Manhattan Beer Distributors LLC v. National Labor Relations Board
670 F. App'x 33
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Manhattan Beer terminated employee Joe Garcia Diaz after an investigatory incident involving alleged reasonable suspicion of drug use.
- Diaz requested union representation before submitting to a drug test during an investigatory interview; Manhattan Beer denied the request and required the test without a union representative present.
- Diaz refused to take the drug test without a union representative and was discharged for that refusal.
- The NLRB found Manhattan Beer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by denying Diaz the right to union representation at an investigatory interview he reasonably believed could result in discipline, and that the discharge was unlawful retaliatory conduct tied to Diaz’s assertion of Weingarten rights.
- The NLRB ordered remedies including reinstatement and backpay; Manhattan Beer petitioned for review in the Second Circuit, and the Board cross-applied for enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employee had a right to union representation before a drug test during an investigatory interview | Diaz: Weingarten rights extend to presence of a union rep before consenting to a drug test in an investigatory interview that could lead to discipline | Manhattan Beer: No right to have a union representative physically present before administering the drug test in this context | Held: Court upheld Board—Weingarten protects the right to representation before consenting to the drug test in that investigatory context |
| Whether discharge for refusing the drug test was unlawful and remedial relief warranted | Diaz: Termination was retaliatory for asserting Weingarten rights; seek reinstatement and backpay | Manhattan Beer: Termination was for refusal to comply with reasonable-suspicion drug testing policy, not for protected concerted activity | Held: Court upheld Board—discharge was causally connected to assertion of Weingarten rights; reinstatement and backpay affirmed |
| Standard of review applied to Board findings | N/A (Board’s legal interpretation reasonable) | N/A | Held: Factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence; legal conclusions upheld if reasonably based in law; both standards met |
| Nexus requirement for make-whole remedy | Diaz/NLRB: Sufficient nexus exists between denial of representation and discharge | Manhattan Beer: No sufficient nexus to justify make-whole relief | Held: Board reasonably found sufficient nexus; remedy appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975) (establishes employee right to union representation at investigatory interviews that may result in discipline)
- Int’l Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union v. Quality Mfg. Co., 420 U.S. 276 (1975) (addresses remedies and protections related to unfair labor practices)
- NLRB v. Special Touch Home Care Servs., Inc., 708 F.3d 447 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for Board factual and legal determinations)
- Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. NLRB, 13 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 1994) (discusses enforcement and review principles for Board orders)