Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page 1 2 of 22 DOCUMENTS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CONSOLIDATED BIS- CUIT COMPANY, Respondent/ Cross-Petitioner. Nos. 06-2038/07-1406/07-1407 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 08a0697n.06; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23775; 2008 FED App. 0697N (6th Cir.) November 14, 2008, Filed NOTICE: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED. PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. Consol. Biscuit Co., 346 N.L.R.B. 1175, 2006 NLRB LEXIS 165 (2006) CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought enforcement of its order that found respondent company committed a number of violations of § 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 158, and ordered a new union election. Intervenor, union sought a review of other aspects of the order. The NLRB and the company moved to strike the union's brief. OVERVIEW: The action arose out of a union organization drive. The union filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB and filed objections to conduct that affected the results of the election. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the company violated § 8(a)(3) and (a)(1). The NLRB issued a broad cease-and-desist order and required the com- pany to reinstate certain terminated employees and make them whole for any lost earnings or benefits and ordered a new election. The appellate court found that there was no dispute that the company was aware of the union activities of the employees when it took adverse actions against them. Substantial evidence showed that the adverse disciplinary actions and terminations were violations of § 8(a)(3) and (a)(1). Numerous facts corroborated a finding of discriminatory motive on the part of the company. The union's motion to intervene satisfied the substantive requirements of 29 U.S.C.S. § 160(f) and Fed. R. App. P. 15(a) and because the NLRB and the company were given the opportunity to re- spond they were not prejudiced. The NLRB correctly determined that the company offered legitimate reasons for the discharge of certain employees. OUTCOME: The appellate court enforced the NLRB's order in full. Additionally, the court denied the motions to strike the union's brief. CORE TERMS: warning, supervisor, election, substantial evidence, union activity, termination, unionization, termin- ated, credibility determinations, additionally, disciplinary, plant, discriminatory, threatening, bargaining, manager, but- ton, harassment, prediction, fired, shirt, terminating, discharged, intervene, fill-in, motive, security guards, recommen- ded, personnel, pro-union LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/15/2009 for the course ILRCB 3020 at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 23


This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online