Opinion

National Labor Relations Board v. Cwi of Maryland, Incorporated

  • 127 F.3d 319
  • 156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2545
  • 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 27097
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Oct 2, 1997
Status
Published
Author
Niemeyer
On the bench
Niemeyer, Michael, Motz
Cited by
43 cases

explaining that substantial evidence does not exist where the Board provides inade- quate reason for its finding

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that substantial evidence does not exist where the Board provides inade- quate reason for its finding
  • noting that “[e]ven if the August 22 charge can be considered a 'new' charge” it falls within the closely related test
  • enforcing bargaining order where employer constructively discharged all bargaining unit *335 employees
  • enforcing bargaining order where employer constructively discharged all bargaining unit employees

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in Parts I., II.A., and H.B.2., but I find that I cannot concur in Parts II.B.l., II.C., and III., and with respect to those, I respectfully dissent. I believe that the record supports the manifestation of company intentions to create a Virginia drop site long before any union activity or organizational efforts began. The proposal to create the Virginia site was in response to an American Trucking Association report and not in response to any union activity. Indeed, the company met with its employees in August 1994 to discuss steps to remedy problems found by the American Trucking Association report, and this meeting included discussion of the creation of a Virginia drop site. Mr. Lester Baddy, one of the drivers, testified that at this,meeting the company stated that it “would have to cut down to one load or also get a closer place,” a drop site. The company discussed hiring additional drivers to report to the drop site or allowing existing drivers to commute to the drop site. The first meeting of employees with a union representative did not occur until September 26, 1994. It is not surprising, therefore, that the move to Virginia was never articulated as the basis of a complaint of an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that a business decision, which was not motivated by anti-union animus, can be reviewed or undone by an order of the National Labor Relations Board in an effort to remedy later unfair labor practices.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.