# Adtranz ABB Daimler-Benz Transportation, N.A. v. National Labor Relations

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · June 26, 2001 · 253 F.3d 19

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439260

## Case

- **Full name:** ADTRANZ ABB DAIMLER-BENZ TRANSPORTATION, N.A., INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. MacHinists Automotive Trades District Lodge No. 190 of Northern California, International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Intervenor
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** June 26, 2001
- **Citations:** 253 F.3d 19; 346 U.S. App. D.C. 315; 167 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2566; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 14243
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Silberman
- **Judges:** Henderson, Karen, LeCRAFT, Sentelle, Silberman
- **Cited by:** 54 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/9439260

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that, in considering whether employee engaged in protected activity loses protection due to opprobrious conduct, NLRB must consider the nature of the outburst as well as other relevant factors
- stating that the step two inquiry is a de minimis screening device to 27 dispose of groundless claims
- noting that NLRB may not “cavalierly” declare policies facially invalid without any supporting evidence, particularly where there are legitimate business purposes for the rule

## Opinion text

SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in the majority’s opinion with respect to “abusive and threatening language” because I agree that it is absurd for the Board to hold that an employer who bans that sort of language — even though the ban has never been implemented in an antiunion fashion nor in a manner that could be thought to interfere with organizational efforts — per se violates § 8(a)(1). This charge was an obvious gimmick (fashioned well after the election contest period ended) designed to overturn the election.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439260. Public record. Not legal advice.