L. J. "LEE" FOLKINS, DBA STANDARD OIL DISTRIBUTORS, PETITIONER,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 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 held that circumstantial evidence, including the timing of the discharge and fabricated business justifications, was sufficient to support the National Labor Relations Board's finding of an unlawful motive for the employee's discharge.
An employer discharged a newly hired employee shortly after the employee attended a union meeting and signed authorization cards. The employer offered…
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 Violation Of Section 8(A)(3) And (1) Of The National Labor Relations Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
L. J. Folkins petitions for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board finding violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board cross-petitions for enforcement of its order. The Board’s order is reported at 206 NLRB No. 35.
Folkins is engaged in the distribution of petroleum products under contract with Standard Oil Company of California. On February 12, 1973, the company hired Richard Smith as a tank truck driver. That evening, Smith accompanied three of the company’s four other employees to a meeting with union representatives. Smith and two of the other employees ultimately signed union authorization cards. The next morning, February 13, 1973, union representatives visited Folkins and requested recognition. Folkins was non-committal and the union gave the company until the afternoon to respond to the request. That afternoon Folkins discharged Smith.
At the hearing, Folkins presented numerous business justifications for the discharge. However, the Administrative Law Judge and the Board rejected each of the alleged justifications as spurious and contradicted by the evidence.
The critical issue is a factual one, namely the actual motive for Smith’s discharge. In determining motive, the Board “may rely on circumstantial as well as direct evidence and its inference and finding must prevail where it is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 1951, 340 U.S. 474, 488, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456.
Circumstantial evidence, including the timing of Smith’s discharge, coupled with Folkins’ apparently fabricated business justifications, is sufficient to support the Board’s findings. See N. L. R. B. v. Council Manufacturing Corp., 8 Cir., 1964, 334 F. 2d 161, 164.
Folkins’ petition is denied.
The Order of the Board will be enforced.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clear Pine Mouldings, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 632 F.2d 721 (9th Cir. 1980)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Inland Empire Meat Co., 611 F.2d 1235 (9th Cir. 1979)
-
Golden DAY Schs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 644 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1981)
Authorities Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Council Mfg. Corp., 334 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1964)