NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
BRENNAN'S, INC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court clarified its previous language regarding the standard of review for employer conduct, stating that an inference of illegality must be 'so compelling' to overcome legitimate business reasons.
The National Labor Relations Board petitioned for modification of a prior opinion concerning an employer's removal of an employee. The Board contended…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legitimate Business Purpose cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Upon petition for modification of our opinion the National Labor Relations Board does not seek a change in the result of our decision in this case. It is cbntended, however, that we have departed from the standard of review set forth in Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 478, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456; N.L.R.B. v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 405, 82 S.Ct. 853, 7 L.Ed.2d 829; and Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company v. N.L.R.B., 354 F. 2d 707 (5 Cir. 1966) by use of the following language :
“We must decide whether these facts carry with them an inference of unlawful intention so compelling that it is justifiable to disbelieve the employer’s protestations of innocent purpose. We find that they do not. Based upon the term ‘so compelling,’ we conclude that if the employer’s conduct carries with it any other reasonable inference of a legitimate motive, the inference of illegality does not control. N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, supra [363 F. 2d 130 (5 Cir. 1966)].”
While we disagree with the above interpretation of our language, in the interest of clarity we withdraw it and substitute the following:
But in addition the record discloses other vital and important considerations in that LaFleur’s abusive language gave rise to significant business reasons and a legitimate business purpose which strongly support the action of the Brennan’s in removing LaFleur from the main dining room. Therefore we must decide whether the conduct of Brennan’s in reference to LaFleur carries with it an inference of unlawful intention which is so compelling that it constitutes substantial evidence of an unlawful motive and justifies the conclusion that Brennan’s was not motivated by legitimate business interests. See American Ship Building Co. v. N.L.R.B. [380 U.S. 300, 85 S.Ct. 955], 13 L.Ed.2d 855, 863-4 (1965). Upon a full review of the record we conclude that the above facts coupled with LaFleur’s self-serving declaration that Brennan’s was unlawfully motivated do not constitute substantial evidence to support the inference of anti-union animus necessary for a finding of a constructive discharge.
In all other respects the Petition for Modification is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Haberman Constr. Co., 641 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1981)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Laney & Duke Storage Warehouse Co., Inc., 369 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1966)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Haberman Constr. Co., 618 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1980)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951)
- Am. Ship Bldg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 380 U.S. 300 (U.S. 1965)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404 (U.S. 1962)
- The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 354 F.2d 707 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 363 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1966)