall state with
particularity the error requiring reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration
based upon newly discovered evidence which has become available only since the
decision on appeal shall be filed promptly on discovery of such evidence. Motions
for reconsideration of a decision previously reconsidered will not be entertained,
except in unusual situations where the moving party can establish that new evi-
dence has been discovered which could not have been discovered by diligent in-
quiry prior to the first reconsideration.


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 30th day of May, 2013, I caused the original and
four copies of the foregoing petition to be filed with the Clerk of Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by hand delivery to the Clerks
Office. Copies of the foregoing petition were served by hand-delivery this same
day on the following:
Lafe E. Solomon, Esq.
Acting General Counsel
National Labor Relations Board
1099 14th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20570-0001

Gary Shinners
Executive Secretary
National Labor Relations Board
1099 14th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20570-0001
Mary K. OMelveney
General Counsel
Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, CLC
501 3rd Street, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001-2797

Additionally, two copies of the foregoing petition also were served by overnight
delivery on each of the following:
Karen P. Fernbach
National Labor Relations Board
Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
Room 3614
New York, NY 10278

Daniel Clifton
Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C.
350 7th Ave.
Suite 1800
New York, NY 10001-5013
James Paulsen
National Labor Relations Board
Region 29
Two Metro Tech Center
Suite 5100, Floor 5
Brooklyn, NY 11201-3838

Timothy Dubnau
Communications Workers of America
Weissman & Mintz LLC
9602-D Martin Luther King, Jr. Hwy.
Lanham, MD 20706
Gabrielle Semel
District Counsel
Communications Workers of America
District 1
Legal Department
350 7th Ave.
Floor 18
New York, NY 10001-5013
May 30, 2013
Counsel for Petitioners esc Holdings, LLC
and Cablevision Systems New York City
Corp.