United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019-07-10
29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: Review of enforced Board finding that crane operators were discharged to retaliate against workforce union pressure.; result: claimant-won; claim: (a)
Uncertainty
None recorded
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.
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erickson Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 929 F.3d 393 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erickson Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 929 F.3d 393 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erickson Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 929 F.3d 393 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erickson Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 929 F.3d 393 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · proved (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Same action absent unlawful motive | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a) The court sustains the Board’s rejection of the claimed business-only reason, using comparative history and contemporaneous statements. | business-rationale/past-crane-sales-without-discharges | Yet until then he had never fired a crane operator.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [12678:12729] (end exclusive); SHA-256 859f942fccda81455b75cdf787d5a7c40e108f8f20c84015167835c1180ed92b.Making matters harder to justify, Erickson said that he would reverse his decision if the Local changed its ways.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [11782:11895] (end exclusive); SHA-256 859f942fccda81455b75cdf787d5a7c40e108f8f20c84015167835c1180ed92b.We disagree. The conclusion was a reasonable one on this record.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [10823:10887] (end exclusive); SHA-256 859f942fccda81455b75cdf787d5a7c40e108f8f20c84015167835c1180ed92b. |
| Erickson Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 929 F.3d 393 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Union-related discriminatory motivation | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a); party: six discharged crane operators; subject: party=six discharged crane operators The court permits proof of retaliation against the workforce rather than requiring individual union activity by every fired worker. | workforce-retaliation/layoffs-reversible-if-union-backs-off | From May to July of 2016, Erickson fired six members of the Local as they completed projects-30% of the company's operators.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [3796:3920] (end exclusive); SHA-256 859f942fccda81455b75cdf787d5a7c40e108f8f20c84015167835c1180ed92b.The layoffs "could be reversed," he added, if the workers would "get the Union to back off."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [4319:4411] (end exclusive); SHA-256 859f942fccda81455b75cdf787d5a7c40e108f8f20c84015167835c1180ed92b.Substantial evidence supports its conclusion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [6257:6302] (end exclusive); SHA-256 859f942fccda81455b75cdf787d5a7c40e108f8f20c84015167835c1180ed92b. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
In the alternative, it may show that the employer fired employees to retaliate against the workforce as a whole or to discourage union activity.
Erickson Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 929 F.3d 393 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)
In the alternative, it may show that the employer fired employees to retaliate against the workforce as a whole or to discourage union activity.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0393-01; Unicode character offsets [5849:5993] (end exclusive); SHA-256 859f942fccda81455b75cdf787d5a7c40e108f8f20c84015167835c1180ed92b.The General Counsel bears the initial persuasion burden. Employer knowledge, timing and animus can be evidence; these are not universal extra statutory elements. Group retaliation can reach workers without individual protected activity.