# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 30 01

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Nich ol s Al um in um , LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 32 02

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Nich ol s Al um in um , LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 12, 2 01 5
Fil ed : Au gu st 13 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MURPHY an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Nich ol s Alu m in um , LLC (Nic ho ls ) pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w o f a Nati on al Lab or
Rel at io ns Bo ard (Bo ard ) or de r fin di ng Nich ol s vi ol at ed Sect io n 8( a)(1 ) an d (3 ) of th e

Nati on al Lab or Rel at io ns Act (Act ), 29 U.S.C. § 15 8( a)(1 ), (3 ), by di sc ha rg in g un io n

m em be r Bru ce Ban dy on Apr il 27

, 20 12

, fo r pa rti ci pa ti ng in a st rik e. The Bo ard

se ek s en fo rcem en t of it s or de r. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 29 U.S.C. § 16 0( e) an d (f),

we gr an t t he pe ti ti on for rev ie w and de ny enfo rcem en t.

I. BACKGRO UND

A. Fac ts

Nich ol s m an uf

act ur es al um in um at two pl an ts in Dav en po rt, Io wa: th e Nich ol s
Alu m in um Cas ti ng pl an t (cas ti ng pl an t) a nd th e Nic ho ls Alu m in um Fi ni sh in g pl an t (fi ni sh i n g p l an t). Nich ol s em pl oyed ap pr ox im at el y 16 5 em pl oyees at th e cas ti ng pl an t. Si nc e at le as t 19 78

, Nich ol s’s em pl oyee s ha ve be en rep res en te d by th e

In te rn at io na l Br ot he rh oo d o f Team st ers Uni on , Loca l No . 37 1 (t he un io n)

.

On Ja nu ary 20

, 20 12

, du rin g ne go ti at io ns to rep la ce a co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng

ag reem en t (C BA) tha t had ex pi red in Nov em be r 20 11 , th e u ni on cal le d fo r a s tri ke

. Mo st of th e cas ti ng pl an t em pl oyees pa rti ci pa te d in th e s t r i k e—a lt ho ug h a few

cro ss ed th e p ic ke t l in e. Nich ol s h ire d re pl acement wo rk ers to fil l t he ga p.

Ban dy, a 34 -y ear Nich ol s em pl oyee an d bl en di ng op erat or at th e cas ti ng pl an t,

pa rti ci pa te d i n t he st rik e. He work ed th e p ic ke t l in e o nc e a week bu t di d no t ta ke a

st rat eg ic or le ad ers hi p ro le in th e un io n or th e st rik e, no r di d he ot he rwis e di st in gu is h

hi m se lf f ro m th e o th er s tri ke rs

.

-2

-On Apr il 6, 20 12

, th e un io n en de d th e st rik e. Nich ol s be ga n reca ll in g to wor k

th os e st rik ers who ha d no t be en pe rm an en tl y rep la ced

, in cl ud in g Ban dy. As

em pl oyees re t u r n ed , Ni ch ol s as ke d th em to ta ke wha t th e pa rti es he re de sc rib e as a

“ no -s tri ke pl ed ge .” The pl ed ge req ui red em pl oyees to sa y th ey w e r e ret ur ni ng to

wor k at Nich ol s an d w o u l d n o t “ st rik e ag ai n ov er th e sa m e di sp ut e.” The pl ed ge

no ti fie d em

pl oyees th at do in g so wou l d s u b ject th em “ to di sc ip li ne up to an d

in cl ud in g t he po ss ib il it y

of d is ch arg e.”

W it ho ut ob

jecti on , Ban dy ve rb al ly to ok th e pl ed ge whe n he ret ur ne d to wor k

on Apr il 11

, 2 0 1 2

, bu t di d no t si gn a writ te n pl ed ge fo rm as so m e ot he rs ha d do ne
be fo re th e un io n in st ru ct ed it s m em be rs to refu se

. Nich ol s mai nt ai ns th e pl ed ge

m erel y co nf

irmed ret ur ni ng em

pl oyees wou ld no t en ga ge in un la wfu l in te r mi t t e nt

st rik in g, whi ch th e Bo ard ’s Gen eral Co un se l ag rees is no t pr ot ect ed act iv it y un de r th e

Act.

At a po st -s tri ke m eet in g th at Ban dy at te nd ed

, Nich ol s al so rev ie wed an d

di st rib ut ed it s l on gs ta nd in g “ zero to le ran ce” work pl ace vi ol en ce p ol ic y , whi ch was

in co rp or at ed in to th e CBA. W i t h th e he lp of a Po werPo in t pr es en ta ti on , Nich ol s

rem in de d ret ur ni ng st rik ers —as well as rep la cem en t wor ke rs an d em pl oyees who ha d

cro ss ed th e pi ck et li ne s— th at “ [h ]arass in g, di sr up ti ve , th reat en in g, an d/ or v i o l en t

si tu at io ns or be ha vi or by an y on e, reg ard le ss of st at us , w i l l n o t be to le rat ed an d”

of fen di ng em

pl oyees wo ul d b e “ su bjec t t o d is ch arg e fo r th e fi rs t o ffen se .” Nich ol s

po st ed a ve rs io n of th at no ti ce th ro ug ho ut it s pl an ts

. The po li cy pr ov id ed em pl oyees

were su bjec t to di sc ha rg e fo r, am on g ot he r th in gs , “ [m ]aki ng th reat en in g rem ark s

. . . th at co ns ti tu te a th reat ag ai ns t an ot he r in di vi du al ,” an d “ [a]gg res si ve or ho st il e
be ha vi or th at crea te s a reas on ab le fear of in jury to an ot he r pe rs on or su bjec ts an ot he r

in di vi du al to em ot io na l d is tre ss .”

On Apr il 2 5

, 2 0 1 2

, two week s aft er hi s ret ur n, Ban dy was in vo lv ed in a

co nf ro nt at io n wit h Keit h Braa fh art

, a fin is hi ng pl an t em pl oyee w ho cr oss ed the pi ck et

-3

-li ne an d be ga n wor ki ng in th e cas ti ng pl an t du rin g th e st rik e. B a n d y te st ifi ed hi s

wor ki ng rel at io ns hi p wit h Braa fh art was “n ot go od ” an d th at Braa fh art cal le d hi m
de ro ga to ry

na m es fro m

th e ti m e th ey

fir st m et

.

At th e ti m e of th e co nf

ro nt at io n wit h Ban dy, Bra afh art was dr iv in g a fo rk li ft

up a ram p th at le d to on e of th e al um in um m el de rs

. Ban dy, who ha d rece nt ly ex it ed

th e br eak ro om ne ar th e ram p, wait ed fo r th e fo rk li ft t o pa ss

. Braa fh art ho nk ed th e
ho rn as he was req ui red ; ho wev er, he m ay ha ve so un de d th e ho rn “ a li tt le m or e” th an

ne ces sa ry

. W he n Ban dy reco gn iz ed Braa fh art

, Ban dy dr ew hi s th um b acro ss hi s ne ck

in a “ cu t th ro at ” ge st ur e th at Braa fh art co ns tru ed as a th reat

. Braa fh art te st ifi ed

Ban dy lo ok ed rig ht at hi m wit h a “ de at h st are” fro m ab ou t te n feet away, “ ga ve [h im ]

th e m ean m

ug , dr ew hi s th um

b acro ss hi s th ro at at [h im ] an d th at was it .” Braa fh art

un de rs to od th e g es tu re t o m ean “ I’m go in g t o c ut y ou r th ro at .”

Afte r th e ge st ur e, Braa fhart pa rk ed th e fo rk li ft an d as ke d a ne arb y wit ne ss , Sam

Harro un , whe th er he ha d se en th e ge st ur e. Harro un “ ch uc kl ed ” an d sa id he ha d se en

Ban dy. Harro un , who th ou gh t Ban dy m ig ht ha ve be en si gn al in g Braa fh art to st op

“ bl ari ng hi s ho rn ,” di d no t pe rcei v e t h e g e s t u re as a th reat

. W he n Braa fh art to ld

Ban dy, “ I’m ta ki ng y ou up st ai rs ,” Ban dy rep li ed th at he was “ sc rat ch in g [h is ] th ro at .”

As Braa fh art le ft to fin d a su pe rv is or , Ban dy ch uc kl ed as he to ld Harro un “ hi s th ro at

it ch ed an d t ha t was it .”

Braa fh art rep or te d th e in ci de nt t o Nich ol s’s m an ag em en t an d pr ep ared a
writ te n st at em en t. Ban dy’ s su pe rv is or , Vi ck Han se n, as ke d B a n d y t o joi n hi m in a

m eet in g wit h P l a n t M an ag er Bi ll Heb ert

, Hum an Res ou rces Vice -Pre si de nt Mi ke

Alb ee, an d a un io n st eward

. At th e m eet in g, Ban dy de ni ed m ak in g an y th reat

, ag ai n

ex pl ai ni ng he was “ sc rat ch in g h is th ro at .” 1

At tri al

, Ban dy ch an ge d hi s st or y , cl ai m in g th e g e s t u re was an in vo lu nt ary 1

reac ti on as he lu rch ed ba ck to av oi d t h e f o r k l ift

. The pr es id in g ad m in is tra ti ve la w

-4

-A l b e e se nt Ban dy ho m e, ad vi si ng hi m Nich ol s wou ld be in to uc h. Ban d y

ga th ered hi s th in gs an d le ft wit ho ut an es co rt. Co nt in ui ng it s in ve st ig at io n, Nich ol s

sp ok e wit h H a r r ou n, who op in ed th e ge st ur e was no t a th reat

. Afte r di sc us si ng th e

m at te r wit h h is m an ag em en t t eam , Hebe rt d eci de d t o di sc ha rg e Ban dy fo r vi ol at in g
Nich ol s’s “ zero to l e r a n c e ” wor kp la ce vi ol en ce po li cy

. On Apr il 27

, 20 12

, Hum an

Res ou rces Man ag er Kri st y Ril ey no ti fie d B an dy he h ad be en di sc ha rg ed

.

B. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry

On Ju ne 8, 20 12

, th e un io n fil ed an un fai r la bo r pr act ic es ch arg e wit h th e Bo ard

ch al le ng in g Ban dy’ s te rm in at io n. The Bo ard ’s Gen eral Co un se l is su ed a co m pl ai nt

al le gi ng Nich ol s di sc ha rg ed Ban dy fo r pa rti ci pa ti ng in th e st rik e, in v i o l a ti on of

Sect io n 8( a)(1 ) an d (3 ) of th e Act. On Apri l 8 , 20 13 , a fte r ob se rv in g th e de m ean or

of th e k ey wit ne ss es at t ria l an d e xa m in in g t he reco rd ev id en ce, t he ALJ co nc lu de d

Nich ol s di d no t vi ol at e th e Act by di sc ha rg in g Ban dy aft er he m ad e a “ cu t th ro at ”

ge st ur e th at Braa fh art an d Ni ch ol s “ reas on ab ly con st ru ed ” as a se rio us th reat

. 2

In an al y zi ng Nich ol s’s m ot iv e fo r di sc ha rg in g Ban dy, th e ALJ reject ed th e

Gen era l C ou ns el ’s pr op os al th at Ban dy’ s “ st rik e pa rti ci pa ti on al on e pr ov id e[d ]

su ffi ci en t ci rcu m st an ti al pr oo f up on whi ch to pr ed ic at e an im us .” Not in g th at Ban dy

pa rti ci pa te d in th e st rik e wit h al m os t al l of Nich ol s’s ot he r em pl oyees bu t di d no t ta ke

jud ge (ALJ) reject ed Ban dy’ s “ ex pl an at io n an d r e en act m en t” of th e lu rch as

“ in co ns is te nt an d i nc red ib le .”

The ALJ ev al ua te d th e pr op rie ty of Ban dy’ s di sc ha rg e un de r “ [t]he so cal le d 2

W rig ht Lin e an al y si s[

, whi ch ] ap pl ie [s ] whe n an em pl oyer art ic u l a t e s a faci al ly
le gi ti m at e reas on fo r it s te rm in at io n de ci si on , bu t th at m ot iv e is di sp ut ed ,” NLRB v. RELCO Loc om ot iv es , I n c

. , 7 3 4 F.3 d 76 4, 78 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (ci ti ng W rig ht Lin e, 25 1 NLRB 10 83 (1 98 0)

, ap pr ov ed by NLRB v. Tran sp

. Mg m t. Co rp ., 46 2 U.S. 39 3,
39 7- 99

, 40 1- 03 (1 98 3)

, ov erru le d in pa rt on ot he r gr ou nd s by Dir., Offi ce of W or ke rs ’
Co m p. Pro gr am s, Dep ’t of Lab or v. Green wich Co ll ie rie s, 51 2 U.S. 26 7, 27 7- 78 (1 99 4) ).

-5

-an “ un us ua l, st rat eg ic

, or si gn ifi can t ro le du rin g th e walk ou t,” th e ALJ se arch ed th e

r e c o r d f o r ev id en ce of di sc riminat or y m ot iv e. The ALJ fo un d “ no ba ck gr ou nd o f

in de pe nd en t Sect io n 8( a)(1 ) vi ol at io ns du rin g th e pe rio d aft er th e st rik e” n o r “ an y

ev id en ce of ho st il e r e m ark s or act io ns by [Nic ho ls ] si nc e th e st rik e co nc lu de d an d

em pl oyees ret ur ne d to wor k.” Rev ie win g wha t t h e A LJ de sc rib ed as “ a m ix ed ba g

of Co m pa ny res po ns es to em

pl oyee -o n- em

plo y ee co nf

ro nta tio ns, ” the ALJ co nc lu de d

Nich ol s’s p rio r en fo rcem en t o f it s n o- vi ol en ce p ol ic y di d n ot est ab li sh th at Nich ol s

“ en ga ge d in th e di sp arat e tre at m en t of Ban dy by di sc ha rg in g h i m f o r th reat en in g

an ot he r em

pl oyee wit h se rio us ph y si cal in jury or wor se .” Bas ed on it s rev ie w of th e

reco rd

, th e ALJ fo un d in su ffi ci en t ev id en c e o f an ti un io n an im us to su pp or t th e
di sc riminat io n c ha rg e.

On Aug us t 18

, 20 14

, th e Bo ard

, ov er a st ro ng di ss en t, rev ers ed th e ALJ’s or de r,

co nc l u d i n g N i c ho ls “ vi ol at ed Sect io n 8( a)(3 ) an d (1 ) of th e Act by d is ch arg in g

. . . Ban dy.” As th e Gen eral Co un se l ack no wled ge s, “ The Bo ard ad op te d m an y of th e

f i n d i n g s an d ru li ng s of th e [ALJ], in cl ud in g th e [ALJ]’ s wit ne ss cred ib il it y
de te rm in at io ns , bu t th e Bo ard rev ers ed th e [ALJ]’ s ul ti m at e co nc lu si on .” Reject in g

th e ALJ’s de te rm i n a ti on th at th e Gen eral Co un se l ha d fai le d to sh ow Nich ol s
di sc ha rg ed Ban dy fo r pa rti ci pa ti ng in th e st rik e, th e Bo ard

, “ [c]on tra ry to th e [ALJ],”

st at ed it fo un d “ di rect ev id en ce of an im us an d a so un d ba si s fo r in ferr in g it .”
Sp eci fic al ly, th e Bo ard co nc lu de d th e Gen eral Co un se l ha d m et it s bu rd en of sh owi ng

Ban dy’ s st rik e act iv it y was a m ot iv at in g fact or in Nich ol s’s de ci si on to di sc ha rg e hi m
ba se d up on (1 ) t h e “n o

- st rik e pl ed ge ” to whi ch Ban dy ag reed ; (2 ) “ th e ti m in g of

B a n d y’s d is ch arg e” aft er th e st rik e; an d (3 ) wha t th e Bo ard sa w as Nich ol s’ s

“ di sp arat e tre at m en t of Ban dy’ s co nd uc t” un de r it s di sc ip li na ry po li c y. Deci di ng
Nich ol s fai le d to sh ow it wou ld ha ve fir ed Ban dy reg ard le ss of hi s pa rti ci pa ti on in th e

st rik e, th e Bo ard ord ered Ban dy rein st at ed wit h b ack pa y an d o th er d am ag es

.

The di ss en t sh arp ly cri ti ci zed th e m ajor it y fo r “ rel y [in g] on sc an t ev id en ce an d

in fere nc e to pu t th em se lv es in po si ti on to su bs ti tu te th ei r jud gm en t fo r [Nic ho ls ’s] as

-6

-to wha t

. . . Ban dy di d an d wh e t h e r it warra nt ed di sc ha rg e,” ci ti ng NLRB v. Bl ue

Bel l, In c., 21 9 F.2 d 79 6, 79 8 (5 th Ci r. 19 55 ). See al so Epi le ps y Fo un d. of Ne. Ohi o

v. NLRB, 26 8 F.3 d 10 95

, 11 05 (D.C. Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ The Bo ard do es no t ha ve au th or it y

to reg ul at e al l be ha vi or in th e wor kp la ce an d it can no t fu nc ti o n a s a u b iq ui to us ‘pers on ne l m an ag er, ’ s u p p l an ti ng it s jud gm en t on ho w to res po nd to un pr ot ect ed

, in su bo rd in at e be ha vi or fo r th os e o f an em pl oyer. .

. . [A]n em

pl oyer m ay di sc ha rg e

an em pl oyee fo r a go od reas on , a ba d reas on , or no reas on , so lo ng as it is no t fo r an

un la wfu l reas on .”). The di ss en t ag reed wit h th e ALJ “ th at th e Gen eral Co un se l fai le d

to [es ta bl is h] th at an im

us ag ai ns t pr ot ect ed st rik e act iv it y m ot iv at ed th e di sc ha rg e.”

The di ss en t al so ad m on is he d th e Bo ard fo r “ m is ch arac te riz [in g] th e Gen eral

Co un se l’s in it ia l W rig ht Lin e bu rd en to pr ov e th at an im us ag ai ns t un io n o r o th er

pr ot ect ed co nc ert ed act iv it y m ot iv at ed an ad v ers e act io n.” Em ph as iz in g (1 ) th e
ab se nc e of an y ev id en ce to “ su pp or t an in fere nc e th at an im us ag ai ns t [Ban dy’ s]

pa rti cu la r st rik e act iv it y ,” whi ch was in di st in gu is ha bl e fro m sc or es of ot he r st rik ers ,

“ cau se d [Ni c h o l s ] to si ng le hi m ou t fo r rep ris al ,” an d (2 ) th e la ck of an y “ ap pa ren t

co nn ect io n be twee n th e no -s tri ke pl ed ge an d Ban dy’ s di sc ha rg e,” th e di s s e nt

co nc lu de d th e Gen eral Co un se l fai le d to pr ov e th e req ui si te “ ne xu s be twee n Ban dy’ s

st rik e p art ic ip at io n a nd th e m ot iv at io n fo r hi s d is ch arg e.”

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Sta nda rd o f Rev ie w

“ W e wil l enfo rce th e Bo ard ’s or de r if th e Bo ard ha s co rrec tl y ap pl ie d th e la w

an d it s fact ua l fin di ng s are su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce o n t he reco rd as a
who le

, ev en if we m ig ht ha ve reac he d a di ffer en t de ci si on ha d th e m at te r be en be fo re

us de no vo .” Town & Co un try Elec

., In c. v

. N LRB, 10 6 F.3 d 81 6, 81 9 (8 th Ci r.

19 97 ). “ ‘Sub st an ti al ev id en ce i s m or e th an a m ere sci nt il la

. It m ean s su ch rel ev an t

ev id en ce as a reas on ab le m in d m ig ht acce pt as ad eq ua te to su pp or t a co nc lu si on .’ ”

NLRB v. La-Z-Bo y Mi dwe st

, 39 0 F.3 d 10 54

, 10 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng Co ns ol

. Edi so n C o. o f N.Y. v. NLRB, 30 5 U.S. 1 97 , 22 9 (1 93 8) ).

-7

-“ In co nsi de ring whe th er su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e Bo ard’ s de ci sio n, w e

m us t ta ke in to acco un t ‘w h a t e v e r in th e reco rd fai rly de tra ct s fro m it s weig ht ,’ ”

NLRB v. MDI Co m

m erci al Serv s., 17 5 F.3 d 62 1, 6 3 0 ( 8 t h C i r. 19 99 ) (q uo ti ng
Uni ve rs al Cam era C or

p. v. NLRB, 34 0 U.S. 4 74 , 4 88 (19 51 )), an d “ ‘m us t v ie w th e

in he ren t st ren gt hs an d weak ne ss es of th e in fere nc es dr awn by th e Bo ard ,’ ” Carl et on

Co ll . v. NLRB, 2 30 F.3d 10 75

, 10 78 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (q uo ti ng GSX Cor p. o f Mo . v. NLRB, 91 8 F.2 d 13 51

, 13 57 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 )). “ ‘T he Bo ard

, in reac hi ng it s de ci si on , is pe rm it te d to dr aw reas on ab le in fere nc es , an d to ch oo se be twee n fai rly co nf li ct in g
vi ews of th e ev id en ce. It can no t rel y on su sp ic io n, su rm is e, im pl ic at io ns , or pl ai nl y

in cred ib le ev id en ce.’” Co nc ep ts & Des ig ns , In c. v. NLRB, 10 1 F.3 d 12 43

, 12 45 (8 th

Ci r. 19 96 ) (q uo ti ng Mea d & Mo un t Co ns tr. Co

. v. NLRB, 41 1 F.2 d 11 54

, 11 57 (8 th

Ci r. 19 69 )).

“ W e ex am in e th e Bo ard ’s fin di ng s m or e cri ti cal ly whe n, as here

, th e Bo ard ’s

co nc lu si on s are co nt rary to th e ALJ’s.” Earl e In du s., In c. v. NLRB, 75 F.3 d 40 0, 40 4
(8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). “ Alt ho ug h th e su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce st an da rd st il l ap pl ie s, th e Bo ard ’s

ev id en ce m

us t be st ro ng er th an wou ld be req ui red in a cas e whe re it ha d acce pt ed th e

ALJ’s fin di ng s, si nc e th e ALJ’s op in io n is pa rt of th e reco rd ag ai ns t whi ch th e

su bs ta nt ia li ty of th e ev id en ce m us t be m eas ur ed .” GSX Co rp ., 91 8 F.2 d at 13 56
(in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d)

.

B. Dis cri m in at or y Di sc ha rg e

S e c ti on 8( a)(1 ) of th e Act m ak es it “ an un fai r la bo r pr act ic e fo r an e mp l o ye r

to in te rfer e wit h, res tra in

, or co er c e e mplo y ees in th e ex erci se of ” th ei r rig ht s to

or ga ni ze, co ll ect iv el y ba rg ai n, an d en ga ge in si m il ar co nc ert ed act iv it ie s. 29 U.S.C.
§ 158(a) (1 ). Sect io n 8( a)(3 ) pr oh ib it s em pl oyers fro m us in g “ di sc riminat io n in rega rd

to hi re or te nu re of em

pl oym en t . . . t o e nc ou rag e o r di sc ou rag e m em be rs hi p in an y
la bo r or ga ni zat io n.” Id

. at § 15 8( a)(3 ). Alt ho ug h an em pl oyer vi ol at es Sect io n 8( a)(1 ) an d (3 ) of th e A c t i f i t d i sc ha rg es an em pl oyee fo r en ga gi ng in pr ot ect ed

act iv it ie s, “ em

pl oyers re ta in th e ri gh t t o di sc ha rg e wor ke rs fo r an y nu m be r of ot he r

-8

-r e a s o n s un rel at ed to th e em pl oyee’s un io n act iv it ie s.” Tran sp

. Mg m t., 46 2 U.S. a t

39 4.

To es ta bl is h an un fai r la bo r pr act ic e un de r th e W rig ht Lin e fram ewo rk

, th e

Bo ard ’s Gene ral Co un se l m us t pr ov e “ th at th e em

pl oyee’s pro te ct ed co nd uc t was a

su bs ta nt ia l or m ot iv at in g fact or in th e ad ve rs e act io n.” Id

. at 40 1. If, an d on ly if, th e

Gen eral Co un se l m eet s th at bu rd en , th e bu rd en sh ift s to th e em pl oyer to “ ‘exo ne rat e

it se lf by sh owi ng th at it w ou ld ha ve ’” ta ke n th e sa m e act io n “ ‘for a le gi ti m at e,

no nd is cri m in at or y reas on reg ard le ss of th e em pl oyee’s pr ot ect ed act iv it y .’ ” Carl et on

Co ll

., 23 0 F.3 d a t 10 78 (q uo ti ng Earl e In du s., 75 F.3 d at 40 4)

. Thi s an al y si s is

de si gn ed to “ pr ot ect [] th e rig ht s o f em pl oyees whi le pr es erv in g an em pl oyer’s rig ht

to di sc ha rg e an em

pl oyee fo r a va li d cau se .” NLRB v. Fi xt ur es Mfg

. Co rp ., 66 9 F.2 d

54 7, 5 50 (8t h C ir. 1 98 2)

.

In th e cas e a t b a r , th e Gen eral Co un se l ch arg ed Nich ol s wit h un la wfu ll y
di sc ha rg in g Ban dy fo r pa rti ci pa ti ng in th e st rik e. Nich ol s do es no t di sp ut e th at Ban dy

pa rti ci pa te d in pr ot ect ed st rik e act iv it y an d th at N i c h o l s was aware of it

. Nich ol s,

in st ead

, arg ue s th e Bo ard “ in c o r r e c t ly ap pl ie d th e lo ng -es ta bl is he d W rig ht Lin e

st an da rd ,” im

pr op erl y rel ie vi ng th e Gen eral Co un se l of it s bu rd en to pr ov e Ban dy’ s

pr ot ect ed act iv it y m ot iv at ed Nich ol s’s de ci si on to te rm in at e hi m , an d “ m ad e fact ua l

fin di ng s th at were no t su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. ” Se e RELCO Loc om ot iv es , 73 4 F.3 d a t 7 80 (“ In ap pr ai si ng a ch al le ng e to an em pl oyee’s t erm in at io n al le ge dl y

ca use d by pr ot ect ed la bo r act iv it y , th e qu es ti on is whe th er th e em pl oyee’s te rm in at ion

was m ot iv at ed by th e pr ot ect ed act iv it y .”). Rei te rat in g Ban dy’ s un rem ark ab le ro le

in th e st rik e an d hi s read y as se nt to th e pl ed ge , Nich ol s co nt en ds th e Gen eral Co un se l

fai le d to es ta bl is h t he req ui si te cau sa l co nn ect io n be twee n Ban dy’ s pa rti ci pa ti on in

th e st rik e “ an d th e al le ge d di sc riminat or y act ”—B an dy’ s di sc ha rg e. Nich ol s’s po in ts

are wel l t ak en

.

-9

-Und er W rig ht Lin e, “ ou r ta sk in res ol vi ng cas es al le gi ng vi ol at io ns whi ch tu rn

on m ot iv at io n is to de te rm in e whe th er a cau sa l rel at io ns h i p e x i st ed be twee n

em pl oyees en ga gi ng in un io n or ot he r pr ot ect ed act iv it ie s and act io ns on th e pa rt of

th ei r em pl oyer whi ch de tri m en t a ll y affe ct su ch em pl oyees’ em

pl oym en t.” W rig ht

Lin e, 25 1 NLRB at 10 89

. To pr ov e di sc riminat or y di sc ha rg e, th e Gen eral Co un se l

m us t es ta bl is h “ ‘tha t th e em pl oyee was di sc ha rg ed fo r hi s un io n act iv it ie s or

m em be rs hi p— th at bu t fo r hi s un io n act iv it ie s or m em be rs hi p, he wou ld no t ha ve be en
di sc ha rg ed .’ ” Co nc ep ts & Des ig ns , In c., 10 1 F.3 d at 12 45 (q uo ti ng Mea d & Mo un t

Co ns tr., 41 1 F.2 d at 11 57 ). Si m pl e an im us to ward th e un io n “ is no t en ou gh

. ‘W hi le

ho st il it y to [a] un io n is a pr op er an d hi gh ly si gn ifi can t fact or fo r th e Bo ard to co ns id er
whe n as se ss in g whe th er th e em pl oyer’s m ot iv e was di sc rimi n at or y , . . . ge ne ral

ho st il it y to ward th e un io n do es no t i ts el f su pp ly th e el em en t of un la wfu l m ot iv e.’”

C a r l e t o n Co ll

., 23 0 F.3 d at 10 78 (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng GSX Co rp ., 91 8

F.2 d a t 1 35 7)

.

Afte r care fu l rev ie w of th e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd

, we co nc lu de th e Bo ard

, in

rev ers in g th e ALJ’s de ci si on an d fin di ng Nich ol s vi ol at ed Sect io n 8( a)(1 ) an d (3 ) of

th e Act, m is ap pl ie d th e W rig ht Lin e s t a n d ard an d fai le d to an al y ze cau sa ti on

pr op erl y

. Bec au se t h e B o a r d di d no t ho ld th e Gen eral Co un se l to it s bu rd en of

pr ov in g di sc riminat or y an im us to ward Ban dy’ s “ pr ot ect ed co nd uc t was a su bs ta nt ia l

or m ot iv at in g fact or in ” Nich ol s’s de ci si on to di sc ha rge him

, T ran sp

. Mg m t., 46 2 U.S.

at 40 1, we are un ab le to en fo rce th e Bo ar d’s or de r. See Mu lt im ed ia KSDK, I nc . v

. NLRB, 30 3 F .3d 89 6, 9 00 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2) (en ba nc ).

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e gr an t Nich ol s’s pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w a n d se t as id e th e Bo ard ’s or de r. The

Bo ard ’s cro ss -p et it io n fo r en fo rcem en t i s d en ie d.

-1 0-MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

I c on cu r wit h res pe ct to th e m ajor it y ’s de ci si on de nyin g en fo rcem en t of th e

Bo ard ’s or de r be cau se th e Bo ard m is ap pl ie d th e cau sa ti on el em en t wit hi n th e W rig ht

Li n e st an da rd

. Our pr eced en t un eq ui vo cal ly req ui res m or e th an ge ne ral ho s t i l i t y

to ward a un io n to sa ti sf

y th e el em en t of un la wfu l m ot iv e. Carl et on Co ll eg e v. NLRB,

23 0 F.3 d 10 75

, 10 78 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). The Bo ard fai le d to en ga ge in an y m ean in gf ul

di sc us si on of th is req ui rem en t. The Bo ard w a s pu t on no ti ce, at le as t by th e
di ss en ti ng Bo ard m em

be r, th at in th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it th e W rig ht Lin e an al y si s req ui res

m or e th an a sh owi ng of an ti -u ni on an im us an d pr ot ect ed act iv it y

. The re m us t be a

ne xu s be twee n th e un io n act iv it y a n d t h e d i sc ha rg e. To be su re, th e le ve l of an ti

un io n an im

us can cert ai nl y be co ns id ered a n d i s a hi gh ly rel ev an t fact or in

es ta bl is hi ng th at co nn ect io n. Howev er, in th is cas e, th e Bo ard m ad e no at te m pt to

“ co nn ect th e do ts ” be twee n th e an ti -u ni on an im us , Ban dy’ s st rik e pa rti ci pa ti on , an d

hi s u lt im at e d is ch arg e.

The di ss en t m ak es a po werfu l arg um en t fo r th e pr op os it io n th at

, ha d th e Bo ard

do ne th e co rrec t an al y si s, it co ul d sh ow a cau sa l co nn ect io n. The di sp arat e tre at m en t

of Ban dy, co m

pa red to ot he r no n- st rik in g em pl oyees as ou tl in ed in th e di ss en ti ng

op in io n, is ex tre m el y tro ub li ng

. It co ul d ve ry w e ll ha ve pr ov id ed th e su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce th at wou ld ha ve al lo wed th is Co ur t to en fo rce th e Bo ard ’s or de r ha d it do ne

th e pr op er an al y si s. Howev er, as th e m ajor it y op in io n p oi nt s o ut , fai lu re t o en ga ge

in a pr op er l eg al an al y si s p recl ud es ou r Co ur t fr om en fo rci ng th e o rd er.

Gen eral ly, if an ag en cy ap pl ie s th e wro ng le ga l fram ewo rk or fai ls to ad dr es s

an arg um en t, we ha ve th e au th or it y to rem an d th e cas e t o t h e ag en cy fo r fu rth er

rev ie w. See Ade m o v. Ly nc h, Nos

. 13 –2 62 1, 13 –3 56 6, 20 15 W L 45 68 94 1, at *9 (8 th

Ci r

. J u l y 30

, 20 15 ) (imm ig rat io n) ; Cav in es s v. Mas sa na ri, 25 0 F.3 d 60 3, 60 5– 60 6
(8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (s oc ia l se cu rit y ). In Mu lt im ed ia KSDK, In c. v. NLRB, 30 3 F.3 d 89 6,

90 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (en ba nc )

, h o w e v e r , we he ld th at un le ss th e “ Bo ard of fers an

-1 1-al te rn at iv e th eo ry on whi ch to up ho ld it s d eci si on ” o r th e Bo ard req ue st s a r em an d,

w e can no t rem an d a cas e to th e Bo ard

. I writ e se pa rat el y to em ph as iz e t h a t

, i n t h e
ab se nc e of th is pr eced en t, I wou l d b e i n c l in ed to rem an d th is cas e an d pe rm it th e

Bo ard to ap pl y th e co rrec t le ga l fram ewo rk

. A rev ie w of th e reco rd in di cat es Nich ol s

m ay ha ve en ga ge d in m or e th an ge ne ral an ti -u ni on an im us

. Bu t, as th e m ajor it y

op in i o n p o i n t s ou t, pr eced en t pr ev en ts us fro m rem an di ng th is cas e. The refo re, I

co nc ur wit h t he m ajor it y

op in io n a nd de ny enfo rcem en t o f th e Bo ard ’s ord er.

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge , di ss en ti ng

.

Bec au se su b s ta nt ia l ev id en ce in th e reco rd sh ows th at Nich ol s Alu m in um (Nic ho ls ) vi ol at ed Sect io ns 8( a)(3 ) an d 8(a )(1 ) of th e Nat io na l Lab or Rel at io ns Act
by te rm in at in g Bru ce Ban dy fo r en ga gi ng in t h e p r o t e c t ed co nd uc t of st rik in g, I

di ss en t. Rec or d ev id en ce of th e co m pa ny's an im

us ag ai ns t st rik in g in cl ud es an il le ga l

us e of a no st rik e pl ed ge , di sp arat e en fo rcem en t of it s st at ed po li cy of zero to le ran ce

of v i o l e n c e , an d it s di sc riminat or y tre at m en t of ret ur ni ng st rik ers

. The Bo ard

co nc lu de d fro m su ch ev id en ce th at th e Gen eral Co un se l m et hi s W rig ht Lin e bu rd en

to sh ow th at an im

us ag ai ns t th e wor ke rs ' st rik e m ot iv at ed th e il le ga l te rm in at io n of

Bru ce Ba nd y

who pa rti ci pa te d o n t he pi ck et li ne

.

The Bo ard was en ti tl ed to co ns id er th e Nich ol s no st rik e p l e dg e as st ro ng

ev id en ce of an im

us ag ai ns t th e pr ot ect ed co nd uc t of st rik in g, co nd uc t in whi ch Ban dy

ha d pa rti ci pa te d. Nich ol s hi red rep la cem en t wor ke rs du rin g th e st rik e an d co nv ert ed

10 0 of th em to pe rm an en t st at us on Apr il 4. W he n th e un io n en de d it s st rik e, Nich ol s

as ke d ret ur ni ng st rik ers to ag ree th at th ey wou ld be su bjec t to di sc ha rg e if th ey wen t

"o n st rik e ag ai n ov er th e sa m e di sp ut e." As th e Bo ard no te d, th is no st rik e pl ed ge di d

n o t d e f i n e th e te rm "s am e di sp ut e" at a ti m e whe n ne go ti at io ns on a ne w co nt r a c t

were s ti ll on go in g. Two of th e th ree B oa rd m em be rs st at ed th ey

wou ld ha ve fou nd

th e no st rik e pl ed ge un la wfu l in it se lf ha d it be en al le ge d as a se pa rat e vi ol at io n of th e Act, an d it was "s tro ng ev id en ce of an im us to ward th e pr ot ect ed co nd uc t of st rik in g."

-1 2-To co nd it io n em pl oym en t on a pr om is e no t to en ga ge in pr ot ect ed act iv it y ha s be en

fo un d un la wfu l, se e In re Prat t Tower s, In c., 33 8 N.L.R.B. 61

, 64 (2 00 2)

, an d ho st il it y

to ward a un io n is "a pr op er an d hi gh ly si gn ifi can t fact or fo r th e Bo ard to c o n si de r
whe n as se ss in g" whe th er pa rti cu la r co nd uc t res ul te d fro m a di sc riminat or y m ot iv e.
Carl et on Co ll

. v. NLRB, 23 0 F.3 d 10 75

, 10 78 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (in te rn al qu o ta ti on

m ark s o m it te d)

.

In ad di ti on to Nich ol s' us e of a n un la wfu l no st rik e pl ed ge , th e Bo ard al so

co ns id ered th e co m

pa ny's in co ns is te nt ap pl ic at io n of it s zero to le ran ce po li cy in fav or

of no n st rik ers

. Two in ci de nt s no t m en ti on ed by th e m ajor it y are pa rti cu la rly rel ev an t

to th e Bo ard 's de t e rm in at io n th at Ban dy was te rm in at ed fo r hi s pa rti ci pa ti on in

pr ot ect ed la bo r act iv it y

. Each of th e in ci de nts in vo lv ed rep la cem en t wor ke rs who ha d

no t pa rti ci pa te d in th e st rik e bu t who ha d en ga ge d in si m il ar or m or e se ve re co nd uc t

th an Ban dy's g es tu re. Nei th er was ter m in at ed

.

The fir st in ci de nt oc cu rred on May 4, 20 12

, on e week aft er Ban dy's

te rm in at io n. W he n ret ur ni ng st rik er Ro be rt Sch al k was cl oc ki ng ou t, he sa w

rep la cem en t em

pl oyee Crai g Su lz be rg er gr ab hi m se lf in th e cro tc h an d y el l "What th e

fu ck are y ou lo ok in g at

, y ou go t a fu ck in g pr ob le m ? " Sch al k le ft th e bu i l d i n g , bu t

ou ts id e he was acco st ed by Su lz be rg er who as ke d hi m "i f [h e] th ou gh t he was pr et ty

an d wha t hi s fu ck i n g p r o bl em was ." W hi le Sch al k at te m pt ed to reac h hi s car,

Su lz be rg er st ep pe d in fro nt of hi m an d co nt in ue d to cu rs e. Sch al k su gg es te d th ey ta lk

to a su pe rv is or , an d Su lz be rg er res po nd ed "t ha t wou ld be fu ck in g fin e, le t's fu ck in g
do it ." W he n th ey sp ok e wit h su pe rv is or Ph il McB ro om , he as ke d Sch al k "What th e

fu ck do y ou wan t m e to do ab ou t it ? " Sch al k res po nd ed th at he th ou gh t th ey were to

rep or t su ch in ci de nt s as pa rt of th e zero to le ran ce po li cy

. McB r o o m t o l d h im he

"s ho ul d fu ck in g gr ow up ," an d if he were to do an y th in g ab ou t it

, he wou ld fir e bo th

m en

. Afte r Sc h a l k r e p o r te d th e in ci de nt to hu m an res ou rces an d pl an t m an ge r Bi ll

Heb ert

, Heb ert in di cat ed th ey wou ld in ve st ig at e. Su lz be rg er was ev en tu al ly writ te n

-1 3-up for vi ol at in g t he po li cy , bu t h e was no t di sc ha rg ed

. In Octo be r Sch al k re si gn ed

,

ci ti ng a ho st il e wor k e nv iro nm en t.

In th e se co nd in ci de nt

, rep la cem en t wor ke r Sam Harro un m ad e a ve rb al th reat

to an ot he r em

pl oyee du rin g a he at ed co nv ers a t i o n a b o ut whi ch de pa rtment was to

bl am e fo r al lo win g m ol te n al um in um to co ol

. Afte r a co m m en t by H a r ro un was

co nt rad ic te d by an ot he r em pl oyee, Harro un tu rn ed an d sa id "I'm go in g to ta ke y ou ou t

ba ck an d be at y ou r as s." W he n a th ird em pl oyee in te rru pt ed th at Harro un of te n sl ep t

on hi s sh ift

, H arro un rep li ed "wel l, y ou 're no th in g bu t a li tt le bi tc h." A su pe rv is or

in te rv en ed

, an d th e en co un te r en de d. No fu rth er act io n was ta ke n by su pe rv is or s in

res po ns e to Harro un 's t hr eat

.

On app eal Nich ol s clai m s th at Su lz be rg er an d Harro un , th e two co m pa rat or s
id en ti fie d by th e Gen eral Co un se l, bo th en ga ge d in co nd uc t th at was le ss se ve re th an

Ban dy's c u t t h r o at ge st ur e. The reco rd do es no t su pp or t th is cl ai m , ho wev er.

Harro un , t h e s o l e ne ut ral wit ne ss , t ol d Nich ol s du rin g th e in ve st ig at io n th at he ha d

no t pe rcei ve d Ban dy's ge st ur e to be "an y th reat at al l," an d he te st ifi ed th at th e ge st ur e

was co m m on ly us ed aro un d th e pl an t to sh ut of f or st op s o met h i n g

. He ha d

un de rs to od th e m ot io n to be a si gn al fo r Keit h Braa fh art to st op bl ari ng th e fo rk li ft' s
ho rn

. W hi le Ban dy de ni ed m ak in g an y th reat

, Harro un m ad e an ex pl ic it ve rb al th reat

an d Su lz be rg er cu rs ed a co wor ke r an d ph y si cal ly bl oc ke d acce ss to hi s car.

Nev er the le ss, str ike r repl acements Su lz be rg er an d Harro un were no t te rm in at ed whi le

Ban dy was.

Nich ol s' tre at m en t o f a n em pl oyee no t na m ed as a co m pa rat or , Mi ke

McGo lt hl e n, al so sh ows pr efer en ti al tre at m en t of no n st rik ers

. Befo re th e st rik e,

McGo lt hl en bro ug ht a ha nd gu n to wor k whi ch he cl ean ed an d lo ad ed wit h a cli p o f

bu ll et s. Alt ho ug h he m ad e no ex pl ic it th reat s, a co wor ke r was al arm ed an d rep or te d

hi m to su pe rv is or s. McGo lt hl en was fir ed un de r th e co m pa ny's zero to le ran ce po li cy

on Ja nu ary 1 3, 20 12 , b ut he was reh ir e d a s a r e p l acement em pl oyee aft er th e st rik e

-1 4-be ga n, a m ere on e m on th la te r. Thi s reh iri ng was ev id en ce th at Nich ol s ov erl oo ke d

ev en se ve re vi ol at io ns of it s rep or te d zero to le ran ce po li cy

. Nich ol s rai se s two ot he r

in st an ces in whi ch it fir ed em pl oyees fo r vi ol at in g th e zero to le ran ce po li cy , bu t bo th

si tu at io ns in vo lv ed ex pl ic it th reat s. Befo re th e st rik e, p l a n t man ag er Heb ert fir ed

em pl oyee Ed Fo un ta in fo r ve rb al ly th reat en in g to br in g a ba se ba ll ba t in to th e of fic e

to be a t a fem al e hu m an res ou rces rep res en ta ti ve

. Afte r th e st rik e en de d, Heb ert

di sc ha rg ed no n st rik er Roo se ve lt Sm it h afte r he to ld hi s su pe rv is or he ha d weap on s

in hi s ve hi cl e an d he in te n d e d to "s ho ot hi m in th e gu t." The se ve rit y of th es e

in ci de nt s di st in gu is he s th em fro m Ban dy's ha nd ge st ur e, an d ne it he r sh ows Nich ol s

co ns is te nt ly app li ed it s p ol ic y

.

Alt ho ug h th e m ajor it y co nc lu de s th at th e Bo ard im pr op erl y an al y zed cau sa ti on

un de r th e W rig ht Lin e fram ewo rk

, th e Gen eral Co un se l's in it ia l W rig ht Lin e bu rd en
is si m pl y "t o d em on st rat e th at th e em pl oyee was en ga ge d in pr ot ect ed act iv it y , th at

th e em pl oyer kn ew of th is pr ot ect ed act iv it y ; an d th at th e te rm in at io n was m ot iv at ed
by an ti -u ni on an im

us ." NLRB v. RELCO Loc om ot iv es , In c., 73 4 F.3 d 76 4, 78 3 (8 th

Ci r. 20 13 ). The Bo ard ap pl ie d th e pr op er W rig h t Lin e fram ewo rk

, an d su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce su pp or ts it s co nc lu si on th at Nich ol s' "an im us to ward th e rece nt ly en de d

st rik e m ot iv at ed [it ] to di sc ha rg e Ban dy."

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ex pl ai ne d th at ou r ap pe ll at e rev ie w "m ay no t di sp la ce

th e Bo ard 's ch oi ce be twee n two fai rly co nf li ct in g vi ews , ev en th ou gh th e co ur t wou ld
jus ti fia bl y ha ve m ad e a di ffer en t ch oi ce ha d th e m at te r be en be fo re it de no vo ."

Uni te d Exp os it io n S e r v

. Co

., In c. v. NLRB, 94 5 F.2 d 10 57

, 10 59 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 )
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) (q uo ti ng NLRB v. W al to n Mfg

. Co

., 36 9 U.S. 40 4,

40 5 (1 96 2) . W e m

us t up ho ld th e Bo ard 's dec is io n if the reco rd as a who le co nt ai ns

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce to su pp or t it s fact ua l f i n d i n g s

. Town & Co un try El ec., In c. v. NLRB, 10 6 F .3d 81 6, 8 19 (8t h C ir. 1 99 7)

.

-1 5-Rat he r th an ap p l yin g th e ap pr op ria te st an da rd

, ack no wled gi ng th e Bo ard 's

ex pe rti se , an d co ns id eri ng bo th th e no st rik e pl ed ge an d di s p a rat e tre at m en t of

st rik in g em

pl oyees by Nich ol s, th e m ajor it y ha s su bs ti tu te d it s own jud gm en t fo r th at

of th e Bo ard

. The Bo ard 's de te rm in at io n th at Nich ol s vi ol at ed th e Act by te rm in at in g

Ban dy fo r hi s pa rti ci pa ti on in th e wor ke r's st rik e is su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce,

an d i ts ord er s ho ul d b e en fo rced . I th eref or e d is se nt

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 6-