Caterpillar Logistics, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
835 F.3d 536
6th Cir.2016Background
- In September 2013 employees at Caterpillar’s Clayton, Ohio facility voted on UAW representation; the election failed 229–188. The UAW filed objections alleging employer coercion during the critical period.
- Two supervisors (Ewry and Butcher) approached employees soon after anti-union meetings and asked about their union views. Employees testified these encounters made them fearful of reprisal.
- At a September 18 meeting, management announced a one-time $400 safety bonus (paid December) and, for the first time, promised covered outdoor smoking shelters. Both announcements occurred nine days before the election.
- After the election, an employee (Craft) reacted angrily at a meeting when management referred to a guard shack; he made crude, aggressive remarks to coworkers and was suspended and later discharged. He claimed the discharge violated the NLRA.
- An ALJ found that the interrogations, the creation of an impression of surveillance, the announcements of the bonus and shelters, and Craft’s discharge violated the NLRA and ordered remedies including setting aside the election and reinstating Craft. The Board affirmed (adding the surveillance finding). The Sixth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and enforced the Board’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supervisors’ questioning of employees constituted unlawful interrogation (coercion) | The questions were innocuous workplace conversation; not coercive | Questions occurred after anti-union meetings, were by supervisors, aimed at union views and thus coercive | Held: Interrogations were coercive; substantial evidence supported Board/ALJ findings |
| Whether a supervisor’s comment created an impression of surveillance | No surveillance; comment was ambiguous or harmless | Comment that "upper management already knew everyone involved" reasonably created impression of surveillance | Held: Comment created impression of surveillance; violated NLRA |
| Whether announcement of $400 safety bonus and smoking shelters were unlawful promises of benefits to influence the vote | Announcements were legitimate business/safety communications made earlier or for legitimate reasons | Timing (9 days before election) and prior inaction support inference announcement intended to influence vote | Held: Both announcements were unfair labor practices (timed to influence vote); substantial evidence supports finding |
| Whether Craft’s discharge forfeited NLRA protection because his remarks were threatening/opprobrious | Craft’s statements were violent threats forfeiting protection; discharge justified | Craft’s outburst was protected concerted activity, contextualized as metaphorical and not a real threat | Held: Craft’s remarks remained protected; discharge unlawful; reinstatement ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (Sup. Ct.) (standard of substantial evidence review in NLRB cases)
- Dupont Dow Elastomers, L.L.C. v. NLRB, 296 F.3d 495 (6th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence review)
- Torbitt & Castleman, Inc. v. NLRB, 123 F.3d 899 (6th Cir.) (limited appellate review of Board decisions)
- Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. NLRB, 402 F.3d 651 (6th Cir.) (coercive tendency standard for unfair labor practices)
- NLRB v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 750 F.2d 524 (D.C. Cir.) (interrogation as unlawful conduct)
- Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. NLRB, 104 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir.) (employer inquiries about union views tend to cause fear of reprisal)
- NLRB v. Homemaker Shops, Inc., 724 F.2d 535 (6th Cir.) (creating impression of surveillance violates NLRA)
- NLRB v. Arrow Elastic Corp., 573 F.2d 702 (1st Cir.) (timing of benefit announcement may render it coercive)
- St. Francis Fed’n of Nurses & Health Profs. v. NLRB, 729 F.2d 844 (D.C. Cir.) (timing of announcements can violate §158(a)(1))