2 of 22 DOCUMENTS
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v.
COMPANY, Respondent/ Cross-Petitioner.
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
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION.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.
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)
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.
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.
The appellate court enforced the NLRB's order in full. Additionally, the court denied the motions to
strike the union's brief.
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