Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01141/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01141-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amglo Kemlite Laboratories, Inc.
Respondent
National Labor Relations Board
Petitioner

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

Nos. 15-3695 & 15-1141

AMGLO KEMLITE LABORATORIES, INC.,

Petitioner/Cross-Respondent,

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent/Cross-Petitioner.

____________________

Petition for Review and Cross-Application

for Enforcement of a Decision and Order 

of the National Labor Relations Board.

No. 13-CA-065271

____________________

ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 2016 — DECIDED AUGUST 17, 2016

____________________

Before BAUER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and 

ADELMAN, District Judge.*

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. Amglo Kemlite Laboratories 

makes specialty lights, such as those on airplane wings. Its 

 * Of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.

Case: 15-1141 Document: 58 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 8
2 Nos. 15-3695, 15-1141

employees in Illinois went on strike to protest low wages. 

The National Labor Relations Board found that Amglo unlawfully retaliated by transferring some work from Illinois to 

a separate Amglo facility in Mexico. The Board issued a remedial order. In this case, the Board asks us to enforce its 

order and Amglo asks us to set it aside. Because the order 

has a reasonable basis in law and is supported by substantial 

evidence, we enforce it.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Strike and Response

On September 19, 2011, Amglo’s President, Izabella 

Christian, visited Amglo’s Illinois facility. Before her visit, 

several employees had complained to her—and to the Illinois plant manager, Anna Czajkowska—about low wages. 

During the visit, a supervisor reminded Christian about the 

employees’ complaints, but she responded that Amglo 

would not raise wages.

The next morning, nearly all of the plant’s 94 employees 

went on strike. Christian and Czajkowska arrived shortly 

after the strike began, told employees that Amglo would not 

raise wages, and directed employees to return to work or go 

home. The employees asked to speak to Amglo’s owner, Jim 

Hyland, but Christian responded that Hyland was not as 

“pro-Polish” as he used to be. (Nearly all of the employees 

were of Polish descent.) Czajkowska said: “I’ll tell you what 

he’s going to say. He will tell us to get rid of half of you. And 

you’re not going to do anything. You’re not going to scare 

him. You’re not going to threaten him. You’re going to lose.”

Czajkowska held resignation forms in her hand and told 

employees that if they did not like their wages, they could 

Case: 15-1141 Document: 58 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 8
Nos. 15-3695, 15-1141 3

quit. Christian discussed globalization and explained that 

companies can move production to China and Mexico (two 

places where Amglo had plants). The employees made a 

written demand for guaranteed annual raises and for backpay since their last raise. They got no response. 

Employees arrived at the plant at 5:00 a.m. the next 

morning and continued striking. Two hours later, Christian

and Czajkowska arrived and ordered employees to return to 

work or get off the company’s property. Choosing the second 

option, employees reassembled on public property and continued their strike—but not for long. Over the next week, 

several employees returned to work, with no raise.

On September 27, all of the employees who remained on 

strike—more than 50 people—signed an unconditional offer 

to return to work without a raise. Christian said that she 

could not give them a timeline for recalls, nor could she say 

how many of them would be recalled, because Amglo was 

transferring some work from Illinois to Mexico “because of 

the situation.” By September 30, Amglo had recalled all but 

22 employees. A month later, Amglo sent those 22 people a 

letter stating that, in part because of the transfer of work to 

Mexico, there were no jobs available. The letter informed the 

employees that, if a job opened up, they would be recalled 

before any new employee was hired. As of February 2012, 

none of the 22 had been recalled.

B. Administrative Proceedings

The National Labor Relations Board includes a General 

Counsel, who is responsible for investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practices. It also includes a “Board,” which 

is a quasi-judicial body that decides such cases. The General 

Case: 15-1141 Document: 58 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 8
4 Nos. 15-3695, 15-1141

Counsel is independent of the Board. See generally 

https://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-are. Here, after an investigation, the General Counsel charged Amglo with unfair labor 

practices.

An Administrative Law Judge held a hearing and issued 

findings and conclusions, which were appealed to the Board. 

The Board concluded that Amglo engaged in unfair labor 

practices by: (1) threatening to fire employees for striking,

and (2) transferring work from Illinois to Mexico in retaliation for the strike. The Board ordered Amglo to avoid taking 

such actions in the future, to return the transferred work to 

Illinois, to offer full reinstatement to any employee who lost 

his or her job as a result of the transfer, and to make employees whole for earnings and benefits lost as a result of the 

transfer.

The Board asks us to enforce its order, and Amglo asks us 

to set it aside.1

II. ANALYSIS

The National Labor Relations Act gives employees “the 

right to ... engage in ... concerted activities for the purpose 

of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”

29 U.S.C. § 157. It constitutes an “unfair labor practice” for 

an employer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees 

 

1 Amglo’s challenge concerns only the transfer of work from Illinois 

to Mexico. Amglo did not challenge the finding that it threatened to fire 

workers for striking. So we summarily affirm the findings and remedial 

orders on that issue. See NLRB v. Shelby Mem’l Hosp. Ass’n, 1 F.3d 550, 567 

(7th Cir. 1993) (summarily affirming uncontested violations); NLRB v. 

P*I*E Nationwide, Inc., 923 F.2d 506, 516 (7th Cir. 1991) (defenses waived 

if not raised in opening brief).

Case: 15-1141 Document: 58 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 8
Nos. 15-3695, 15-1141 5

in the exercise of” that right. Id. § 158(a)(1). The Board is 

empowered to find the existence of an unfair labor practice, 

and to issue remedial orders. Id. §§ 160(a), (c); see also Contemporary Cars, Inc. v. NLRB, 814 F.3d 859, 868 (7th Cir. 2016).

We have jurisdiction to enforce, modify, or set aside the 

Board’s order. 29 U.S.C. §§ 160(e), (f).

Amglo does not challenge the Board’s finding that the 

strike was protected activity under the Act. So our review is 

only of the Board’s conclusion that Amglo violated the Act 

by transferring work from Illinois to Mexico for the unlawful 

purpose of retaliating against striking employees. See NLRB 

v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9, 14–17 (1962) (employer cannot “punish a man by discharging him for engaging in concerted activities which § 7 of the Act protects”); St. 

Regis Paper Co., 247 NLRB 745, 745 (1980) (transferring work 

can constitute retaliation); Westpoint Transp., Inc., 222 NLRB 

345, 352 (1976) (same). “We apply a deferential standard of 

review to the Board’s findings, looking only to see whether 

they are supported by substantial evidence. This means such 

relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support the conclusions of the Board. Our task is 

not to reweigh the evidence; it is only to determine whether 

there is evidence in the record supporting the Board’s outcome that could satisfy a reasonable fact finder.” AutoNation 

v. NLRB, 801 F.3d 767, 771 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal citations 

and quotation marks omitted). “We review the Board’s applications of the law to the facts and its interpretations of the 

Act deferentially as well, taking care to ensure that its legal 

conclusions have a reasonable basis in law.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

Case: 15-1141 Document: 58 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 8
6 Nos. 15-3695, 15-1141

Amglo acknowledges that it transferred some work from 

Illinois to Mexico. Its purpose was unlawful if animus toward the employees, because of the strike, was a “motivating 

factor” for its action. See Molon Motor & Coil Corp. v. NLRB, 

965 F.2d 523, 526 (7th Cir. 1992); Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 

1083, 1089 (1980). Finding that to be the case, the Board relied on the following:

• Christian’s discussion of globalization implicitly 

warned employees that if they continued striking, 

Amglo would transfer work to a foreign facility.

• Amglo showed hostility to the strike, including by 

threatening to fire half of the employees on the 

first day.

• Christian told striking employees that Amglo was 

moving work to Mexico “because of the situation.”

• During the General Counsel’s investigation, Czajkowska admitted that Amglo “accelerated” existing plans to transfer work “because of the strike.”

• The timing of the transfer, so soon after the strike

began, was suspicious.

Also, in a separate section of its opinion, the Board noted 

that Amglo had increased its workforce, from 85 to 94 employees, in the nine months prior to the strike—which undercuts Amglo’s argument that the post-strike reduction was 

for economic reasons. We are satisfied that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the strike was a motivating factor in Amglo’s transfer of some work to Mexico.

Amglo argues that the Board’s order cannot be enforced 

because the General Counsel failed to prove the extent of the 

Case: 15-1141 Document: 58 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 8
Nos. 15-3695, 15-1141 7

unlawful transfer, meaning exactly how much work was 

transferred to Mexico and how many employees were affected. But that is not required at this stage. As Amglo acknowledges in its reply brief, the Board employs a “judicially approved bifurcation procedure” in which a first proceeding 

determines whether an employer engaged in an unfair labor 

practice, and a second proceeding determines the precise 

contours of an appropriate remedy. See NLRB v. Trident Seafoods Co., 642 F.2d 1148, 1150 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Sure-Tan, 

Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 902 (1984) (approving Board’s bifurcated procedures); NLRB v. Katz’s Delicatessen of Houston 

Street, Inc., 80 F.3d 755, 771 (2d Cir. 1996) (finding employer’s 

challenge premature because compliance proceeding had 

not yet occurred).

So the initial proceeding must show the existence of a violation, while the extent may be proved at the second stage. 

But there is a nuance to that rule. It must be shown in the 

first proceeding that the violation is not de minimis. Challenge-Cook Bros. of Ohio, Inc., 295 NLRB 435, 438 (1989). In 

Challenge-Cook Brothers, the Board found that the employer’s 

transfer of work to another plant violated the Act, and the 

Board ordered backpay. Challenge-Cook Bros. of Ohio, Inc., 282 

NLRB 21, 22 (1986). The Sixth Circuit enforced that order. 

NLRB v. Challenge-Cook Bros. of Ohio, Inc., 843 F.2d 230 (6th 

Cir. 1988). In the subsequent compliance proceeding, “the 

quantity of work that was transferred and the number of 

employees affected thereby [remained to] be determined.”

Challenge-Cook Bros. of Ohio, Inc., 295 NLRB at 435. But the 

Board refused to let the employer argue that no employees 

were affected, because that would amount to relitigating the 

existence of a violation. Id. at 438.

Case: 15-1141 Document: 58 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 8
8 Nos. 15-3695, 15-1141

Amglo argued that the amount of work transferred was 

“miniscule.” To the extent this was an argument that no employees were adversely affected, the argument needed to be 

addressed in the Board’s first proceeding. And it was. In rejecting the view that minimal work was transferred, the 

Board relied on the following evidence:

• Amglo told a significant fraction of its employees—22 out of 94—that they could not return to 

work in part because of the transfer of work to 

Mexico.

• When more than 50 employees offered to return to 

work without a raise, Christian could not give 

them a timeline or say how many would be rehired, because of the transfer of work to Mexico.

Amglo points to different evidence to argue that the 

transfer was minimal. But “[t]he presence of contrary evidence does not compel us to reverse the Board’s order as 

long as there is also substantial evidence supporting it.” Contemporary Cars, 814 F.3d at 868–69. Because the Board relied 

on “such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusions of the Board,”

AutoNation, 801 F.3d at 771, our review is complete.

III. CONCLUSION

We DENY Amglo’s petition for review and ENFORCE the 

Board’s order.

Case: 15-1141 Document: 58 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 8