United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019-07-08
29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: 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; claim:
Uncertainty
Element protected-right: polarity: the reassignment fact is tagged cuts-against because it is what made the afternoon refusal an individual act; the court does not itself call it a counterweight.
Element union-purpose: other: the opinion never names the subsection; it speaks of "anti-union animus" and of discipline "to discourage his union activities", but the protected activity is a concerted safety stop (a § 8(a)(1) theory). union-purpose is the only declared element for the motive step; its statutory text ("membership in any labor organization") is a loose fit.
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 17
| Case | Covered employer | Covered employee and applicable retained status | Section 7 protected rights | Interference, restraint or coercion | Noncoercive expression under §8(c) | Narrow insignia-restriction justification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 17
| Case | Domination, interference or support of a labor organization | Working-hours conference proviso | Conditional building-and-construction agreement allowance | Employment discrimination | Union-related discriminatory motivation | Same action absent unlawful motive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–17 of 17
| Case | Conditional union-security proviso | Filed charges or given testimony | Discharge or other discrimination for Board participation | Employees collective-bargaining representative | Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Section 7 protected rights | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: St. Paul Park Refining Company; count: § 8(a)(1) suspension for safety stop; subject: party=St. Paul Park Refining Company; count=§ 8(a)(1) suspension for safety stop Eighth Circuit upholds the Board: the afternoon refusal, though made by Topor alone after the task was reassigned to him, was protected concerted activity as a logical outgrowth of the morning's joint safety discussion with Rennert. | one employee's safety-stop refusal treated as the logical outgrowth of a same-day discussion of the same hazard with a coworker | Never having restarted the Penex before, Rennert asked Topor about the safety of the procedure.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [2151:2246] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.Rennert and Topor discussed their concerns with Eric Rowe, a unit-process engineer, and requested a written procedure.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [2308:2426] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.Topor wanted to initiate a safety stop, but Regenscheid again said to use insulation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [3210:3295] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.In the afternoon, Regenscheid and Jung reassigned the task to Topor, giving him the step-change form.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [2717:2818] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.Action done individually may be concerted "if it represents either a continuation of earlier concerted activities or a logical outgrowth of concerted activities."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [9275:9437] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [10522:10711] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224. |
| 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 — not · proved (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Same action absent unlawful motive | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: St. Paul Park Refining Company; count: Wright Line affirmative defense; subject: party=St. Paul Park Refining Company; count=Wright Line affirmative defense The defence failed on the ALJ's credibility findings (a trier's finding against the employer, hence [proved], not [no-evidence]), which the court declines to disturb. | employer's misconduct justification (insubordination, belligerence) not credited by the ALJ; evolving stories and inadequate investigation | "[I]t is not enough that an employer put forth a nondiscriminatory justification for discipline. It must be the justification."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [13029:13156] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.Topor and Regenscheid began speaking in loud voices.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [3833:3885] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [12157:12316] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.Three days later, Jung modified her statement, adding that Topor was loud and had pointed his finger at Regenscheid.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [4559:4675] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [13184:13324] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.Considering SPPRC's evolving stories and inadequate investigation, this case does not involve "extraordinary circumstances" justifying the reversal of the ALJ's credibility findings.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [13325:13507] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224. |
| 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 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Union-related discriminatory motivation | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: St. Paul Park Refining Company; count: § 8(a)(1) suspension for safety stop; subject: party=St. Paul Park Refining Company; count=§ 8(a)(1) suspension for safety stop Added on triage: the motivating-factor step of Wright Line was the contested middle of the court's analysis and had no block. | suspension for a safety stop; motive inferred from discredited insubordination rationale, one-sided investigation and changing reasons | "Motivation is a question of fact that may be inferred from both direct and circumstantial evidence."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [11066:11167] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.Eventually, SPPRC issued Topor a 10-day unpaid suspension and a final written warning, citing inappropriate behavior and insubordination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [4969:5106] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [4676:4876] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.As to the alleged belligerent behavior, Jung did not include the fingerpointing allegation in her original account of the incident.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [12317:12448] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.Regenscheid wrote that Topor had refused to do assigned work and behaved insubordinately.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [4305:4394] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224.Together, these facts provide substantial evidence that SPPRC had a discriminatory motive.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0610-01; Unicode character offsets [12597:12687] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39d1fec63df83079263c35248b62c671e36c05cf4be05a0f93531bfbb5b46224. |