Opinion ID: 2973453
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Layoff of individual employees

Text: a. Employees Heard, Renner, Reimann-Ruba, and Babcock “[T]o make out a prima facie case, the General Counsel must prove that anti-union animus partially motivated or contributed to the decision to lay off [the employees].” W.F. Bolin Co. v. NLRB, 70 F.3d 863, 871 (6th Cir. 1995). Substantial evidence existed in the record to support the Board’s finding that these employees were laid off due to their association with the Union. On September 21, Stacey Patulski obtained a copy of a the Union handbill signed by Heard, Renner, Reimann-Ruba and Babcock. This evidence in combination with the comments made by Stacey Patulski at the September 24th meeting threatening retaliation against Union supporters is sufficient to uphold the NLRB’s finding that the dismissal of these employees was, at least in part, due to anti-Union animus. b. Employees Shedd, Stewart, and Zimmer 8 Shedd, Stewart, and Zimmer also engaged in a discussion about the Union in the presence of Amptech agents. In addition, Stewart admitted to an agent of Amptech that she had worked in a Union job in the past. Stewart and Zimmer openly complained to President Jeff Patulski about company pay and about Stacey Patulski. Thus, there is evidence in the record that these employees expressed support for the Union and that management was aware of their support. As a result, substantial evidence supports the NLRB’s finding that these employees were laid off due to their Union activity, especially given the comments made by Amptech managers threatening Union supporters. c. Employees Krusniak and Block The day before the layoffs, Krusniak, Block, and company managers Fairbanks, Ray, Smalley, and Taylor attended a meeting on the Union. At the meeting, Block testified that she spoke in favor of the Union. Krusniak openly disagreed with manager Ray’s assertion that the employees were well treated at this meeting. As a result, managers were aware of these two employees’ pro-Union sentiments. Thus, substantial evidence supports the NLRB’s finding that they were laid off due to their support of the Union. d. Employees White and Vallad Company officials admitted that they believed that if an employee associated with a Union supporter, that that employee also supported the Union. Company officials also admitted observing which employees associated with Union supporters. White associated with ReimannRuba, a known Union supporter. Vallad associated with Union supporters Reimann-Ruba, Heard, Renner, and Cromany. As a result, substantial evidence supports the NLRB’s finding that anti-Union animus played a role in Amptech’s decision to lay off these two employees. 9 e. Employees Ely and Schlaud Although there was no evidence that either Ely or Schlaud supported the Union, the NLRB argues that the surrounding circumstances also make their layoffs improper. According to the NLRB, Schlaud was a part-time employee laid off to cover-up Amptech’s anti-Union bias against Krusniak. The NLRB also argues that Ely was laid off to provide cover for the layoffs of Union supporters Reimann-Ruba, Heard, White, and Shedd because all of those employees worked in the surface-mount department. This theory of laying off certain employees to provide cover for the Union motivated layoffs of other employees is supported by the case law. Wonder State Mfg. Col. v. NLRB, 331 F.2d 737, 738 (6th Cir. 1964). See also Jack August Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRB, 583 F.2d 575, 578-79 (1st Cir. 1978); L.J. Williams Lumber Co. v. NLRB, 195 F.2d 669, 672 (4th Cir. 1952). We find that because substantial evidence supports the NLRB’s finding that nine of the eleven employees laid off were laid off because of their Union activity, and because it is not unreasonable for the ALJ to conclude that the layoffs of these final two employees could obfuscate such illegal conduct, the NLRB’s findings with respect to these employees are supported by substantial evidence. D. Recalls from layoffs Although Amptech discussed the recall from layoffs in the fact section of its brief, it did not dispute in its brief that the recall from layoffs was done in an unlawful manner. Therefore, we deem Amptech’s arguments on this issue waived. Dillery v. City of Sandusky, 398 F.3d 562, 569 (6th Cir. 2005) (“[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.”). E. Termination of Trudy Thomas 10 If an employer discharges a supervisor because that supervisor provided information to the NLRB about unfair labor practices against employees, the employer violates Title 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). See NLRB v. Carter Lumber, Inc., 507 F.2d 1262 (6th Cir. 1974). Here, substantial evidence supports the NLRB’s finding that Trudy Thomas was discharged for providing evidence to the NLRB. There is no dispute that Thomas provided an affidavit to the NLRB. There is a dispute, however, concerning whether agents of Amptech knew that she had done so. Thomas testified that she had told the Patulskis in October that she had given the affidavit. They deny ever being told. The ALJ and the NLRB obviously chose to credit Thomas’ testimony over that of the Patulskis. The NLRB’s credibility determinations may not be disturbed “unless they are inherently unreasonable or self-contradictory.” Thomas Indus. Inc. v. NLRB, 687 F.2d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 1982) (rejected on other grounds). The NLRB’s credibility determination, in this case, is neither inherently unreasonable, nor is it self-contradictory. The NLRB also determined that the reason Thomas was given for her discharge, that she had not contributed to the company, was a pretextual reason for her termination. The NLRB’s finding was supported by the evidence that Thomas had never received a negative evaluation and had been lauded for her work with an employee of the month award and an “extra effort” award over her seven years with the company. Thus, this finding that the reason proffered for Thomas’ termination was pretextual was supported by substantial evidence. Although Thomas was not discharged until three months after giving her affidavit to the NLRB, the pretextual reason for her termination, the fact that she provided an affidavit to the NLRB and that agents of Amptech were aware that she had done so, and the other general anti- 11 Union activities of Amptech all provide sufficient support for this court to uphold the NLRB’s determination on this point as being supported by substantial evidence.