# National Labor Relations Board v. Cwi of Maryland, Incorporated

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 2, 1997 · 127 F.3d 319

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490692

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CWI OF MARYLAND, INCORPORATED, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 2, 1997
- **Citations:** 127 F.3d 319; 156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2545; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 27097
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Niemeyer
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Michael, Motz
- **Cited by:** 43 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/9490692

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490692. Public record. Not legal advice.