Opinion ID: 2973453
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timing and need for layoffs

Text: 5 The ALJ made a determination “that the General Counsel has established a prima facie case that the selection of the permanent employees for layoff was motivated in part by the employees’ participation in union activities.” Joint Appendix (J.A.) at 16. See also General Fabrications Corp., 222 F.3d 218, 226 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Wright Line, 251 N.L.R.B. 1083 (1980) and NLRB V. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 394-95 (1983)). Because the ALJ determined that a prima facie case had been established, the burden shifted to Amptech “to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it took the action for a legitimate nondiscriminatory business reason and would have done so even in the absence of the unlawful motivation.” J.A. at 16. See also General Fabrications Corp., 222 F.3d at 228 (citing NLRB v. General Sec. Servs. Corp., 162 F.3d 427, 442 (6th Cir. 1985). This circuit has indicated that: Discriminatory motivation may reasonably be inferred from a variety of factors, such as the company's expressed hostility towards unionization combined with knowledge of the employees' union activities; inconsistencies between the proffered reason for discharge and other actions of the employer; disparate treatment of certain employees compared to other employees with similar work records or offenses; a company's deviation from past practices in implementing the discharge; and proximity in time between the employees' union activities and their discharge. General Fabrication Corp., 222 F.3d at 228 (citing W.F. Bolin Co. v. NLRB, 70 F.3d 863, 871 (6th Cir. 1995). The ALJ found that Amptech failed to meet its burden: In this case the evidence is overwhelming that the layoff and the selection of the permanent employees for layoff were discriminatorily motivated. At the outset there had not been any evidence of an impeding layoff prior to the afternoon of the layoff on September 28, 2001 when the layoff was executed by management. The Respondent presented evidence of some slowdown in business occurring in the time period from late August until the September 28 layoff. Connie Patulski testified concerning cancellations and delays of some orders by several customers that were occurring in this time frame. However, she testified that Respondent has 50 regular customers. I have taken judicial notice that the terrorist events of September 11, impacted business generally in the American economy. I note Trudy Thomas’ testimony that she was not surprised by the layoff but that she was surprised by the employees who were selected for layoff. I, thus, conclude that there was some 6 evidence presented which would indicate that a layoff of some kind may have been imminent. However, the Respondent has not demonstrated, that in the absence of the unlawful motivation for the layoff, it would have occurred on September 28, without warning and that it would impact on permanent employees given the fact that several temporary employees were retained while permanent employees were laid off. I further find that Respondent has failed to demonstrate that the permanent employees would have been selected for layoff in the absence of the unlawful motivation. Here, it is apparent that the Respondent laid off employees known or suspected by Respondent to be supporters of the Union in order to rid itself of these employees. I find that it spared Barbara Cornamy from the layoff to conceal its unlawful motive by retaining a leading union adherent. I further find that it added to the mix of union supporters selected for layoff three employees not known to be union supporters in order to conceal its antiunion motivation for the layoff. J.A. at 16. The NLRB did not appear to address this finding in detail in its decision, but generally affirmed this portion of the ALJ’s decision. See J.A. at 1 (“The Board has considered the decision and record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions as discussed below, and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.”). We hold that these findings are supported by substantial evidence. Although we are sympathetic to the argument made by Amptech that it would have had to lay off some employees due to the downturn in its business, we find that the substantial evidence in the record supports the finding of the ALJ that Amptech did not need to lay off employees when it did and it did not show that it needed to lay off the permanent employees it did, particularly when it kept nine Manpower employees on the payroll after the layoffs. Amptech’s keeping nine Manpower employees on the payroll is particularly strong evidence that supports the ALJ’s finding on this point under the substantial evidence standard. The further evidence related to the number of hours (including overtime) worked after the layoff and the fact that layoffs were not discussed at 7 meetings prior to Amptech managers’ discovery of the Union drive supports the ALJ’s finding on this point. Finally, even if Amptech is correct that it did need to conduct layoffs, and there is significant evidence in the record that it did suffer a downturn in business starting in August, this fact is not enough to undermine the ALJ’s finding that Amptech did not prove that it had to engage in layoffs when it did, or lay off the employees that it did. Any error on the ALJ’s part in not sufficiently recognizing the extent of the downturn faced by Amptech was, therefore, harmless as the timing of the layoffs and the employees chosen to be laid off, are just as critical to the ALJ’s finding of the a violation of federal labor law as the finding that the layoffs should not have taken place at all.