Dover Energy, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 818 F.3d 725

Blackmer (industrial-pump manufacturer) and UAW Local 828 had a long-standing CBA; stewards (including Tom Kaanta) investigate grievances but Kaanta was not on the bargaining committee.
During 2012 contract negotiations Kaanta submitted two written "Information Requests" to HR director John Kaminski seeking financial and payroll data; Kaminski contacted union negotiators who said the requests were not authorized.
Kaminski denied the first request in writing and on August 23, 2012 gave Kaanta a written-record "verbal" warning stating his "continued frivolous requests" and that "similar requests such as this will result in further discipline up to and including discharge."
Kaanta filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging the warning unlawfully threatened discipline for protected concerted activity; OGC issued a complaint and an ALJ found no violation (requests were not protected and warning targeted unprotected conduct).
The NLRB majority reversed, finding the warning reasonably could be read to proscribe future protected information requests and thus violate Section 8(a)(1); the D.C. Circuit granted review.
The D.C. Circuit vacated enforcement: court held the Board’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence because the warning, read in context, targeted specific unauthorized/frivolous requests, not future legitimate steward requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Blackmer’s warning violated §8(a)(1) by reasonably threatening discipline for future protected activity	Kaanta: warning’s phrase “similar requests such as this” and parenthetical recitation of payroll request would reasonably be read to bar future protected wage/hour information requests	Blackmer: warning targeted specific "continued frivolous" unauthorized requests outside steward scope; did not threaten discipline for legitimate, union‑authorized requests	Held for Blackmer — Board’s conclusion not supported by substantial evidence; warning read in context addressed specific unauthorized requests, not future protected activity

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. NLRB, 288 F.3d 434 (D.C. Cir.) (employer statements that could reasonably be read to threaten discipline for future protected requests violate §8(a)(1))
Tasty Baking Co. v. NLRB, 254 F.3d 114 (D.C. Cir.) (objective test: statements with reasonable tendency to coerce or interfere with employee rights violate §8(a)(1))
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (Sup. Ct.) (reviewing courts must consider record evidence that detracts from agency findings)
Flagstaff Med. Ctr., Inc. v. NLRB, 715 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir.) (summary of §8(a)(1) interference/restraint/coercion standards)
Exxel/Atmos, Inc. v. NLRB, 147 F.3d 972 (D.C. Cir.) (employer’s motive irrelevant; focus on whether statements reasonably tend to interfere with §7 rights)
Synergy Gas Corp. v. NLRB, 19 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir.) (appellate standard: uphold Board if supported by substantial evidence)