The NLRB Continues to Push the Envelope

16 July 2012 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Various decisions of the Obama-era NLRB have come under scrutiny as many have questioned whether a pro-labor bias has motivated the NLRB in recent times. Whether those decisions are correct or necessary, it hard to argue against the perception that the NLRB in recent years has made deliberate efforts to assist organized labor and limit the prerogatives of management in the arena of union activities. The most recent example of such a decision arises in the recent case of Evenflow Transportation, Inc., decided by the NLRB on July 3, 2012. In that decision, an employer was faced with organizing activities by some of its employees. Evidence was produced that the employer unlawfully interrogated several employees about their activities, and made what was deemed to be a threat against another employee suspected of speaking with union representatives. Ultimately, the employer laid off five employees — three of whom were believed to have been involved in organizing activities, as well as two other employees who worked alongside those three.

Relying on traditional standards of motivation and causation, the NLRB held that the five layoffs were the result of illegal anti-union motivation, and found such layoffs to be illegal. Had the NLRB stopped its analysis there — which it easily could have — the case would not be remarkable. However, it did not do so.

In its decision in Evenflow, the NLRB went on to find that even if the employer had no idea whether the five laid-off employees were or were not engaged in union activities, their layoffs would still be illegal. In so doing, the NLRB relied on the so-called “mass discharge theory,” under which the NLRB found that the employer had acted “to send a general message of warning or retaliation” to its workforce by initiating the layoffs. The NLRB further commented that under that theory, it did not matter whether the specific employees impacted were or were not involved in union activities. Instead, the NLRB found that the employer had demonstrated clear anti-union sentiments, and that the layoff involved in Evenflow was therefore tainted regardless of the specific activities or sympathies of the employees impacted.

The mass discharge theory has been utilized in several previous NLRB decisions and court cases, albeit under different circumstances than are involved here. Regardless, the decision is troubling for a couple of reasons: 1) the NLRB went out of its way to apply the theory even though it had not been alleged by the NLRB attorneys handling the case, and 2) the language in Evenflow discussing the mass discharge theory is broadly written and could be applied to render unlawful otherwise innocent and legitimate employer actions that take place during known or suspected union organizing.

It remains to be seen how Evenflow will be used in the future. Employers can hope it will be limited to the particulars of that case and not be expanded to put employers at risk for otherwise lawful actions undertaken during periods of employee protected activities. Time will tell.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services