Concepts & Designs, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., s. 95-3501
| Decision Date | 03 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | 95-3831,Nos. 95-3501,s. 95-3501 |
| Citation | 101 F.3d 1243 |
| Parties | 153 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2958, 133 Lab.Cas. P 11,749 CONCEPTS & DESIGNS, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. CONCEPTS & DESIGNS, INC., Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Daniel R. Hols, Minneapolis, MN, argued, for appellant.
Joseph A. Oertel, Washington, DC (Charles P. Donnelly, Frederick L. Feinstein, Linda Sher, and Aileen A. Armstrong, on the brief), argued, for appellee.
Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Concepts & Designs, Inc. seeks review and the National Labor Relations Board (Board) seeks enforcement of the Board's decision and order holding that Concepts & Designs violated sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) in its discharge of two employees for engaging in union activities and violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act by implicitly threatening to discharge one of the employees for participating in union activities. The Board ordered Concepts & Designs to offer the discharged employees immediate and full reinstatement without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, to expunge from their records any references to the unlawful discharges, to make the discharged employees whole for any loss of pay and benefits suffered because of the unlawful discharge, and to post appropriate notices. We enforce the order of the Board.
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate "in regard to ... tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to ... discourage membership in any labor organization...." Concepts & Designs concedes that it discharged the two employees. It argues, however, that the Board's decision must be reversed because the Board applied an improper standard in determining that the discharges were discriminatory. Concepts & Designs further argues that, reviewed under the appropriate standard, the discharges were not in violation of the Act. The company asserts that the employees were discharged for walking off their job midday and not for any union activity.
This case turns on the question of what motivated Concepts & Designs' decision to discharge its employees. Motivation is a question of fact that may be inferred from both direct and circumstantial evidence. NLRB v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U.S. 584, 602, 61 S.Ct. 358, 367, 85 L.Ed. 368 (1941); NLRB v. Chem Fab Corp., 691 F.2d 1252, 1259 (8th Cir.1982). Once the general counsel has established that the employees' union activity was a motivating factor in the discharge, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that he would have taken the same action even in the absence of protected activities. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1088 n. 11, 1089 (1980), enforced on other grounds, 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.1981). Both the Supreme Court and this court have approved the Wright Line standard. See NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 103 S.Ct. 2469, 76 L.Ed.2d 667 (1983); United Exposition Serv. Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 945 F.2d 1057, 1059-60 (8th Cir.1991).
Concepts & Designs argues, with some justification, that the administrative law judge (ALJ) in this mixed-motive case did not apply the appropriate standard. The ALJ stated:
Mere existence of valid grounds for a discharge is no defense to a charge that the discharge was unlawful unless the discharge was predicated solely on those grounds and not by a desire to discourage union activity.
(Add. at 4 (emphasis added).) As Concepts & Designs pointed out at oral argument, this court stated our disagreement with a nearly identical statement of the mixed-motive standard by the Seventh Circuit. Mead & Mount Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 411 F.2d 1154 (8th Cir.1969). In Mead & Mount Constr., we foreshadowed the Board's Wright Line decision and outlined the following:
(1) The General Counsel has the burden of proving by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Relco Locomotives, Inc.
...labor activity, the question is whether the employee's termination was motivated by the protected activity. Concepts & Designs v. NLRB, 101 F.3d 1243, 1245 (8th Cir.1996). Motivation “is a question of fact that may be inferred from both direct and circumstantial evidence.” Id. The so called......
-
Nichols Aluminum, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
...views of the evidence. It cannot rely on suspicion, surmise, implications, or plainly incredible evidence.’ ” Concepts & Designs, Inc. v. NLRB, 101 F.3d 1243, 1245 (8th Cir.1996) (quoting Mead & Mount Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 411 F.2d 1154, 1157 (8th Cir.1969) ). “We examine the Board's finding......
-
Pace Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...to draw reasonable inferences, and to choose between fairly conflicting views of the evidence.' " Concepts and Designs, Inc. v. NLRB, 101 F.3d 1243, 1245 (8th Cir.1996) (citations We afford "great deference to the Board's affirmation of the ALJ's findings." Town and Country Elec., Inc. v. N......
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Chipotle Servs., LLC
...takes from our recent opinion in Nichols Aluminum, LLC v. NLRB , 797 F.3d 548, 554 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Concepts & Designs, Inc. v. NLRB , 101 F.3d 1243, 1245 (8th Cir. 1996) ). But Chipotle did not raise this point before the Board, or otherwise contest the administrative law judge's a......