WPC; -e Tٴsz8L?bQe V!nrw*7q5iRrЈgųw%h-:MgYDE:nwX\Uqj+i;s}4BqsO"7![FnKE؉%\޳@:e AMCܴ k)7cì>Nxm![_` u |KEX8Εw۬S| pA[b]K|Em|=T!_3"F-'H#XD>z\Z4[*6l6Ic@:5UB 1h Yvj\7yC&THY'b1084E8.l93|ʺHo&)3[^VƵ/4`>[2@* ͏%kyq*zO)S4g\/PjfAm# % 0D 0( U :) 0c UN) nTw UF ^  w 4! 5 D mF N] E_ fa ac U >w M 01 0= 0' 0> 0- 0 0 0a_ 0 0t 09( 0a 02= 0o 0:k 0 0_* B 0  0kMU6U>U 0LU*U 0 UB9{NUNNb 0[ 2/ 0a B*(! D3R! C! D+! 0! 0# 06x$ 0$ 0:% 0h% 0FX&& ,p**M+M+b+ 2+ 0D+,,N//M/M/M//M/ 0n#/#/#/ 0N/M//M//(//C000MR3R3R3R3R3R3V3HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2wX$ !    =;QXXdd=    0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@Q 9Z+.Courier New Regular},s -H|,9:i+003|xUTABLE A<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEK+<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS,\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype     d4go2Keyboard K+<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS,\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K+<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS,\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman>c$"Small Circle"0 %2A`Arial<\( 9Z+Courier <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi          wX$  =6XXdd=    1    _6X XXXԀ#X6X X6X#X6XXX6Thedecisionoftheadministrativelawjudgeisreportedas  anappendixto_Goodless_ԀI,321NLRBat7092.(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  wX$  =6XXdd=    2    _Ԁ"TargetmoneywasfinancialassistanceprovidedbytheUnion  toaidunionemployersincompetitionwithnonunionelectrical x contractors."_Goodless_ԀII,124F.3dat325n.4.3 XXԀ#X6X 3#- -(3$ !    0  .Document1zzSDUNumber13<:zBottom of I>?4$ ** ddI  B    ?.%2A`Arial?9@?*  dd9  XXXS,\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d d===='dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI>?4$** ddI  B    ?.%2A`Arial?9@?*  dd9  XXXS,\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleK+<6X9`(Courier NewKS,\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK+<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS,\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB    wX$  =6XXdd=    3    _ԀSpecifically,theUnionchargedthat_Goodless_Ԁviolatedtwo  sectionsoftheNationalLaborRelationsAct.See x 29U.S.C.158(a)(5)(providingthat"Itshallbeanunfairlabor @ practiceforanemployer...torefusetobargaincollectively X withtherepresentativesofhisemployees....");   29U.S.C.158(a)(3)(providingthat"Itshallbeanunfairlabor  practiceforanemployer...bydiscriminationinregardtohire `  ortenureofemploymentoranytermorconditionofemploymentto ( x encourageordiscouragemembershipinanylabororganization...  @ .").Document1zzFN_B0098 wX$  =6XXdd=    *    _OftheDistrictofMassachusetts,sittingbydesignation.- -Document1zzSDUNumber16($$  0    wX$  =6XXdd=    6    _ԀTheBoardarguesonappealthatShaw'sIIalsogaveitthe  optionofconceding,withanadequateexplanation,thatitwas x departingfromprecedentinfindingShaw'sconductanunfairlabor @ practice,andthenreaffirmingitspriordecision.Whetherthatis X anaccuratereadingofShaw'sIIisirrelevanthere.Inthiscase,   theBoardinsiststhatitdidnotdepartfromprecedentonremand.  Instead,itinsiststhatitonlyclarifiedextantlaw.<:Default ParaXXXXXX($      9 wX$  =6XXdd=    5    _ԀForpurposesofthisopinion,theShaw'scaseswillbe  referredtoasfollows: x   Shaw'sI:OriginalNLRBdecision. @   Shaw'sII:OurdecisionvacatingShaw'sIandremandingit X backtotheNLRBforreconsideration(Shaw'sSupermarkets,Inc.v.   NLRB,884F.2d34,35(1stCir.1989)).    Shaw'sIII:DecisionoftheNLRBonremand(Shaw's `  Supermarkets.Inc.,303NLRB382(1991)(SupplementalDecisionand ( x Order)). u wX$  =6XXdd=    4    _Ԁ_Nonacquiescence_Ԁreferstothe"/X6XXXselectiverefusalof  administrativeagenciestoconducttheirinternalproceedings x consistentlywithadverserulingsofthecourtsofappeals." @ #X6XX/X6#X6XXX6?+ 4 <DL!X?Samuel_Estreicher_Ԁ&RichardL._Revesz_,  _Nonacquiescence_ԀbyFederal X AdministrativeAgencies,98Yale_L.J._Ԁ679,681(1989)#X6XXX6#/X6XXX6.The   NationalLaborRelationsBoard,"morethanmost[agencies],has  openlyassertedtheauthoritytodeclinetoacquiesce."Id.at `  706.TheBoardiscommittedtopressingitsownviewofthelaw ( x untiltheBoarditselfortheSupremeCourtoverrulesit;itclaims  @ thatpiecemealacceptanceofparticularcircuits'interpretations    ofthelawwouldfrustrateitsdevelopmentofanationallabor    policy.Id.at706(citingInsuranceAgents'_Int'l_ԀUnion,119 H   N.L.R.B.768,773(1957))#X6XX/X6#/X6XXX6.However,theBoarddoes"acquiesce[]to `  [anappellatecourt's]treatmentofaparticularcaseonremand.#X6XX/X6#/X6XXX6" (  Id.at#X6XX/X6[#X6XXX6706n.148.#X6XXX6#/X6XXX6#X6XX/X6#X6XXX6 !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !XXXXgXX     UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsg  FortheFirstCircuit  , XX ,  A') ` dE< ` A   No.011175 u  @ NATIONALLABORRELATIONSBOARD, ! q @XX%@@ Petitioner,  G    and   INTERNATIONALBROTHERHOODOFELECTRICALWORKERS, O  LOCALUNION7, %u  _Intervenor_, K  @tt)v.  @@ @ _GOODLESS_ԀBROTHERSELECTRICCO.,INC., S    `     h   @XX%Respondent. )y A') ` dE<` A % @\ \ PETITIONFORENFORCEMENTOF     ANORDEROFTHENATIONALLABORRELATIONSBOARD  A') ` dE<;` A < @@'Before !q _Torruella_Ԁand_Lipez_,CircuitJudges, G andStearns,DistrictJudgeJ #  *      .  A') ` dE<x` A y!       JayM.Presserwithwhom_Skoler_,Abbott&Presser,P.C.were ^ # onbriefforAppellant. 4!$   SharonBlock,SupervisoryAttorney,withwhomArthurF.  "Z% Rosenfeld,GeneralCounsel,JohnH.Ferguson,AssociateGeneral "0& Counsel,andAileenA.Armstrong,DeputyAssociateGeneralCounsel, #' wereonbriefforAppellee. $(   SueD.Gunter,withwhomRobertD._Kurnick_,JamesE.Rubin, b% ) andSherman,Dunn,Cohen,_Leifer_,_Yellig_ԀP.C.wereonbrieffor 8&!* _Intervenor_. '^"+ *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  ( $-( $  SI)n$. ;@37342;@S  March28,2002 )D%0  RHC*&1" ;@37342 ;@ R ," )n$2 ? ,_* !X6XX X/X6XXX6  8060XXdd89*,X` XX*12Oa3+    ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .Thiscaserequiresustodecide   whetheradecisionrenderedbytheNationalLaborRelationsBoard  (NLRBorBoard)afteraremandfromadecisionofthiscourtis  p consistentwiththatdecision.GoodlessElectricCompany   (Goodless)wasfirstaccusedofunfairlaborpracticesin1994when @  itrefusedtorecognizeaunionforcollectivebargainingpurposes.    AnadministrativelawjudgeexoneratedGoodless,buttheBoard `  reversedhisdecision.WereversedtheBoard,ruledthatthe @  Board'sprecedentsrequiredafindinginfavorofGoodless,and   remandedthecasetotheBoardforproceedingsconsistentwiththat ` decision.Misinterpretingthatdecisionanditsmandate,theNLRB  onceagaindecidedonremandthatGoodlesshadviolatedthelaw. 0 Weagainreverse.     I. P   ` Beforebeginningthediscussion,wemustestablisha 0 shorthandnotationforthreeofthefourdecisionsthathave  previouslyaddressedthiscase.Anadministrativelawjudge P  decidedinfavorofGoodlessElectricCompany,concludingthatit 0" hadnotengagedinunfairlaborpractices.TheNLRBreversedthis p!$ decisioninGoodlessI.GoodlessElec.Co.,Inc.,321NLRB64 #P& (1996)(GoodlessI).4 #  1      ׀WereversedtheBoardinGoodlessII,and $( remandedthecasefor"proceedingsinaccordancewiththis  &p!* opinion."NLRBv.GoodlessElec.Co.,124F.3d322,331(1stCir. '#, 1997)(GoodlessII).Uponremand,theNLRBagaindecidedagainst @)$. GoodlessinGoodlessIII,thedecisionunderreview.Goodless  Elec.Co.,Inc.(SupplementalDecisionandOrder),332NLRBNo.96, @ 2000WL1675503at*1(2000)(GoodlessIII).    A.LegalBackground  `   ` Aunionmustusuallydemonstratemajoritysupportamong @  anemployer'semployeesinordertoenteracollectivebargaining    agreementwithanemployer.However,intheconstructionindustry, `  theshorttermnatureoftheemploymentandthecontractor'sneed @  forpredictablecostsandasteadysupplyofskilledlabormakes   sucharrangementsimpractical.Thus,"[c]ollectivebargaining ` agreementsintheconstructionindustryarecommonlynegotiated  beforetheemployeesarehiredbecauseemployersmustbeableto 0 fixlaborcoststomakebids,andhaveasupplyofskilled  craftsmenreadyforquickreferral."TimothyVolk,Prehire P AgreementsintheConstructionIndustry,9J.L.&Com.243,245 0 (1989).Inresponsetothisindustrypractice,Congresspassed p Section8(f)oftheNationalLaborRelationsActin1959.29 P  U.S.C.158(f).ThisportionoftheActprovidedthat " constructionindustryemployersmayrecognizeunionsprospectively.  !p$ Id.Specifically,Section8(f)provides: "& 0 ` Itshallnotbeanunfairlaborpractice...foran @$( employerengagedprimarilyinthebuildingand %X ) constructionindustrytomakeanagreementcovering % !* employeesengaged...inthebuildingandconstruction &!+ industrywithalabororganizationofwhichbuildingand `'", constructionemployeesaremembers...because(1)the ((x#- majoritystatusofsuchlabororganizationhasnotbeen (@$. established...or(2)suchagreementrequiresasa )%/ conditionofemployment,membershipinsuchlabor *%0 organization....H+&1` (#` (#  ,`'2 vId.   ` AsweexplainedinGoodlessII,"[u]nderSection8(f),a @ constructionindustryemployermayenterintoarelationshipwith   aunionwherebytheunionbargainsonbehalfoftheemployer's `  employeespriortoashowingthattheunionhasgarneredthe  @ supportofamajorityoftheemployees."GoodlessII,124F.3dat    323.ASection8(f)employerunionrelationshipisknownasa `  "prerecognitionagreement;"theemployerdoesnotformally   recognizetheunion,butonlyagreestobargainwithitfora 0  limitedperiodoftime.Theunionmayobtainmorepermanent  collectivebargainingrightsifitcanconverttheSection8(f) P relationshipintoaSection9(a)relationship.Section9(a) 0 providesforatraditionalcollectivebargainingagreement,whereby p 0 ` [r]epresentativesdesignatedorselectedforthepurposes P ofcollectivebargainingbythemajorityoftheemployees  inaunitappropriateforsuchpurposes,shallbethe  exclusiverepresentativesofalltheemployeesinsuch X unitforthepurposesofcollectivebargaininginrespect  p toratesofpay,wages,hoursofemployment,orother 8 conditionsofemployment.... ` (#` (# %29U.S.C.159(a)."UnderSection9(a),onceaunionhasbecome @" therepresentativeofamajorityoftheemployeesinanappropriate  $ bargainingunit,theemployerisrequiredtobargainwiththeunion `"& astheemployees'bargainingrepresentative."GoodlessII,124 #@( F.3dat324. % *  ` UnionsareofteneagertoconvertaSection8(f) '`", relationshipintoamorepermanentSection9(a)relationship.The (#. preciserequirementsforconvertingaSection8(f)intoaSection 0*%0 9(a)relationshiphavebeendelineatedinmanyNLRBprecedents: +'2 0 ` TheNLRBhasheldthatSection8(f)statusmaychangeto  Section9(a)statusbyvirtueofeitheraBoardcertified x electionorastheresultoftheemployer'svoluntary @ recognitionoftheunionasthemajoritycollective X bargainingagent.Voluntaryrecognitionrequiresthe   union'sunequivocaldemandfor,andtheemployer's  unequivocalgrantof,voluntaryrecognitionasthe `  employees'collectivebargainingrepresentativebasedon ( x theunion'scontemporaneousshowingofmajorityemployee  @ support.  ` (#` (# *Id.(citingJamesJulian,Inc.,310NLRB1247,1252(1993)).This H   caseconcernsadisputeoverwhetherGoodlessvoluntarily (  recognizedLocalNo.7oftheInternationalBrotherhoodof h  ElectricalWorkers(theUnion). H   B.FactualBackground    ` Thebackgroundfactsofthecaseareessentially h undisputed.TheyhavebeensummarizedinGoodlessII,124F.3dat H 32327,andaredevelopedatlengthinthefindingsoffact  appendedtotheNLRBadministrativelawjudge'soriginaldecision h inthecase.SeeGoodlessI,321NLRBat7092.Wereviewonly  theirbasicoutlinehere. 8  ` GoodlessandtheUnionestablishedaSection8(f) ! relationshipin1988,fromwhicheitherGoodlessortheUnioncould X # withdrawupongiving150daysnotice.By1990,theeconomyinthe !8% regionbegantofalterandGoodlesssoughtrelieffromcertain x#' provisionsoftheagreementinordertokeepitsbusiness %X ) competitive.InJune,1992,GoodlessindicatedtotheUnionthat &!+ "anyrelationshipbetweenGoodlessandtheUnionwouldexpireasof ((x#-  June30,1993." )%/  ` Thenextmonth,theUnionthreatenedtocutoff"target   money"toGoodlessifitfailedtosigna"letterofassent" @ affirmingitsSection8(f)relationship.7 #  2      ׀Theletterincludedthe   followinglanguage: `  0 ` TheEmployeragreesthatifamajorityofitsemployees  @ authorizetheLocalUniontorepresentthemincollective    bargaining,theEmployerwillrecognizetheLocalUnion    astheNLRA[NationalLaborRelationsAct]Section9(a) H   collectivebargainingagentforallemployeesperforming `  electricalconstructionworkwithinthejurisdictionof (  theLocalUniononallpresentandfuturejobsites. ` (#` (# 5LeonGoodlesssignedtheletteronbehalfofGoodlessonJuly15, 0  1992.   ` Almostayearlater,GoodlessandtheUniondiscussedthe P possibilityofextendingGoodless'sSection8(f)relationshipwith 0 theunionbeyondtheoriginalJune30,1993terminationdate.When p negotiationsstalled,theUnion'sbusinessagent,DouglasBodman, P heldameetingofallGoodlessemployees.Heencouragedthemto  "sign% ; %;9authorizationcardsasevidenceoftheirdesireforcontinued  p representation,"andalldidso.Thecardsstated:   0 ` IauthorizeLocalUnionNo.7oftheInternational @" BrotherhoodofElectricalWorkerstorepresentmein  X# collectivebargainingwithmypresentandfuture  $ employersonallpresentandfuturejobsiteswithinthe !% jurisdictionoftheUnion.Thisauthorizationisnon `"& expiring,bindingandvaliduntilsuchtimeasIsubmit (#x' awrittenrevocation.#@(` (#` (# U:GoodlessII,124F.3dat325.Bodmanpresentedthecardsat % * Goodless'snextmeetingwithUnionrepresentativesonJune25, '`", 1 1  X 1  1993.AlthoughLeonGoodlessreactedangrilytothepresentation  ofthecards,helaterconsentedtoasixmonthextensionof @ bargainingwiththeUnion,agreeingtocontinuethe8(f)   relationshipfromJuly1,1993,toDecember31,1993. `   ` Attheendof1993,Goodlessagainindicateditsdesire  @ toterminateitsrelationshipwiththeUnion.TheUnionresponded    (vialetter)onDecember21,1993,claimingthattheletterof `  assentsignedonJuly15,1992,boundGoodlesstorecognizethe   Unionastheexclusivebargainingagentifamajorityofits 0  employeesauthorizedtheUniontorepresentthemincollective  bargaining.TheUnionclaimedtohavedemonstratedmajority P supportattheJune25,1993,meeting,andthereforeallegedthat 0 Goodlesscouldneitherrepudiateitscollectivebargaining p relationshipwiththeUnionnornegotiatedirectlywithits P employees.   ` Goodlessignoredtheletterandceasedrecognizingthe  p UnionforcollectivebargainingpurposesasofJanuary1,1994.   ContendingthatithadachievedSection9(a)status,theUnion @" complainedtotheNLRBthatGoodlesshadengagedinunfairlabor  $ practices.H #  3      ׀  `"&   ` Asnoted,theAdministrativeLawJudgewhofirstheard  thecaseruledinfavorofGoodless.SeeGoodlessI,321NLRBat @ 9192.InGoodlessI,theBoardreversedthatdecisionanddecided   thattheUnionbecametheSection9(a)bargainingrepresentativeof `  Goodless'semployeeswhenitpresentedthesignedcardstoLeon  @ Goodless.InGoodlessII,wereversedtheBoardandfoundthat    Goodlesswasnotguiltyofanyunfairlaborpractices.Weremanded `  thecasetotheBoardforproceedingsconsistentwithGoodlessII.   Inthedecisionunderreview,GoodlessIII,theBoardagainfound 0  thatGoodlesshadcommittedunfairlaborpractices.     II.  P oG ` IndecidingwhetherourdecisioninGoodlessIIpermitted 0 theBoard'sdecisioninGoodlessIII,wefirstexplainbrieflythe  lawofthecasedoctrine.Wenextsummarizethelawofthiscase P assetforthinGoodlessII.WethenexplaintheBoard'sflawed 0 understandingofthatlawinGoodlessIII. p  A.TheLawoftheCase  P   ` Thedoctrineofthelawofthecase"positsthatwhena 0" courtdecidesuponaruleoflaw,thatdecisionshouldcontinueto p!$ governthesameissuesinsubsequentstagesinthesamecase." #P& Arizonav.California,460U.S.605,618(1983).Thisruleof $( practicepromotesfinalityandjudicialefficiencyby"protecting  &p!* againsttheagitationofsettledissues."Christiansonv.Colt '#, Indus.OperatingCorp.,486U.S.800,816(1988)(quoting#X6XX/X6#/X6XXX61BJ. @)$. Moore,J.Lucas&T.Currier,Moore'sFederalPractice0.404[1] * &0 at118(1984)).Whenanappellateopinionclearlyaddressesa `,'2 3+  3   3  disputedissue,it"% I %ISMinstructsaninferior[tribunal]tocomplywith  [thisdecision]onremand."Fieldv.Mans,157F.3d35,40(1st @ Cir.1998).K+ 4 <DL!,X` XKAnappellatecourt'smandatecontrolsallissuesthat   "'wereactuallyconsideredanddecidedbytheappellatecourt,or `  aswerenecessarilyinferredfromthedispositiononappeal.'"  @ Cohenv.BrownUniv.,101F.3d155,188(1stCir.1996)(quoting    CommercialUnionIns.Co.v.WalbrookIns.Co.,41F.3d764,770 `  (1stCir.1994)).     AlthoughtheBoardadherestoapolicyofnonacquiescencel #  4      #X6XX/X6 L#/X6XXX6Ԁin 0  itsapplicationofdecisionsofthecourtsofappeals,it  recognizesasitmustthatitcannotignorethelawofthecase P doctrine.Indeed,inGoodlessIII,theBoardsaidthat,"[h]aving 0 acceptedthecourt'sremand,weareboundbythelawofthecase p establishedinthecourt'sopinion."GoodlessIII,332NLRBNo. P 96,2000WL1675503,#X6XX/X6Q#/X6XXX6Ԁat*4.    P  B.TheLawofThisCase     InreversingtheAdministrativeLawJudge'sfindingthat  Goodlesshadcommittednounfairlaborpractices,theBoarddecided  p thattheUnionbecametheSection9(a)bargainingrepresentativeof   Goodless'semployeeswhenitpresentedthesignedcardstoLeon @  GoodlessonJune25,1993.Findingthat"theletterofassent    [signedbyLeonGoodlessonJuly15,1992]constituted,forthe `  remainderofitsterm,bothacontinuingrequestbytheUnionfor @  9(a)recognitionandacontinuing,enforceablepromiseby   [Goodless]tograntvoluntaryrecognitiononthatbasisifthe ` Uniondemonstratedmajoritysupport,"GoodlessI,321NLRBat66,  theBoardconcludedthattheUnionhaddemonstratedmajority 0 supportcontemporaneouslywithGoodless'srecognitionbecausethe  lettersignaledGoodless'scontinuingwillingnesstorecognizethe P UnionwheneverithadmajoritysupportamongGoodless'sworkers. 0 TheBoardorderedGoodlesstorecognizetheUnionandtotake p severalremedialmeasures.  P  M9*,XX XX*     Onappeal,wedetermined"thattheNLRBmisapplieditsown " precedent."GoodlessII,124F.3dat327.Wefoundthat"Board  !p$ caselaw...hassetforthonlytwomeansbywhichaunionmay "& obtainSection9(a)statusduringthecourseofaSection8(f) @$( relationship:(1)throughaBoardcertifiedelection,or(2) % !* throughtheemployer'svoluntarygrantofrecognition"in `'", accordancewiththestandardsenunciatedincasessuchasJ&R (@$. Tile,Inc.,291NLRB1034,1036(1988),andGoldenWestElectric, *%0 307NLRB1494,1495(1992).GoodlessII,124F.3dat32829.We ,`'2 explainedthattheBoard'sdecisiontotreattheJuly,1992letter  ofassentasanopenoffertograntSection9(a)recognitionwasan @ unwarrantedattempttorelyontechnicalprinciplesofcontractlaw   tosupplanttherequirement"thatrecognitionbebasedona `  contemporaneousshowingofmajoritysupport."Id.at330.  @   Thus,inGoodlessIIweheldthat"Goodlessdidnotviolate    Section8(a)(5)"inrefusingtorecognizetheunion.Id.at331. `  Weannouncedthat"afindinginfavorofGoodlessisrequired."   Id.,at330.Weendedtheopinionwiththefollowingorder:"For 0  theforegoingreasons,wereverseandremandtotheNationalLabor  RelationsBoardforproceedingsinaccordancewiththisopinion." P Id.at331. 0 6,X` X,XX X6 C.TheBoard'sDecisiononRemand(GoodlessIII)  p   Onremand,theBoardagainfoundthatGoodlesshadengagedin P unfairlaborpractices.TheBoardassertedthat"aunion's 0 performanceofthevalidmajoritarianconditionsspecifiedina p prospective9(a)recognitionclause...is,ineffect,athird P  option,inadditiontothe% N %N^b'twooption[s]'thatthecourt " identifiedastheonlyavailableoptionsforachieving9(a)  !p$ status."GoodlessIII,332NLRBNo.96,2000WL1675503at*7 "& (quotingGoodlessII,124F.3dat330).AlthoughtheBoard @$( acknowledgedthat"theBoard'sconstructionindustryprecedentat % !* thetimeoftheeventsatissuemadenoexpressprovisionfor `'", agreementsliketheonecontainedintheparties'1992letterof (@$. assent,"Id.at*5,theBoardsupporteditsthirdoptionby *%0 discussingprecedentsfrom"outsidetheconstructionindustry" ,`'2 whichupheldthevalidityofprospectiverecognitionagreements.  Id.at*5*6(discussingSnow&Sons,134NLRB709(1961);Kroger @ Co.,219NLRB388,389(1975)).     DespitetheBoard'srelianceontheseotherprecedents,the `  Board'sreasoninginGoodlessIandGoodlessIIIisstructurally  @ identical:inbothdecisions,theBoardfocusedonthelegal    significanceoftheletterofassentthatGoodlesssignedonJuly `  15,1992.GoodlessIheldthattheletterconstitutedastanding   offertorecognizetheunionbecauseofbasiccontractlaw 0  principles;GoodlessIIIstatedthattheletterwasequivalentto  a"prospectiverecognitionagreement"upheldbytheBoardin P settingsoutsidetheconstructionindustry,id.at*6.Both 0 decisionsareatoddswithGoodlessII'scentralholding: p "Voluntaryrecognitionrequirestheunion'sunequivocaldemandfor, P andtheemployer'sunequivocalgrantof,voluntaryrecognitionas  theemployees'collectivebargainingrepresentativebasedonthe  p union'scontemporaneousshowingofmajorityemployeesupport."See   GoodlessII,124F.3dat324(citingJamesJulian,Inc.v.NLRB, @" 310NLRB1247,1252(1993)).  $   Havingacknowledgedthatitmustcomplywiththelawofthe `"& case,theBoardhadtoexplainwhyits"freedomofactionon #@( remand,"GoodlessIII,332NLRBNo.96,2000WL1675503at*4, % * permittedittoreachthesameresultfordifferentreasons.That '`", explanationbeganwiththeBoard'sassertionthatwemisapprehended (#. inGoodlessIIthetruesignificanceoftheBoard'sprecedents: 0*%0 0  Boardprecedent,ifreadliterally,asthecourtdid,appeared +'2 torequirethataunion'sdemandfor9(a)recognition,the ,'3 employer'sagreementtorecognizetheunion,andtheunion's  showingofmajoritystatusmustallbesimultaneous.x(#(# mId.at*4(citingGoodlessII,124F.3dat32829).Todisabuseus X ofthisliteralreading,theBoardsaidthatitcouldclarifyon  remandthetruescopeofitsprecedentsbecause"thecourtstated ( x [inGoodlessII]thatitcouldnotaccepttheBoard'sdeparture    fromprecedent'intheabsenceofsomecogentexplanation,an H   explanationthathasnotbeenforthcoming,'"id.at*7(quoting (  GoodlessII,124F.3dat33031).TheBoardtookthislanguageas h  aninvitationtoreinstateitsearlierrulingonremand,provided H  thatitdevelopeda"cogentexplanation"foritsdecision.    Asfurthersupportforitsfreedomofactiononremand,the h BoardnotedthatGoodlessIIcitedShaw'sSupermarkets,Inc.v.  NLRB,884F.2d34(1stCir.1989),"acaseinwhichthecourt,as 8 here,alsoremandedandinwhichtheBoardclearlywasnot  foreclosedfromreaffirmingitspriordecisionprovidedit X adequatelyexplainedwhyitwasdepartingfromprecedent." 8 GoodlessIII,332NLRBNo.96,2000WL1675503,at*8(citing x! Shaw'sSupermarkets,Inc.,303NLRB382(1991)(onremand)).c #  5      ׀  X# Finally,theBoardparsedthelanguageofourorderattheendof !% GoodlessII,wherewewrote:"Fortheforegoingreasons,we (#x' reverseandremandtotheNationalLaborRelationsBoardfor  proceedingsinaccordancewiththisopinion.Coststorespondent." @ GoodlessII,124F.3dat331(emphasisinoriginal).Inthe   Board'sview,"[i]fthecourt'sintentweremerelytovacatethe `  Board'spriorOrderandtodismissthecomplaint,therewouldhave  @ beennoneedtoremandthecase."GoodlessIII,332NLRBat*7.      Otherthanaprohibitionagainstsayingthatitwasrightin `  GoodlessIforallofthereasonsdisapprovedbyusinGoodlessII,   theBoardconcludedthattherewasnolawofthecasethat 0  constraineditsfreedomofactiononremand.Itcouldsimply  reaffirmtheresultwithadifferentrationalethatmetthe"cogent P explanation"standard.Addressingthethreereasonscitedbythe 0 Boardforitsauthoritytoreaffirmitsfindingofunfairlabor p practicesbyGoodless,weexplainwhytheBoard'sreadingofour P decisioninGoodlessIIisindefensible.   1.TheShaw'sLitigation   p   InShaw'sI,theBoardfoundthatShaw'sSupermarketshad P  committedunfairlaborpractices.Wevacatedthatdecisionin " Shaw'sII,findingthattheBoard'sprecedents"dictatearesultin  !p$ Shaw'sfavor"sinceShaw'sconduct"liestuckedwellwithinthe "& boundaryofthelawful."Shaw'sII,884F.2dat36,41.On @$( remand,wepermittedtheBoard"tomodifyorchangeitsrule;to % !* departfrom,ortokeepwithin,priorprecedent,aslongasit `'", focusesupontheissueandexplainswhychangeisreasonable." (@$. Shaw'sII,884F.2dat41.TheBoardsawnoneedtochangeits *%0 law: ,`'2 0  Werespectfullydeclinethecourt'sinvitationtochange  extantBoardlaw.For,withduerespecttothecourt,we x continuetobelievethat,underthatlaw,conductlikethat @ involvedhereinisunlawful.However,giventhelawofthis X case,weshalldismissthecomplaint. (#(# ~Shaw'sIII,303NLRBat382;seealso,e.g.,CamvacInt'l,Inc., `  302NLRB652,653(1991)("HavingacceptedtheSixthCircuit's  @ remandaslawofthecase,weareboundbytheCourt'srationaleas    itappliestothisproceeding,andwecannotoverlookthespecifics `  ofthecourt'sdirective.");MemorialHosp.ofRoxborough,231NLRB   419(1977)(statingthat"werecognizeouracceptanceofthe 0  court'sdecisiononremandasbindingonusforthepurposeof  decidingthiscase").Inotherwords,theBoardrecognizedin P Shaw'sIIIthattheoneoptionitdidnothaveonremandwas 0 declaringShaw'sconductunlawfulunderextantlawafterwehad p decidedotherwise.ThatrecognitioneludedtheBoardinGoodless P III.P #  6         2.TheRemand   p   InourorderattheendofGoodlessII,wedidnotsimply P  remandtotheBoard.Wereversedandremanded.Althoughweare " notsuggestingthattheword"reversed"hasbeenusedincourt  !p$ orderswithunvaryingmeaning,wedeemitsignificantherethatthe "& word"reverse"isdefinedtomean,interalia,"toaltertothe @$( 2Oa 2 2  oppositeincharacterortendency;changecompletely."RandomHouse  Webster'sUnabridgedDictionary1647(2ded.,1997).Theopposite @ resultisafindinginfavorofGoodless,notanotherfinding   againstitondifferentgrounds.Bycontrast,wedidnotusein `  ourordertheword"vacate,"whichmeans"torenderinoperative;  @ depriveofvalidity;void;annul."Id.at2100. Anorderto    vacateonlywipestheslateclean,leavingthenextoutcome `  uncertain,absentotherdirection.Weleftnouncertaintyabout @  theproperoutcomehere.     Moreover,wereversedandremandedtotheBoard"for ` proceedingsinaccordancewiththisopinion."GoodlessII,124  F.3dat331.Inthatopinion,weconcludedthat"[u]ndertheplain 0 terms"ofBoardprecedents,"afindinginfavorofGoodlessis  required."Id.at330.Weaddedthat"Goodlessdidnotviolate P Section8(a)(5)byrepudiatingthatrelationshiporbyunilaterally 0 changingthetermsandconditionsofemploymentunderthe p circumstancesofthisappeal."Id.Furtherproceedingsbeforethe P  BoardthatcontravenetheseexplicitholdingsinfavorofGoodless " arehardly"inaccordancewith[our]opinion"inGoodlessII.  !p$   Ifthatisso,theBoardsays,whybothertoremandtousif "& wecouldonlydismissthecomplaintagainstGoodless?Goodless @$( III,332NLRBNo.96,2000WL1675503,at*7.Thereareatleast % !* twoanswers,bothofwhichreflectrespectforBoardprocedures. `'", IftherewereancillaryissuesbeforetheBoardthatneededtobe (@$. addressedinconjunctionwiththedismissalofthecomplaint,the *%0 remandwouldhavegiventheBoardtheopportunitytoaddressthem. ,`'2 Furthermore,ourdecisioninGoodlessIIgavetheBoardthe  opportunityonremandtodismisstheclaimagainstGoodlesswhile @ announcingthat,henceforth,itsnewconstructionofthe   contemporaneityrequirementwouldgovernthisareaoflaborlaw. `  SeeNLRBv.MajesticWeavingCo.,355F.2d854,859(2dCir.1966)  @ (permittingtheBoard,"afterappropriateproceedings,[to]...    fashionfor prospectiveapplicationaprinciplealongthegeneral `  linesofthatadoptedhere").However,theBoardcouldnotreverse @  ourholdinginGoodlessIIbydeclaringthatwehadmisapprehended   Boardprecedentandthenreassertingitsunfairlaborpractices ` findingagainstGoodless.   3."SomeCogentExplanation"  0   AfterconcludinginGoodlessIIthat"afindinginfavorof ` Goodlessisrequired,"weaddedthat"[w]ecannotacceptthe  Board'sdeparturefromitsownprecedentinthiscaseinthe 0 absenceofsomecogentexplanation,anexplanationthathasnot  beenforthcoming."GoodlessII,124F.3dat33031.Read P  literallyinaspiritofnonacquiescence,andisolatedfromthe 0" restofthetext,thislanguagemightemboldentheBoardtofindan p!$ invitationforacogentexplanationthatwouldmakethefinding #P& againstGoodlessacceptabletous.Readfairlywithfidelityto $( theprinciplesofthelawofthecaserecognizedbytheBoardin  &p!* Shaw'sIII,thislanguageprecludedanunfairlaborpractices '#, findingagainstGoodlessonthebasisofextantlaw. @)$. e  * &0 III.Conclusion     Initsefforttofind"freedomofactiononremand,"Goodless  III,332NLRBNo.96,2000WL1675503,at*4,theBoardfocusedon  p isolatedlanguagefromGoodlessIItojustifyitsrenewedunfair   laborpracticefindingsagainstGoodless.Infact,theBoardhas @  chosentoignoreourearlierrulinganddisregardthelawofthe    case.GoodlessIIstatedunequivocallythat"afindinginfavorof `  Goodlessisrequired."GoodlessII,124F.3dat330.Wereversed @  GoodlessI,furtherconfirmingthatconclusion.Wenowreverse   GoodlessIII,withanexplicitinstructionthattheBoarddismiss ` thechargesagainstGoodless.    Soordered.Coststorespondent.#X6XX/X6.S#