Local 702, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 934 F.3d 590 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019-08-09

29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed

Original case on neochart.com

Case and law context

29 U.S.C. § 158(a)

Role: applied; posture: Review of Board supplemental decision after D.C. Circuit remand; Board dismissed the discriminatory-discharge complaint for strike misconduct.; result: claimant-lost; claim: (a)

Uncertainty

None recorded

Misfit

The final Board order reverses an earlier favorable administrative decision after another circuit’s remand. Earlier protected-conduct findings must not be counted as the final court’s holding.

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

29 U.S.C. § 158(a)
CaseCovered employerCovered employee and applicable retained statusSection 7 protected rightsInterference, restraint or coercionNoncoercive expression under §8(c)Narrow insignia-restriction justification
Local 702, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 934 F.3d 590 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)· not addressed· not addressed
○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/procedural
· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed

Elements 7–12 of 17

29 U.S.C. § 158(a)
CaseDomination, interference or support of a labor organizationWorking-hours conference provisoConditional building-and-construction agreement allowanceEmployment discriminationUnion-related discriminatory motivationSame action absent unlawful motive
Local 702, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 934 F.3d 590 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed

Elements 13–17 of 17

29 U.S.C. § 158(a)
CaseConditional union-security provisoFiled charges or given testimonyDischarge or other discrimination for Board participationEmployees collective-bargaining representativeAlternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties
Local 702, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 934 F.3d 590 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed

Instances and excluded annotation blocks

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopePatternExact source quotations
Local 702, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 934 F.3d 590 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — not reached (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)Section 7 protected rightsnot_reached
Excluded from merits counts
applied / procedural

claim: (a); theory: unpreserved per-se-highway-rule objection; subject: theory=unpreserved per-se-highway-rule objection

The unpreserved per-se-rule argument is a separate procedural ruling, not another merits finding that strike activity lacks protection.
Unspecified route
While we do not agree with this characterization of the Board's decision, the Union failed to raise it before the Board; therefore, we are jurisdictionally precluded from considering it.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [5211:5397] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d0f678c3f36c6a31a3da2556b4592bad5c1d23c16a258dab96fd840b9a5ea66.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Local 702, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 934 F.3d 590 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — not · law (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)Section 7 protected rightsnot
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: law; claim: (a); party: Hudson; subject: party=Hudson

The court accepts the loss-of-protection determination on these facts. Participation in a strike does not make every associated act protected; no universal highway-conduct rule is inferred.
strike-conduct/dangerous-highway-obstruction
Hudson, who had worked for Consolidated for 39 years, was a Union member and participated in the strike.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [733:837] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d0f678c3f36c6a31a3da2556b4592bad5c1d23c16a258dab96fd840b9a5ea66.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Before it could pass Hudson, she changed lanes and intentionally blocked the Consolidated truck from passing.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [1884:1993] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d0f678c3f36c6a31a3da2556b4592bad5c1d23c16a258dab96fd840b9a5ea66.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

The entire incident took place at highway speeds.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [2170:2219] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d0f678c3f36c6a31a3da2556b4592bad5c1d23c16a258dab96fd840b9a5ea66.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Here, the conduct may be less severe, but it is still sufficient to forfeit the Act's protection.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [7766:7863] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d0f678c3f36c6a31a3da2556b4592bad5c1d23c16a258dab96fd840b9a5ea66.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Because the Board based their decision on substantial evidence and a reasonable application of the law, we AFFIRM.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [9070:9184] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9d0f678c3f36c6a31a3da2556b4592bad5c1d23c16a258dab96fd840b9a5ea66.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations recorded from this case