United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019-07-10
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)
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/929/0393-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 | 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. |
| /f3d/929/0393-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 | 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.
/f3d/929/0393-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
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.