A sti pul ati on entered into by the par ti es defers the is sue of w hether Sol artec , I nc. , 1 and Se kel y

Indu str ies , I nc. , c onst it ute a si ng le employ er . See Sol artec , I nc. , 352 N .L.R .B. 331, 3 3 2 (2008)

. Thus, thi s i ss ue i s n ot be fore t he C our t. Sek ely

Indu str ies ce ased operati ons in ear ly

2007. Br ief of Re spond ent-Appel lan t at3. NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 09a0129n .06 Fi led : F ebr uar

y 12, 2009 No . 08- 1892 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
NAT IONAL LABO R REL AT IONS BOA RD, Pet itione r,
v. SOLAR TEC, IN C. , AN D SEKEL Y INDUSTRIE S, INC. , Respo nde nts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PET IT ION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN OR DE R OF THE NATION AL LAB OR RELAT IONS BOA RD

Before: DAUGHT REY, R OGERS, and KET HLEDGE, Circuit Jud ges.
PER C UR IA M. Th e N a t i o n a l L a b o r R e l a t i o n s B o a rd s e e k s e n fo rc e me n to f a Board order

aw ardin g bac k p ay

by respon dent Sol artec , I nc. , to Rob ert St all smi th, w ho 1 the B oard found had been di sc harg ed i n v iol ati on of Secti ons 8( a) (1 ) and 8( a) (3 ) of the Nation al Lab or Relation s Act. Due to th e length of time th at ha s elapse d since Stal ls mith ’s ter minat ion and the o ri g ina l Board hear ing , and g iv en St all smi th’ s a dv ancedNo. 08- 1892

NLRB v. Solarte c, Inc.

- 2 - ag e, w e g ra nted ex pedi ted rev iew of thi s c ase on moti on from t he Boa rd

. For the
reaso ns set ou t belo w , w e orde r enforcem entof the Bo ard’s orde r.
Rob ert St all smi th was a empl oy ed as a l arge -m a chine d epar tment lea der

at So l ar te c ’ s prod ucti on fac i l i ty i n Sa l em , Oh i o, w hi c h ma nu factu red s ta mp i ng di es used in the a uto mo bile indu stry

. He was discharged on July 10, 20 00, in retaliation for his supp ort of an org ani z ing dr iv e c onducted b y the Uni ted A utomob il e, A erospac e, an d Ag ri cul tural Impl ement W or kers of A meri ca (U AW ), Reg ion 2B. Beca use the employ er conc eded t hat S t a ll s m it h wa s f ir e d fo r hi s u n io n s ym p a t h y, t h e qu e s t io n a d d re s s e d b y t h e a d m in is t ra t ive law judge w as w het her or notStallsm ith w as a m ana gerial e mp loyee. If Stallsm ith w ere a manag er ial employ ee, as the employ er cont ends, the company w as “a t li ber ty to de mand absol ute l oy alty ” from hi m in an org ani z ing dr iv e and, thus , w as free to dis charg e hi m for his unio n sup port. See Florida Po w er & Light Co. v . IBEW , 417 U.S. 790 , 812 (1974 ). Howev er , if Stal ls mith w ere a non- manag er ial employ ee, h is di sc harg e v iol ated secti ons 8( a) (1 ) and 8( a) (3 ) of the N ati ona l L a b o r Re latio ns Act , w hic h make s i t an unfair l abor pract ic e to “i nter

fere w it h, restra in, or

co erce employ ees in the e x erci se of the r ig hts g uaranteed in secti on 157 of this ti tl e,” or to dis coura ge uni on membershi p “ by dis cr imi nati on i n reg ard to hire or tenu re of

e m p loy ment or

any ter m or co ndi ti on of
e m p lo ym e n tt o e n c o u ra ge o r d is c o u ra ge m e m b e rs h ip in a n y la b o r o rg a n iza t io n . ” 2 9 U.S .C. §§ 1 58(a )(1), ( a)(3).No. 08- 1892

NLRB v. Solarte c, Inc.

- 3 - The admin is trati v e l aw j udg e c oncl uded t hat S tal ls mith w as a non- manag er ial
e m p lo ye e a n d t h e re fo re e n t it le d t o t h e m a k e -wh o le r e m e d y o f re in s t a t e m e n ta n d b a c kp a y. T his opin ion an d orde r w as ad opt ed b y the Natio nal La bor Relatio ns Boa rd. As a
re vie win g c o u rt , we re vie w th e B o a rd ’s co n c lu s io n s o f la w de n ovo . Se e 3 7 5 0 O r a n ge Place Ltd. P’ship v . NLRB, 33 3 F.3d 6 46, 6 54 (6th Cir. 20 03). W e w ill uph old th e Boa rd’s findi ng s o f facti f suppor ted b y “s ubst anti al ev ide nce on th e record c onsi dered as a w hol e.” See 29 U.S.C. §§ 160 (e) and (f ); s e e also Conley v . NLRB, 52 0 F.3d 629 , 638 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 8 ). The “ subs tanti al ev ide nce” st andard means thatw e defer to t he Boa rd i f the evidence it relied upon is “ ade quate, in a reason able mind , to up hold the de cision.” NLRB
v . G en. Fabr ic ati ons Cor p., 222 F. 3d 218, 225 (6 th Ci r. 2000)

. Beca use deter minat ion of
w het her or notan em ployee is man agerial is an “inte nsive fa ct-base d an alyses,” see NLRB
v . C ooper

U nio n for the Adv ancementof Scien ce & Art, 783 F. 2d 29,31 (2d C ir . 198 6) , on a ma tter that is w ithin the Boa rd’s specia l expertise, we w ill not “displace t h e B oard ’s
c h o ic e b e twe e n two fa ir ly c o n f li c t in g vi e ws, e ve n t h o u gh t h e co u rtwo u ld ju s t if i a b l yh a ve made a d ifferent choi ce had t he matt er been before i t de n ovo .” U niv ersal C amera C or p.
v . NLRB, 34 0 U.S. 47 4, 48 8 (195 1).
Before the a dmini strati v e l aw j udg e, t he empl oy er

adv anced two arg uments to supp ort its conte ntion tha t Sta llsmith w as a ma nagerial em ployee: (1) Stallsm ith’s role in
order ing and tes ti ng tool s n eeded i n hi s d epar tment, and (2)hi s s uppos ed al ig nment w it h manag ement, as w ell as percept ion on the shop floor that he w as the “r ig ht ha nd man” of Machine Supe rinten den t To m Furlon g. See Solarte c, Inc., 352 N.L.R.B. 3 31, 333 (2008 ).No. 08- 1892

NLRB v. Solarte c, Inc.

- 4 - Reg ardin g the order ing and tes ti ng of t ool s, the ev ide nce present ed atth e he ar ing est abl is hed that Stal ls mith ’s duti es inc lud ed maki ng ro uti ne purchas es of to o ls, te sting tool s t hat were notpurchas ed routi nel y , and conv ey ing pri ce q uotes to manag ement w hen too l salesme n v isited t h e s h o p . Th e ad min istrativ e law judge note d tha t Stallsm ith’s dis creti on w as ci rc umsc ri bed i n the se duti es. F or i nst ance, Sta ll smi th’ s routi ne orders for tool s i n the “ bla nketorder book ” w ere rev iewed by the larg e- machi ne s uper int endent, and Stal ls mith w as not a m o ng the employ ees author iz ed to pl ace orders w it hout a w ri tten purchas e order

. See i d. at335. St all smi th al so re ferred pr ic e q uot e s fo r n e w tools to manag ement an d, w hen i nst ru cte d to do s o by manag ement, ask ed c e rt a in tool
sa le sp e o p le fo r be tt e r pr ice s. Ho wever, he de n ie d be in g “in volve d in an y pric e ha gglin g”
or i n the se lecti on of v endors o r adj ust ing of dis putes wit h ve n dors. See id. at 334. Stal ls mith tes ti fied that he had to seek approv al of a supe rv is or for h is purchas e orders a nd th a t h e w a s n o t a w a re o f t h e c o mp a n y ’ s b u d g e t a n d d i d n o t a t t e n d me e t ing s w her e the company ’s budg et or

purchas ing pol ic ies w ere formulated. Ba sed on th ese facts, the admini strati v e l aw

j udg e di sti ng uis hed St all smi th’ s d uti es fro m t h o se of a buy er i n C oncep ts and Desig ns, In c., 31 8 N.L.R.B . 948 ( 1 995 ), w here the bu y er’s discretion to make pu rc h a s e s wa s not review ed b y othe rs in the com pan y , the buyer atten ded w eekly manag ement meeting s, and the buy er w as the sol e represent ati v e of the company

to meet
w it h v endors. Ac cordin g ly , t he admi nis trati v e l aw j udg e c oncl uded t hat S tal ls mith ’s l imi ted inv olv ement i n order ing tool s d id not mak e hi m a manag er ial empl oy ee.No. 08- 1892

NLRB v. Solarte c, Inc.

- 5 - In c onsi der ing w hethe r or not Stal ls mith w as ali g ned w it h manag ement, the admini strati v e l aw

j udg e c onsi dered two mai n i tems of ev ide nce: a j ob des cr ipt ion si g ned by Sta ll smi th i n J une 200 0, and the tes ti mony of a machi nis t w ho w or ked w it h St all sman. The jo b des cr ipt ion w as present ed to Sta ll smi th by the co m p a n y’ s l abor

co nsul tant after manag ement was made aw are of the UAW ’s org ani z ing dri v e. Sol artec , I nc. , 352 N .L.R .B. at 33 8. Stal ls mith , w ho recorded t he meeti ng w it h the lab or co nsul tant, obj ect ed to the desc ri pti on of his duti es and ques ti oned w hy he was bei ng as ked to s ig n the doc ument at t h a tt im e . T h e la b o r co n s u lt a n t a d m it t e d t o S t a ll s m it h t h a t t h e d o c u m e n th a d b e e n d ra wn up w it h the i ntentto make St a lls mith a s uper v is or under Secti on 2( 11) of the N ati onal Labor R ela ti ons Act

. Stal ls mith si g ned the document but d eni ed ev er per forming many

of the f unct ions listed in the job descript ion, such as disciplining e mp loyees a nd training newly hired m achin ists.
The admin is trati v e law jud g e als o heard tes ti mony from a machi nis t t hat S tal ls mith
w as “s uppos ed to be t he g uy i n c harg e” and w as the “ ri g ht-h a n d m a n ” o f the mach ine super int endent. See id. at 3 41. Des pit e thi s, the a dmini strati v e l aw j udg e c oncl uded t hat the machi nis t’ s tes ti mony “c oncer nin g Stal ls mith ’s day -t o- day int eract ion w it h hi m and t he other machi nis ts is not ind ic ati v e of manag er ial st atus ,” w hen v iewed unde r all the circumsta nces. See id. T he a dm inistrati ve l aw judge also questio ned the m achin ist’s abi li ty to be an “i mpart ial and obj ect iv e w it ness ” becau se he des cr ibe d a wor kpl ace inc ide nt that led to him becomi ng ang ry w it h St all smi th. See id. at 341- 4 2

. C o n sid e ri ng the ci rc umstan ces under

w hic h Stall smi th si g ned t he j ob des cr ipt ion and the a dv erse credi bil ityNo. 08- 1892

NLRB v. Solarte c, Inc.

- 6 - findi ng reg ardin g the machi nis t’ s t est imony , t he admi nis trati v e l aw j udg e c oncl uded t hat Stal ls mith w as not a li g ned w it h manag ement an d, thus, not a manag er ial empl oy ee i n the meanin g of secti on 2( 11) of the A ct.
As w e hav e prev iou sl y

hel d, w e “ordin ar il y

w il l not d is tur b c re dib il ity ev alu ati ons by an ALJ w ho obs er

v ed th e w it ness es’ demeanor .” Ve ncare Anci ll ar y Ser v s., Inc . v . N LRB , 352 F .3d 3 18, 3 21 ( 6 th C ir. 2 003)

. In t his ca se, the admini strati v e l aw j udg e c re dit ed Stal ls mith ’s tes ti mony , not ing that“ his ov erall testi mony w as cons is tent, ” despi te t he s ev en y ears t hat h ad el apsed

. She al so w as enti tl ed to draw an a dv erse inference re g ardin g the failu re to p re se n t t est imony from t he c ompany

off ic ial s w it h firsth and k now led g e of Stal ls mith ’s purchas ing act iv it ies and job duti es, suc h as the larg e- machi ne s uper int endent or purcha sing ag ent . S ee Sola rtec, Inc., 3 52 N.L.R.B . at 34 3 (“The failure to ca ll a w itness
w hose testim ony would reason ably be presum ed to favor a part y warrants an a dverse in fe re n c e t h a th a d t h e in d ivi d u a l b e e n ca ll e d a s a wit n e s s , h is t e s t im o n y wo u ld n o th a ve suppo rt ed th e par

ty ’s posi ti on.” ); see als o DM I Di str ibu ti on of D ela w are, O hio , 334 N .L.R .B. 409, 412 ( 2001) ; I nt’ l Ass n of Br idg e W or kers Local 118 (C ali forni a Erect ors) , 309 N .L.R .B. 808, 811 ( 1 9 9 2 )

. B e c a u s e t h e a d mi n i s t ra t i v e l a w j u d g e ’ s fi n d i n g t h a tS t a l l s mi t h w a s n ot a manag er ial empl oy ee w as suppor ted b y sp eci fic t est imony

and re asona ble i nferenc es draw n from that test imony , w e concl ude that it w as suppo rt ed by su bst anti al ev ide nce on the record as a w hol e.No. 08- 1892

NLRB v. Solarte c, Inc.

- 7 - For the re asons se t outabov e, w e GRAN T the B oard’s appl ic ati on for enforc ement of its order.