Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
866 F.3d 885
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Cooper Tire locked out union employees after the CBA expired and operated with replacement workers; many replacements were African‑American and transported through a picket line.
- Anthony Runion, a locked‑out union member, shouted racial remarks (references to KFC, fried chicken, watermelon) toward a van of replacement workers while picketing on January 7, 2012; there was no evidence replacements heard him, though others on the line did.
- Cooper discharged Runion when recalling employees; the union grieved and an arbitrator found just cause to discharge him.
- An ALJ and then the NLRB concluded the discharge violated Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA and ordered reinstatement with back pay.
- Cooper petitioned for review; the Eighth Circuit majority enforced the NLRB order, rejecting deference to the arbitrator and holding the firing unlawfully chilled protected picket‑line activity.
- A dissent argued Runion’s racially disparaging remarks fall outside NLRA protection, conflicted with Title VII obligations, and that the Board improperly substituted its view for the arbitrator’s award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Runion/Union) | Defendant's Argument (Cooper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discharge for picket‑line misconduct is unlawful under NLRA §7/§8 | Picketing (even heated/racialized) is protected unless it objectively tends to coerce/intimidate; Runion’s remarks were part of heated exchange and not directed/heard by targeted replacements | Discharge was for conduct unprotected by the NLRA (racist harassment); employer must enforce anti‑harassment policy and can refuse rehire | Court enforced NLRB: Runion’s statements did not objectively amount to coercion or threats and were protected under Clear Pine Mouldings framework |
| Proper legal test to apply (Clear Pine vs. Wright Line) | Use striker‑misconduct/Clear Pine standard for picket‑line conduct | Wright Line applies when termination reason is unconnected to protected activity | Court: Clear Pine applies because termination was for picket‑line participation, not an unrelated reason |
| Whether reinstatement conflicts with Title VII obligations | Reinstatement does not relieve employer of Title VII duties; Title VII does not require firing absent failure to take prompt remedial action | Reinstating a racially hostile employee forces employer to violate Title VII and other anti‑discrimination laws | Court: No conflict—Runion’s remarks were not severe/pervasive enough to create hostile work environment; employer may take Title VII‑appropriate remedial steps without mandatory firing |
| Whether Board should defer to arbitrator’s just‑cause finding | Arbitration award should be deferred to unless repugnant to NLRA | Arbitrator’s finding was reasonable and supported; award not “palpably wrong” | Court: Board permissibly declined deference because arbitrator applied the wrong standard (treated picket‑line context as aggravating rather than protective) |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Ship Bldg. Co. v. NLRB, 380 U.S. 300 (recognizes locked‑out employees’ right to picket)
- NMC Finishing v. NLRB, 101 F.3d 528 (Eighth Circuit articulating Clear Pine picket‑line coercion test)
- NLRB v. RELCO Locomotives, Inc., 734 F.3d 764 (deference to Board factual findings on review)
- Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527 (judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions)
- Consol. Commc’ns, Inc. v. NLRB, 837 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. holding hostile gestures/epithets on picket line may still be protected if not objectively coercive)
- Earle Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 75 F.3d 400 (recognizes different standards for workplace misconduct vs. picket‑line conduct)
- Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203 (Board’s remedial authority and limitations under §10(c))