Court Opinion

ID: 9470097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:57:13.107488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:44.039576
License: Public Domain

BARRETT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Administrative Law Judge Rasburg applied the NLRB’s standard which provides that the test to determine whether strikers should be discharged is whether their mis*768conduct is so violent as to render them unfit for further employment or whether it “merely constitutes a trivial rough incident occurring in a moment of animal exuberance.” The Board, in upholding the finding of the ALJ, was perfectly aware that the ALJ applied this standard, rather than the “objective test” required by two sister circuit courts of appeal. See: NLRB v. McQuaide, Inc., 552 F.2d 519 (3rd Cir.1977); Associated Grocers of New England, Inc. v. NLRB, 562 F.2d 1333 (1st Cir.1977). The majority opinion explains that the Board denied, in its decision, that it was following its “animal exuberance” rule. In truth and in fact the Board did follow this rule.
The threats and actions of Roy and Donald Lassen when measured by the proper “objective standard” test which this court should, in my view, adopt, clearly constitute such misconduct which amounts to coercion and intimidation. The ALJ found that their conduct placed employees and customers in fear. In my view, the actions of the Lassens were calculated threats carried out over a period of some 30 days. They did not constitute isolated threats or “trivial” misdeeds.
I would adopt the “objective test” standard of the First and Third Circuits, supra, and thus deny enforcement of the Board’s order.