Bruce Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
417 App. D.C. 281
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Bruce Packing operates two Oregon meat plants; sanitation manager Jorge Mesa and assistant Osmin Martinez selected employees for layoffs after a directive to cut staff by 10%.
- Four Silverton day-shift sanitation employees (Coria, Maciel, Luna, Rojas) were laid off; all had recently supported a union organizing drive.
- NLRB Regional Director charged Bruce Packing with violating §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) for discharging union supporters and for coercive interrogation/threats; ALJ held three discharges unlawful but found Rojas’s layoff lawful for attendance; ALJ denied a late motion to amend the complaint alleging promised raises for anti-union behavior.
- Board affirmed the ALJ on three discharges, reversed as to Rojas (finding insufficient proof of legitimate motive) and, over a dissent, allowed the General Counsel’s late amendment and found promised raises unlawful.
- Bruce Packing petitioned for review; this court reviews factual findings for substantial evidence and constitutional/due-process claims de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discharges violated § 8(a)(3) under Wright Line | General Counsel: union support was a motivating factor for terminations | Bruce Packing: layoffs were based on legitimate business reasons (attendance/performance) | Court: substantial evidence supports Board that Maciel, Coria, Luna, and Rojas (contrary to ALJ) were unlawfully discharged; employer failed to prove it would have laid off Rojas absent union activity |
| Whether employer met Wright Line burden to show Rojas would have been laid off absent union activity | Employer: Rojas’s repeated tardiness justified layoff | Board/GC: employer failed to compare Rojas to others or produce corroborating evidence | Court: employer did not meet its burden; evidence supports Board reversal of ALJ and finding of unlawful discharge |
| Whether ALJ’s denial of General Counsel’s late motion to amend complaint violated due process | General Counsel: amendment permissible; issue litigated through testimony | Employer: late amendment denied fair notice and opportunity to defend | Court: reversed Board; allowing amendment at hearing’s end deprived employer of notice and fair opportunity — amendment disallowed |
| Whether ALJ’s factual finding about alleged promised raises justified permitting amendment despite lateness | Board: parties fully litigated the issue; employer could have reopened evidence | Employer: lacked notice and meaningful opportunity to rebut; ALJ closed hearing | Court: employer need not show specific rebuttal; prejudice exists when amendment raised at close; Board erred in allowing amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- ConAgra, Inc. v. NLRB, 117 F.3d 1435 (D.C. Cir.) (standard of review: substantial evidence for Board factual findings)
- Bally’s Park Place, Inc. v. NLRB, 646 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir.) (deference principles when Board disagrees with ALJ)
- J.J. Cassone Bakery, Inc. v. NLRB, 554 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir.) (no deference to Board on constitutional/due-process questions)
- Avecor, Inc. v. NLRB, 931 F.2d 924 (D.C. Cir.) (describing Wright Line burden-shifting framework)
- NLRB v. Transp. Mgmt. Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (Supreme Court) (Wright Line foundational allocation of burdens)
- Fla. Gas Transmission Co. v. FERC, 604 F.3d 636 (D.C. Cir.) (review scope: whether evidence supports agency’s ultimate decision)
- Chevron Mining, Inc. v. NLRB, 684 F.3d 1318 (D.C. Cir.) (analysis whether legitimate business motive alone would have produced action)
- NLRB v. Blake Constr. Co., 663 F.2d 272 (D.C. Cir.) (due-process limits on late complaint amendments)
- Conair Corp. v. NLRB, 721 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir.) (critical issue for late amendments is whether charged party had notice before record closed)