# Jim Causley Pontiac v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · December 9, 1983 · 722 F.2d 322

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471488

## Case

- **Full name:** JIM CAUSLEY PONTIAC, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 9, 1983
- **Citations:** 722 F.2d 322; 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2354; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14643
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kennedy
- **Judges:** Kennedy, Contie, Weick
- **Cited by:** 0 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/9471488

## Opinion text

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I would decline to enforce the Board’s order. When this case was last here we declined enforcement because the Board held it was sufficient if petitioner should have known that Wittbrodt was acting on behalf of other employees when he filed his complaint with MiOSHA. We remanded for a finding of whether Mr. Causley in fact knew that Wittbrodt acted on behalf of others. Instead of any finding regarding that fact, we have only the Board’s conclusion that it is “reasonable to infer” that Mr. Causley knew Wittbrodt was acting on be *324 half of other employees in addition to himself. Had there been no evidence from which to draw such an inference the action would not have previously been remanded but rather enforcement would have been denied.
If we did not have the Board’s prior stance on presuming knowledge followed by its attempt to apply a “should have known” standard, I would not attach as much significance to the Board’s choice of words and perhaps would be willing to agree with the majority that the Board has actually found Mr. Causley’s knowledge. However, in view of the history of this case, it appears to me that the Board is continuing to require something less than a factual finding by a preponderance of the evidence of knowledge of concerted activity.
Accordingly, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471488. Public record. Not legal advice.