1 15-2845(L) Manhattan Beer Distributors LLC v. National Labor Relations Board UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LO CAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Squa re, in the City of New York, on the 16 th day of November, two thousand sixteen.
Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge , RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges

.

________________________________________________ MANHATTAN BEER DISTRIBUTORS LLC, Petitioner-Cross-Respondent , v. Nos. 15-2845, 15-3099 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner

.

________________________________________________ For Petitioner: A LLEN B. R OBERTS , Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York, NY.2 For Respondent: M ICHAEL E LLEMENT and Jill A. Griffin ( on the brief ), for Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Genera l Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, Deputy General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, and Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
On petition for review and cr oss-application for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED , and the cross-application for enforcement is GRANTED

. Petitioner Manhattan Beer Dist ributors LLC (“Manhattan Beer”) petitions for review of a final National Labor Relations Board (“Boar d”) Decision and Order issued on August 27, 2015. In this Decision and Order, the Board found that Manhattan Beer had violat ed Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), by denying former Manhattan Beer employee Joe Garcia Diaz the right to union representati on at an investigatory interview that Diaz reasonably be lieved could result in disciplin e. The Board also found that Manhattan Beer violated the NL RA by discharging Diaz for refusi ng to take a drug test without having a union representative present, and accordi ngly, ordered the remedies of reinstatement and backpay. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this

case. “We review the Board’s factual findings fo r whether they are supported by substantial evidence,” and “[w]e will enforce the Board’s order if its legal conclusions have a ‘reasonable3 basis in law.’” NLRB v. Special Touch Home Care Servs., Inc. , 708 F.3d 447, 453 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting NLRB v. Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities, Inc. , 13 F.3d 619, 623 (2d Cir. 1994)). Here, the Board reasonably construed the NLRA, in light of relevant judici al and administrative precedent, in determining that Diaz had th e right to the physical presence of a union representative before co nsenting to take a drug test in the co ntext of an investigation that he reasonably believed would result in discipline. See NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. , 420 U.S. 251, 260, 262 (1975). Therefore, we uphold the Board’s conclu sion that Manhattan Beer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. In addition, we uphold the Board’s award of the make-whole remedy of reinstatement and backpay. Such relief is available when ther e is “a sufficient nexus be tween the unfair labor practice committed (denial of representation at an investigatory interview) and the reason for the discharge.” Taracorp Indus. , 273 N.L.R.B. 221, 223 (1984); see also 29 U.S.C. § 160(c). Here, the Board reasonably determined that Manhattan B eer’s discharge of Diaz resulted from Diaz’s assertion of his Weingarten rights. See Ralphs Grocery Co. , 361 NLRB No. 9 (2014); Int’l Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union v. Quality Mfg. Co. , 420 U.S. 276, 280 (1975). In particular, Manhattan Beer’s documentation supporting Diaz’s te rmination stated that Diaz was terminated because he “[r]efused to go for drug testing under the reasonable suspicion of substance abuse.” J.A. 264. Consequently, we uphold the Board’ s conclusion that Di az was entitled to reinstatement and backpay.4 We have considered all of the parties’ remaining arguments and find in them no basis for altering our decision. Accordingly, for the forego ing reasons, Manhattan Beer’s petition for review is DENIED , and the Board’s cross-application for enforcement is GRANTED

. FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK