Court Opinion

ID: 9439522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 06:38:15.677924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:28.216403
License: Public Domain

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion because I agree that White’s statements were not protected under the second prong of the Jefferson Standard test as iterated in the Board’s decisions. I write separately to express my opinion that the statements did not satisfy the test’s first prong which requires that they relate to an ongoing labor dispute — an issue the majority does not reach, see maj. op. at 537 n. 5. As the dissenting Board chairman observed, although both the article and the posting included references to labor disputes, the specific statements that precipitated EIT’s ultimate discharge of White related not to any labor issue but to the capabilities of EIT and its management. See NLRB Op. at 5-7 (Battista, Chairman, dissenting). Thus, I do not believe that White’s communications qualify for protection under section 7 in the first place.