National Labor Relations Board v. Sound One Corporation, 104 F.3d 356, 2d Cir. (1996)
National Labor Relations Board v. Sound One Corporation, 104 F.3d 356, 2d Cir. (1996)
National Labor Relations Board v. Sound One Corporation, 104 F.3d 356, 2d Cir. (1996)
3d 356
NLRB
ORDER ENFORCED.
APPEARING FOR PETITIONER: APPEARING FOR RESPONDENT:
PETER WINKLER, JOAN E. HOYTE, National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, D.C. PERRY HEIDECKER, Milman & Heidecker, Lake
Success, New York.
PRESENT: VAN GRAAFEILAND, JACOBS, and CALABRESI, Circuit
Judges.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the National
Labor Relations Board and was argued by counsel.
This case is before the Court on the application of the NLRB for enforcement
of its order of June 14, 1995, affirming and adopting the recommended order of
the Administrative Law Judge. The parties dispute whether substantial evidence
supports the ALJ's conclusion that Sound One Corporation violated Sections
8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act ("the Act") by
discharging two employees, James Marchione and Andrew Tejral, because of
their union activities.
4
Believing that Local 52 would give them a better agreement, some of the
MROs began to resist the 306 sign up drive, encouraging others to do the same.
Marchione and Tejral were both among this group. On November 25, 1991, a
number of MROs, including Marchione and Tejral, met with counsel for Local
52. That same day, Local 52 filed an unfair labor practice charge against the
company. The charge alleged that Koch had conducted coercive one-on-one
solicitations on behalf of Local 306. At the same time, Marchione, Tejral, and
others applied for membership in Local 52.
In a letter dated December 19, 1991, Marchione was terminated from his job at
Sound One. The letter stated that he was being let go because his "job
performance and attitude ha[d] been steadily deteriorating over the past several
months." On January 22, 1992, Koch called Tejral into his office and told him
that he was going to be laid off because "business was declining," and that there
was nothing wrong with his work. Tejral was offered reinstatement on February
1, 1993, which he declined.
A consolidated and amended complaint was filed in April 1993, alleging that
Sound One had violated the provisions of the NLRA by, inter alia, (1)
recognizing Local 306 at a time when it did not represent the majority of
employees, (2) refusing to negotiate with Local 52, (3) threatening employees
with discharge if they did not support Local 306, and (4) discharging
Marchione and Tejral on account of their union activities.
9
After 16 days of hearings, the ALJ issued findings of fact and conclusions of
law on February 7, 1995. The ALJ found that (1) the company supported and
recognized Local 306 when it did not represent a majority of employees, (2) the
company had threatened employees with discharge if they did not support Local
306, (3) the discharge of Marchione and Tejral was on account of their union
activities, but that (4) the company was not guilty of refusing to negotiate with
Local 52.
10
On June 14, 1995, a three member panel of the NLRB affirmed the ALJ's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and adopted the recommended Order with
slight (and for our purposes insignificant) modifications. The Board's order
requires, in part, that Sound One offer Marchione immediate reinstatement to
his former position and make Marchione and Tejral whole for any lost
earnings. The NLRB has now applied to this Court for enforcement of that
order. In response, Sound One only contests the Board's finding that the
discharge of Marchione and the layoff of Terjal violated sections 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the NLRA.
11
We "must enforce the Board's order if the Board's legal conclusions have a
reasonable basis in law, and if its factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence on the record as a whole." NLRB v. Windsor Castle Health Care
Facilities, 13 F.3d 619, 623 (2d Cir.1994). "Substantial evidence means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion." Holo-Krome, Co. v. NLRB, 947 F.2d 588, 592 (2d Cir.1991)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "We will not reject factual
findings unless no rational trier of fact could have arrived at the Board's
conclusion." Id. A reviewing court may not "displace the Board's choice
between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably
have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo." Universal
Camera Corp., 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1994).
12
Sound One does not contest the Board's findings that it violated 8(a)(1) of the
Act by threatening to discharge employees for not supporting Local 306, and
that it violated 8(a)(1) and (2) by assisting, supporting, and entering into a CBA
with Local 306. Nor does Sound One challenge the appropriateness of the
remedies for these violations that the Board ordered. Therefore the Board is
entitled to summary affirmance of these findings and conclusions. Torrington
Sound One argues that the determinations of the NLRB and the ALJ that
Marchione and Tejral were fired because of their union activities are not
supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. An employer violates Sections
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging, disciplining or otherwise
discriminating against an employee for engaging in union activity. NLRB v.
Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 397 (1983); Torrington, 17
F.3d at 591. In unlawful discharge and discrimination cases, the determinative
issue is the employer's motivation. Abbey's Transp. Servs., Inc. v. NLRB, 837
F.2d 575, 579 (2d Cir.1988). The General Counsel must first persuade the
Board that anti-union animus contributed to the employer's decision. If a prima
facie case is established, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that the same employment action would have
been taken in the absence of the protected conduct. Transportation Management
Corp., 462 U.S. at 395.
14
15
layoff. Moreover, Local 52 had sent a letter to a vice president of the company
on December 30, listing five persons who had become Local 52 members, one
of which was Tejral. The ALJ also credited Tejral's testimony that in
December, the chief engineer at Sound One had expressed concern that Tejral
had not signed with Local 306 and said to him that he would hate to see
something happen to Tejral because he didn't sign the application for 306.
16
Sound One argues that Tejral would have been laid off in any event because of
a slowdown in business. The ALJ found, however, that Sound One had offered
conflicting reasons for why Tejral was selected for layoff. One witness testified
that Tejral was a good and efficient worker, but that he was laid off because he
wanted to work in another area; another witness stated that Tejral had an
attitude problem and did not want to be there; while a third individual testified
that Tejral's work was not exceptional, and that his desire to work elsewhere
was not a factor in the layoff decision.
17
18