Source: cases/29usc158/f3d-929-0393-erickson.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_929/0393_01/index.html
Substantial evidence supports its conclusion.
We disagree. The conclusion was a reasonable one on this record.
casedsl 1 case /f3d/929/0393-01 name Erickson Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. cite 929 F.3d 393 (2019) # IR court label says Six Circuit; normalized below. court United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit date 2019-07-10 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_929/0393_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl sha1=e959cb536c5d6413ee59647588a5ed20128cd71c chars=15740 law 29usc158 (a) role applied posture Review of enforced Board finding that crane operators were discharged to retaliate against workforce union pressure. result claimant-won element union-purpose : satisfied [proved] scope merits variant workforce-retaliation/layoffs-reversible-if-union-backs-off party six discharged crane operators fact @3796..3920 [supports] | From May to July of 2016, Erickson fired six members of the Local as they completed projects-30% of the company's operators. fact @4319..4411 [supports] | The layoffs "could be reversed," he added, if the workers would "get the Union to back off." held @6257..6302 | Substantial evidence supports its conclusion. gloss The court permits proof of retaliation against the workforce rather than requiring individual union activity by every fired worker. defense same-decision : not-satisfied [proved] scope merits variant business-rationale/past-crane-sales-without-discharges fact @12678..12729 [cuts-against] | Yet until then he had never fired a crane operator. fact @11782..11895 [cuts-against] | Making matters harder to justify, Erickson said that he would reverse his decision if the Local changed its ways. held @10823..10887 | We disagree. The conclusion was a reasonable one on this record. gloss The court sustains the Board’s rejection of the claimed business-only reason, using comparative history and contemporaneous statements. misfit The primary motive is retaliation against union pressure on the workforce as a whole, not necessarily knowledge of each employee’s personal organizing activity. The final defense quote is read with the preceding complete proposition. misfit Result is from the perspective of the General Counsel or charging party asserting the employer unfair labor practice, not from the employer-petitioner’s appellate position.