Opinion ID: 363952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discharge of 12 Employees

Text: 35 The Board concluded that it was not established by substantial credible evidence upon the record as a whole that 12 employees had been discharged in violation of the Act. This court has held that the Board's determination that there has been no violation of the Act must be upheld unless it has no rational basis. ILGWU v. NLRB, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 71, 83, 463 F.2d 907, 919 (1972). Findings of the Board should not be disturbed unless they are irrational or unsupported by substantial evidence. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 4-243 v. NLRB, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 113, 116, 362 F.2d 943, 946 (1966). 36 District 65 contends that there is no legal justification for drawing a distinction between these 12 employees and the 46 who were granted relief, and that relief was denied in the 12 cases solely by reason of the fact that none of these employees testified regarding the circumstance of his or her dismissal. District 65 argues that neither principle nor common sense requires that each employee fired in a mass discriminatory discharge testify in order to secure reinstatement. While we might agree with this statement as a broad general principle, we do not believe it is applicable under the circumstances of this case. 37 This is not a case in which a group of employees was unlawfully terminated in one discrete action by the employer. Rather approximately 308 employees were terminated over a span of nine months. Of this group over 100 were District 65 supporters, as evidenced by signed authorization cards. Yet the General Counsel brought charges with respect to only 60. The Board made individual detailed findings as to each of the 60. The contention that the Board's award of relief to the 46 employees rested solely on a conclusion that they were part of a class of District 65 members subject to unlawful discrimination is incorrect. The General Counsel did not include some 60 District 65 members in his charge and the administrative law judge made specific findings with respect to each of the 60 who were charged. 38 Two of the 12 employees did in fact testify at the hearing. One of them, Jose Maisonet, had worked for about five and one half months. The administrative law judge found slight indication of activity on behalf of District 65 other than mere membership therein and wearing its button and a seemingly atypically long list of attendance defalcations disclosed by his personnel record considering his short term of employment. With respect to the other employee who testified, Wilfredo Lorenzana, the administrative law judge found no indication of any protected concerted activities on his part and that his personnel file indicated that he received two work warnings and what appears to be an atypically poor attendance and punctuality record during his short 43/4 month tenure of employment. 39 With respect to the remaining 10 employees, who did not testify, the administrative law judge found no indication that one of them, Maria L. Sanchez, was a member of any of the unions and that her personnel folder discloses, among other things, a seemingly extremely poor attendance and punctuality record. As to the remaining nine employees, the administrative law judge found generally no indication of any District 65 activity other than membership. In addition he found that Francisco Altamirano, who had worked about five months had an arguably poor attendance and punctuality record, as well as a warning during his short-term employment. Fulvia Benjumeda, who had worked for two years and five months was also found to have an arguably unsatisfactory punctuality and attendance record. 40 Each of the 46 employees the Board ordered to be reinstated was found to have been an active supporter of District 65 and a victim of coercive demands to abandon District 65 and embrace Local 806. In contrast, none of the 12 alleged discriminatees were shown to be active supporters of District 65. Rather the record reflects little more than mere membership. 25 The record contains no evidence of any pressure or threat against any of these 12 employees to join Local 806 or be fired. This case is thus distinguishable from Riley Stoker Corp., 223 NLRB No. 178, 92 LRRM 1110 (1970), on which District 65 heavily relies. In that case, unlike this one, the administrative law judge specifically found that the three discharged employees were terminated under identical unlawful circumstances. Here no such finding was, or could be, made. 41 It is undisputed that the burden is on the general counsel to prove unlawful discharge. NLRB v. Patrick Plaza Dodge, Inc., 522 F.2d 804 (4 Cir. 1975). We cannot say that the conclusion of the Board that it was not established by substantial credible evidence that any of the 12 employees had been discharged in violation of the act was either irrational or unsupported by substantial evidence. See ILGWU v. NLRB, supra, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union v. NLRB, supra.