Court Opinion

ID: 9476936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:09:28.026059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:35.672744
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur with some hesitation with respect to the agency issue in this case, De-naro’s authority to bind American Press under the circumstances. NLRB v. Dayton Hotels, 474 F.2d 328 (6th Cir.1973), counsels that to hold the speech or actions of an employee to bind the employer there must be some real connection between management and the employee’s conduct, “either by way of instigation, direction, approval, or at the very least, acquiescence.” The other employee’s belief that Denaro might speak for management, in my view, is not enough, and Denaro’s relatively insignificant ownership interest and minor part in decisionmaking with regard to hiring makes his agency status suspect. Nor do I find this case so easily distinguishable from NLRB v. Sherwood Trucking Co., 775 F.2d 744 (6th Cir.1985). The case is very close on this critical question, but I concur, considering the evidence of anti-union animus on the part of American Press, among other factors that might support the Board.
I concur that Bolda and Roulette are not entitled to reinstatement and back pay, and in the other portions of Judge Martin’s opinion.