BEHRING INTERNATIONAL, INC., 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 the National Labor Relations Board's decision should be sustained and its order enforced, applying the burden of proof standard established in N.L.R.B. v. Transportation Management Corp.
The case was remanded for further proceedings due to the Board misallocating the burden of proof. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconside…
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 Rebuttal Of Prima Facie Case cases and more on FLexlaw
[*292] OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
On April 7, 1982, we filed an opinion and order directing that this case be remanded for further proceedings because the Board had misallocated the burden of proof. Behring International Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 675 F. 2d 88 (3d Cir.1982). The Supreme Court granted certiorari on that issue, vacated our judgment, and remanded to this court for further consideration in light of N.L.R.B. v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2469, 76 L.Ed.2d 667 (U.S. 1983). N.L.R.B. v. Behring International, Inc., - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3104, 77 L.Ed.2d 1359 (1983).
In Transportation Management, the Court held that, in a dual-motive discharge case, the Board could place the burden of proof on the employer after the General Counsel establishes a prima facie case. We had held that statutory constraints require the burden of persuasion to remain with the General Counsel.
In the case at hand, the Board found that the economic defense proffered by the employer failed to rebut the prima facie case presented by the General Counsel. After reviewing this finding in light of the burden of proof placed on the employer by Transportation Management, we conclude that the decision of the Board will be sustained and its order enforced.
As we observed in our earlier opinion, the decision as to which party bears the ultimate burden can be determinative in a case as close as this one. The General Counsel did not present a strong case, but we cannot say it did not establish a prima facie one. Similarly, although we might have resolved the issue differently had we heard it in the first instance, our limited scope of review requires us to accept the Board’s conclusion that the employer did not meet the burden assigned to it.
We previously rejected the employer’s other two challenges to the Board’s decision. 675 F. 2d at 85-86. Accordingly, the employer’s petition for review will be denied and the Board’s order will be enforced.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Local Union NO. 277 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 717 F.2d 805 (3d Cir. 1983)
-
Hanlon & Wilson Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 738 F.2d 606 (3d Cir. 1984)
-
E.I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co. (Chestnut RUN) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 724 F.2d 1061 (3d Cir. 1983)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transp. Mgmt. Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1983)