St. Paul Park Ref. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

929 F.3d 610 (2019) United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2019-07-08

petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of NLRB order finding employer unlawfully suspended employee for engaging in protected concerted activity; petition denied and order enforced (result: claimant-won)

Facts

  1. 2 Section 7 protected rights satisfied proved
    Never having restarted the Penex before, Rennert asked Topor about the safety of the procedure.
  2. 2 Section 7 protected rights satisfied proved
    Rennert and Topor discussed their concerns with Eric Rowe, a unit-process engineer, and requested a written procedure.
  3. 2 Section 7 protected rights satisfied proved
    In the afternoon, Regenscheid and Jung reassigned the task to Topor, giving him the step-change form.
  4. 2 Section 7 protected rights satisfied proved
    Topor wanted to initiate a safety stop, but Regenscheid again said to use insulation.
  5. 2 Section 7 protected rights satisfied proved
    Action done individually may be concerted "if it represents either a continuation of earlier concerted activities or a logical outgrowth of concerted activities."
  6. 2 Section 7 protected rights satisfied proved
    we agree that Topor's afternoon behavior was a "logical outgrowth" of his conversation with Rennert and find substantial evidence in the record that Topor was engaged in protected activity.
  7. 6 Union-related discriminatory motivation satisfied proved
    Regenscheid wrote that Topor had refused to do assigned work and behaved insubordinately.
  8. 6 Union-related discriminatory motivation satisfied proved
    During its investigation, SPPRC interviewed only some of the witnesses Jung had named, relying almost entirely on supervisors' accounts while declining to interview fellow unit employees like Rennert.
  9. 6 Union-related discriminatory motivation satisfied proved
    Eventually, SPPRC issued Topor a 10-day unpaid suspension and a final written warning, citing inappropriate behavior and insubordination.
  10. 6 Union-related discriminatory motivation satisfied proved
    "Motivation is a question of fact that may be inferred from both direct and circumstantial evidence."
  11. 6 Union-related discriminatory motivation satisfied proved
    As to the alleged belligerent behavior, Jung did not include the fingerpointing allegation in her original account of the incident.
  12. 6 Union-related discriminatory motivation satisfied proved
    Together, these facts provide substantial evidence that SPPRC had a discriminatory motive.
  13. 7 Same action absent unlawful motive not proved
    Topor and Regenscheid began speaking in loud voices.
  14. 7 Same action absent unlawful motive not proved
    Three days later, Jung modified her statement, adding that Topor was loud and had pointed his finger at Regenscheid.
  15. 7 Same action absent unlawful motive not proved
    At times, the reason for Topor's discipline was described as his refusal to work, then his refusal to discuss mitigation, and finally his belligerent behavior.
  16. 7 Same action absent unlawful motive not proved
    "[I]t is not enough that an employer put forth a nondiscriminatory justification for discipline. It must be the justification."
  17. 7 Same action absent unlawful motive not proved
    The ALJ did not credit SPPRC's allegation that Topor misbehaved and therefore did not credit its defense that it acted based on that belief.
  18. 7 Same action absent unlawful motive not proved
    Considering SPPRC's evolving stories and inadequate investigation, this case does not involve "extraordinary circumstances" justifying the reversal of the ALJ's credibility findings.