Court Opinion

ID: 9487241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:11:37.379962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:09.904819
License: Public Domain

FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority’s decision to not enforce the Board’s order as it relates to the company memorandum and to enforce the order as it relates to Shaleen’s meeting with Leonard. However, because I believe that MTI has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have taken the same action even in the absence of Berger’s union activity, I dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion.
MTI has shown that there were legitimate grounds for Berger’s discharge and that these reasons, standing alone, would have caused it to terminate him. First, Berger refused to comply with the company’s recent call-in policy. Second, Berger had a poor driving record, which culminated in MTI receiving a complaint from a member of the public about Berger’s dangerous driving. His admitted insubordination, flaunting of company rules, and poor driving record, combined with the recent complaint about his dangerous driving, are a sufficient basis for Berger’s discharge. I believe that MTI presented ample support that Berger would have been discharged despite his union activities. Therefore, I would affirm the Board’s order as to the meeting with Leonard, but not for the other two reasons.