Good Samaritan Medical Center v. National Labor Relations Board
858 F.3d 617
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Legley was a probationary boiler-operator hire at Good Samaritan; during mandatory orientation he challenged a union delegate’s statement that employees "had to join" the union. The exchange became heated.
- Lavigne (union delegate) and several coworkers testified she was upset and emotional after the meeting; other witnesses described Legley as interruptive, loud, and overbearing; Legley signed a union application at the end of the session.
- Union delegates and union staff discussed Lavigne’s distress among themselves and then communicated concerns to hospital management about Legley’s disruptive behavior.
- Good Samaritan terminated Legley the next day, citing violations of its civility policy and concerns about training and night-shift supervision.
- ALJ and the NLRB found that the Union caused the discharge and that both the Union and the Employer violated the NLRA; they ordered reinstatement, back pay, and rescission of the civility policy. The First Circuit denied enforcement, finding the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence on the whole record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Union caused Legley’s discharge because of protected activity (Wright Line) | Union argued its reports were motivated by concern over Lavigne’s distress and Legley’s disruptive conduct, not his protected refusal to join | NLRB/GC argued Union had knowledge of protected activity and acted with animus; Union failed rebuttal | Court: NLRB decision lacked consideration of record evidence showing Union focused on behavior; denied enforcement for lack of substantial evidence on whole record |
| Whether the Union breached its duty of fair representation by causing the discharge | Union argued reporting a member’s mistreatment is a good‑faith, rational act tied to representing constituency | NLRB asserted Operating Engineers presumption and that Union failed to rebut necessity defense | Court: Union’s stated justification met modern, less onerous standards (Operative Plasterers/Caravan Knight); NLRB failed to analyze contradictory evidence; no enforcement |
| Whether Good Samaritan unlawfully discharged Legley because of protected activity (Wright Line employer defense) | GC argued timing and employer knowledge show protected conduct motivated discharge | Employer argued it reasonably believed Legley had engaged in uncivil/unprotected conduct and would have discharged him regardless | Court: Board did not demonstrate substantial evidence that protected conduct motivated discharge or that employer’s proffered reasons were pretextual; denied enforcement |
| Whether Lavigne’s remark constituted unlawful threat of unspecified reprisals (8(b)(1)(A)) | GC/NLRB treated Lavigne’s comment as an unlawful unspecified threat tied to protected rights | Union and employer argued comment responded to perceived misconduct and lacked nexus to protected activity | Court: Record did not show substantial evidence that statement targeted exercise of §7 rights; unresolved contradiction required denying enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (Sup. Ct.) (defines "substantial evidence" standard for agency findings)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (Sup. Ct.) (whole‑record review requires considering evidence that detracts from agency’s conclusion)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (Sup. Ct.) (union duty of fair representation standard: arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith)
- NLRB v. Transp. Mgmt. Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (Sup. Ct.) (adopts Wright Line burden‑shifting framework for employer motive cases)
- Hilliard Dev. Corp. v. NLRB, 187 F.3d 133 (1st Cir.) (agency findings may stand despite inconsistent inferences, but must account for contradictory evidence)