# National Labor Relations Board v. Jefferson Electric Company, a Division of Litton Systems, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · February 24, 1986 · 783 F.2d 679

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/464845

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, a DIVISION OF LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 24, 1986
- **Citations:** 783 F.2d 679; 121 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2908; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 22452
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Jones, Nelson, Peck, Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/464845

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming ALJ’s conclusion but on different grounds

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on the application of the National Labor Relations Board to enforce its order. The administrative law judge found that the Jefferson Electric Company committed a violation of section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(3) (1982), when it discharged an employee who had campaigned actively for a union. The Board upheld the decision of the ALJ on the ground that the
*680
General Counsel established a prima facie showing that the employee’s union activity was a motivating factor in the discharge and the company had not carried its burden of demonstrating that the employee would have been discharged absent her union activity.
See NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp.,
462 U.S. 393, 398-401 , 103 S.Ct. 2469, 2472, 2474 , 76 L.Ed.2d 667 (1983).
On consideration of the record, briefs and arguments, we find that the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.
See
29 U.S.C. § 160 (e);
NLRB v. United Insurance Co.,
390 U.S. 254, 260 , 88 S.Ct. 988, 991 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1083 (1968). We therefore GRANT enforcement of the Board’s order.
DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I concur in the opinion and judgment of the court, but write separately to express the view that the evidence on which the agency found a violation of the statute passes the “substantiality” test by only the narrowest of margins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/464845. Public record. Not legal advice.