Opinion ID: 772572
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the nlra and the standard of review

Text: 45 Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act guarantees an employee the right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. 29 U.S.C. 157. Section 8(a)(1) protects the employee's right to engage in concerted activities by making it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in [ 7]. Section 8(a)(3) provides that [i]t shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . . by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (3). 46 An employer violates sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) by disciplining or discharging an employee because of his union activity. See NLRB v. Adco Electric, Inc., 6 F.3d 1110 (5th Cir. 1993); Huck Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 693 F.2d 1176, 1183 (5th Cir. 1982). However, an employer's action that violates section 8(a)(1) does not necessarily violate section 8(a)(3). A section 8(a)(1) violation does not require a showing of antiunion animus; a section 8(a)(1) violation does. Compare Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., Inc. v. NLRB, 200 F.3d 230, 237 (5th Cir. 1999) (employer's conduct, rather than motive, is controlling in determination of section 8(a)(1) violation) with Asarco, 86 F.3d at 1408 (finding of antiunion animus necessary to finding of section 8(a)(3) violation). 47 Under section 8(a)(3), [t]he NLRB must establish a prima facie case by proving that union animus was a motivating factor in the employer's decision to [discipline] the employee. Asarco v. NLRB, 86 F.3d 1401, 1408 (5th Cir. 1996). Generally, an employer violates 8(a)(3) only if its actions are motivated by anti-union animus. Goldtex Inc. v. NLRB, 14 F.3d 1008, 1011 (4th Cir. 1994). Unwise and even unfair decisions to discharge employees do not constitute unfair labor practices unless they are carried out with the intent of discouraging participation in union activities. Accordingly, determining whether the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus is necessarily the crucial first step in a 8(a)(3) case. Id.; see also Carleton College v. NLRB, 230 F.3d 1075 (8th Cir. 2000); USF Red Star, Inc. v. NLRB, 230 F.3d 102 (4th Cir. 2000). 48 A reviewing court will uphold the Board's decision if it is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. See Mobil Exploration, 200 F.3d at 237; NLRB v. Thermon Heat Tracing Serv., Inc., 143 F.3d 181, 185 (5th Cir. 1998). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept to support a conclusion. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951); see also Thermon Heat, 143 F.3d at 185. Under the substantial evidence standard of review, the ALJ's decision must be upheld if a reasonable person could have found what the ALJ found, even if the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion had the matter been presented to it in the first instance. Standard Fittings Co. v. NLRB, 845 F.2d 1311, 1314 (5th Cir. 1988). The standard of review of the Board's findings of fact and application of the law is deferential, as both parties recognize. Recognizing the Board's expertise in labor law, [the court] will defer to plausible inferences it draws from the evidence, even if we might reach a contrary result were we deciding the case de novo. Thermon Heat, 143 F.3d at 185. 49 This court is bound by the credibility choices of the ALJ, unless: (1) the choice is unreasonable; (2) the choice contradicts other findings of fact; (3) the choice is based on inadequate reasons or no reasons; or (4) the ALJ failed to justify the choice. See Asarco, 86 F.3d at 1406. Absent extraordinary circumstances, a reviewing court does not substitute its view of credibility for that of the ALJ or weigh the credibility of one witness against another and search for contradictory inferences. Id.; see also USF Red Star, 230 F.3d at 107; Albertson's, Inc. v. NLRB, 161 F.3d 1231, 1236 (10th Cir. 1998). This court will also defer to plausible inferences [the ALJ] drew from the evidence, even though we might reach a contrary result were we deciding this case de novo. Blue Circle Cement Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 41 F.3d 203, 206 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation omitted). The Board's conclusions of law are also entitled to deference if they have a reasonable basis in the law and are not inconsistent with the Act. See NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ., 444 U.S. 672, 691 (1980). 50 In this case, the NLRB adopted the ALJ's findings that Valmont violated the Act by issuing written corrective actions to Lewis and Sharp based on their prior support for the union and Valmont's belief that they were talking about the union during work time; by discharging Lewis for soliciting Hutchison; by issuing a written corrective action to Fontenot for asking Hutchison if he had signed a union card; and by issuing an oral corrective action to Niemeyer for distributing union literature in a nonworking area. The ALJ and the Board found a section 8(a)(3) violation and a derivative, but not an independent, section 8(a)(1) violation, in Valmont's warnings to Lewis and Sharp. The ALJ and the Board found a violation of both section 8(a)(1) and section 8(a)(3) as to the firing of Lewis and the warnings issued to Fontenot, Lewis, Sharp and Niemeyer.