# National Labor Relations Board v. Health Care Logistics, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · February 27, 1986 · 784 F.2d 232

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474544

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. HEALTH CARE LOGISTICS, INC., Respondent, Cross-Petitioner
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 27, 1986
- **Citations:** 784 F.2d 232; 121 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2872; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 22567
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Merritt
- **Judges:** Merritt, Wellford, Celebrezze
- **Cited by:** 15 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/9474544

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming the National Labor Relations Board's decision rejecting supervisory status, in part, on the basis that the company's assessment of supervisory status would result in a ratio of one supervisor to two or three employees, which was "'clearly out of balance'"

## Opinion text

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part.
I would enforce the Board’s order as to Fox as well as Jacobs and Cox. The record supports the Board’s view that the same anti-union animus that led to the firing of the other two also led the company to fire Fox. Fox had received a raise for his work shortly before being fired. The decision to fire him and the others was made suddenly in mid-week. The faulty welding work on which the company expressly relied occurred the day after the decision to fire him was made. There was evidence of a substantial nature from which the Board could find that all three firings were prompted by anti-union views and that the reasons asserted were pretextual.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474544. Public record. Not legal advice.