Court Opinion

ID: 9480752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:57:28.514832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:53.205373
License: Public Domain

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s opinion except in the sentence which states: “There is missing from the Board’s analysis consideration of the second element of the Cal-Pro1 test: whether MPC’s unfair labor practices ‘ha[ve] dissipated significantly the union’s majority_’” (Footnote added.) There was really no dispute regarding this second element once MPC was found to have effectively discharged its employees and that it was guilty of the unfair labor practices alleged. As stated in the Court’s opinion, most of the employees lost their jobs because of the employer’s unfair labor practices. With almost all of the employees who signed authorization cards gone, the union obviously lost the majority of those who signed the cards. The second element of Cal-Pro must be measured as of the time the unfair labor practices occurred.

. Indiana Cal-Pro, Inc. v. NLRB, 863 F.2d 1292 (6th Cir.1988).