Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01536/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01536-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Five Star Manufacturing
Respondent
National Labor Relations Board
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1536

___________

National Labor Relations Board, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition from the United States

v. * National Labor Relations Board.

*

Five Star Manufacturing, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: May 15, 2008

Filed: May 20, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Adopting the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ), the National

Labor Relations Board (Board) issued an order concluding Five Star Manufacturing

(Five Star) violated 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (a)(3)-(5) by discharging an employee

for engaging in union activities; materially changing conditions of employment in

areas that were mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, without giving the union

notice or an opportunity to negotiate, and in retaliation for employees’ union

activities; reassigning the discharged employee to less desirable work upon his

reinstatement, in retaliation for his union activities; and discharging the employee a

second time for his union activities. Five Star argues the Board’s order should not be

Appellate Case: 07-1536 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2008 Entry ID: 3435739
-2-

enforced, because the ALJ was not fair and impartial, and the ALJ’s findings, as

adopted by the Board, are not supported by substantial evidence on the record. 

To begin, we find no basis for Five Star’s argument the ALJ was not fair and

impartial, which is essentially based upon Five Star’s disagreement with the ALJ’s

credibility determinations. See Hall v. NLRB, 941 F.2d 684, 689 (8th Cir. 1991)

(rejecting the employer’s argument that the ALJ was biased and impartial where the

only supporting evidence was the ALJ’s credibility determinations). We further

conclude the Board correctly applied the law, and the Board’s findings are supported

by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See NLRB v. Rockline Indus., Inc.,

412 F.3d 962, 966, 970 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating applicable standards of review). We

enforce the Board’s order in its entirety. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1536 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2008 Entry ID: 3435739