United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019-02-21
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 committed § 8(a)(4) and § 8(a)(1) retaliatory discipline; enforcement granted and petition denied; result: claimant-won; claim:
Uncertainty
Element same-decision: other: same-decision is declared in the .law file under the § 8(a)(3) claim formula; the court applies the same Wright Line defence to § 8(a)(4) ("The Wright Line test applies in cases alleging a violation of § 8(a)(4)").
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airgas USA, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 916 F.3d 555 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airgas USA, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 916 F.3d 555 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airgas USA, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 916 F.3d 555 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airgas USA, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 916 F.3d 555 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Filed charges or given testimony | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; party: Airgas USA, LLC; count: § 8(a)(4) retaliation for filing unfair labor practice charges; subject: party=Airgas USA, LLC; count=§ 8(a)(4) retaliation for filing unfair labor practice charges Charge-filing (and the employer's knowledge of it) was undisputed on review; the court does not weigh it. | truck driver with two pending NLRB charges against the employer, known to the disciplining manager | Rottinghouse filed two charges in the months leading up to the August written warning, and Froslear provided an affidavit regarding the first charge in July.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [10222:10379] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.Rottinghouse, alleging the suspension was further retaliation, filed a charge on July 7.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [1832:1920] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.Airgas does not dispute the Board's conclusion that the first two factors are satisfied.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [10133:10221] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74. |
| Airgas USA, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 916 F.3d 555 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Discharge or other discrimination for Board participation | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: Airgas USA, LLC; count: § 8(a)(4) written warning; subject: party=Airgas USA, LLC; count=§ 8(a)(4) written warning The contested question was the "because" clause: whether the written (rather than verbal) warning was motivated by the charge-filing. The court upholds the Board's animus inference under Wright Line's first stage. | written warning instead of the customary verbal warning for a load-securement lapse, one month after a charge; animus inferred from manager's discredited safety rationale, timing and disparate treatment | The language of § 8(a)(4) encompasses disproportionate or otherwise retaliatory discipline.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [8450:8541] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.Rottinghouse received his written warning on August 6, just under a month after he filed a charge with the Board.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [19768:19881] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.Under the facts accepted by the ALJ and the Board, Froslear had two opportunities to instruct Rottinghouse to fix the problem, but he said nothing.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [14658:14805] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.Although Froslear knew that Rottinghouse had, he twice failed to answer MacBride's question directly and then requested "the strongest language about load securement that drivers are trained to."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [17934:18129] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.The General Counsel's second example involves Edger Reed, who received verbal counseling for talking on the phone while driving.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [23231:23359] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.The cylinders in Rottinghouse's truck, though secured with two straps, were not nested properly and leaned slightly against the truck railing.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [2764:2906] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.In other words, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that Airgas "acted as it did on the basis of anti-union animus."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [25342:25473] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74. |
| Airgas USA, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 916 F.3d 555 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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: Airgas USA, LLC; count: § 8(a)(4) written warning; subject: party=Airgas USA, LLC; count=§ 8(a)(4) written warning Added on triage. Wright Line's second stage as applied to a § 8(a)(4) charge: the employer's burden failed because its reasons were found pretextual, a finding the court upholds. | employer's safety and prior-violation justifications for written discipline found pretextual; prior violation first invoked seven weeks later | If the employer's proffered justification is determined to be pretextual, the Board need not consider it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [25740:25845] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.Then, in late June, Airgas suspended Rottinghouse for three days for completing DOT paperwork after clocking out.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [1625:1738] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.The first time Froslear mentioned the prior violation was the September 23 grievance meeting.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [26732:26825] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.Froslear instead read Article 22 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement-in essence, responding that because Article 22 does not mention verbal warnings, a written warning was appropriate for any infraction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [27488:27694] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74.The Board's finding of pretext was therefore supported by substantial evidence, and it was not obligated to consider the justification any further.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0555-01; Unicode character offsets [28491:28638] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a292fcc7b8584d5055a83c8af1797ed65202eb7b05a3173322cd95d6c9e16a74. |