upholding a broad cease and desist order where the Board found the employer to have violated NLRA § 8(a)(1) by “threatening, coercing and restraining its employees in the exercise of their [§ 7] rights,” “threatening to [shut down] the company” and discharging an employee involved with the union
How later courts described this case
- upholding a broad cease and desist order where the Board found the employer to have violated NLRA § 8(a)(1) by “threatening, coercing and restraining its employees in the exercise of their [§ 7] rights,” “threatening to [shut down] the company” and discharging an employee involved with the union
- suspicious timing and false explanation of termination supports finding of discriminatory discharge
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully concur in the majority opinion with the following exception. The record fails to support the proposition that Coil possesses a “proclivity to violate the Act, or has engaged in such egregious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general disregard for the employees’ fundamental statutory rights.” Hickmott Foods, Inc., supra. The continuous and interrelat *1078 ed events of June 20 to 22, 1978 are simply the first and last isolated violations of the Act which, as the Supreme Court has admonished, do
not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute and thus subject the defendant to contempt proceedings if he shall at any time in the future commit some new violation unlike and unrelated to that which he was originally charged.
NLRB v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S. 426, 435-36 , 61 S.Ct. 693, 699 , 85 L.Ed. 930 (1941). Therefore the Order requiring Coil to cease and desist from “in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees” should not be enforced and I would remand to modify the enforcement order by deleting the broad controversial phrase to which exception has been taken.