Drug Plastics & Glass Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

169 thought they cannot be to be behav- and so setting, as businessmen.6

ing, DRUG PLASTICS & GLASS

CO., INC., Petitioner,

B. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS alternatively Appellants invoke the BOARD. exception “noncommercial tort” to the FSIA. No. 93-1013. exception, codified at 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(5), foreign provides that a state Appeals, United States Court any “in shall not be immune ease which District of Columbia Circuit. money damages sought against foreign are personal injury occurring state for 9, Argued May 1994. and caused the tortious act United States 5, Aug. Decided 1994. ” foreign omission of that state.... exception requires have held injury act as well as the

both the tortious Persinger occur the United States. See Iran, 835, Republic Islamic (D.C.Cir.1984).7 Appellants criticize that opinion, bound it. but we are of course dispute that There is no the tortious actions appellants complain of which occurred Accordingly, the noncommercial Lebanon. grant exception tort of immu FSIA’s nity inapplicable. reasons, foregoing judgment

For the court is the district affirmed. So ordered. We, therefore, added), (emphasis might need not decide whether there statement conduct, were "direct effects” in the United States. imply that the tortious as well as the injury, must occur within the United States. The Supreme apparently 7. The Court reached the Court, however, might simply have relied on the Argentine Republic same result in v. Amerada concluding grounds location of the attack as for 683, Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. Hess "injury” occurred outside the United (1989), although 102 L.Ed.2d 818 the matter is rate, having States. At concluded that Amer- entirely free from doubt and its statements injury ada did not occur in the United Hess’ point on this concluding were in dicta. In the course of requirement explicitly imposed by the States—a respondents’ injury "[b]ecause any statements about where the tortious unquestionably well outside occurred the 3-mile FSIA— conduct occurred were dicta. It is therefore still then in effect the territorial limit waters States, exception the United for noncommer- position Supreme Court would unclear what apply,” cial torts cannot id. at S.Ct. at alleging tortious conduct take if faced with a suit added), (emphasis the Court noted that the occurring injury abroad that caused in the Unit- " ship respondent's "tortious attack on occurred ed States. States, outside the United id. at 109 S.Ct. at Snitzer, D.

appearing on the briefs was Paul Eisenhart, Philadelphia, PA. Frank J. DC, аppearance. Washington, entered Habenstreit, Attorney, National David S. DC, Board, Washington, ar- Labor Relations respondent. appear- gued the cause for Also Sher, Acting were Linda ing on the brief Counsel, A. Arm- Aileen Associate Gen. Counsel, Lin- strong, Deputy Associate Gen. Dreeben, Atty., Supervisory and Deborah da Attorney, Shrager, E. National Labor Rela- Board, Washington, DC.

MIKVA, Judge, Before: Chief ROGERS, Judges. Circuit

SENTELLE Judge Opinion for the ‍​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‍Court filed Chief MIKVA. Judge

Dissenting opinion filed Circuit SENTELLE.

MIKVA, Judge: Chief employer challenges An an order of the (“Board”) Relations Board National Labor finding employer that the committed unfair alleges practiсes. Petitioner General Counsel’s exceeded the scope allegations contained in the Un- allegations in ion’s and that the complaint were therefore time-barred under of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). “significant think a factual relationship” exists between the con- duct and the additional conduct deny petition We therefore for review and enforce the Board’s order full.

I. BACKGROUND (“Drug Inc. Drug Plastics & Glass Plastics”), plastic bottles a manufacturer Boyertown, Pennsyl- and other containers (and vania, subject an incipient was the unsuccessful) organizing campaign union, July early 1991. On Cork, Rubber, United Linoleum and Plastic (“Un- America, Workers of District No. ion”), practice charge filed an unfair labor Board. That read as follows: with the unjustly Finkbiner, III, ter- Philadelphia, The above named Aaron C.F. PA, Allen Rich Matthews because argued petitioner. Also minated the cause testimony presented eral Counsel that Allen support activities his Union personally present Matthews was at all of plant. named in the above effort Union events, exception with the sole of Bill these discharged on Allen Rich Matthews statements. Mellen’s April or around respеct discharge to the unlawful al- With charge, the Board’s Gener- Pursuant to the Union, legation originally charged by the investigation. an On conducted al Counsel Drug responded that Allen Mat- Plastics 30, 1991, Counsel September the General properly thews was fired for cause. As to alleging violations of complaint, issued 8(a)(1) complaint, § in the the the 8(a)(3) 8(a)(1), §§ and 29 U.S.C. NLRA present- company general issued a denial and (1), 158(a)(3), discharge of Allen §§ in the allega- ed the affirmative defense that the 8(a)(1) Matthews, alleging § viola- and also tions should be dismissed under NLRA designed to discour- for other cоnduct tions 10(b) scope because exceeded the of relevant age organizing campaign. The the charge com- the and were time-barred. The of the NLRA read: sections any testimony pany present did not to refute (a) practice for be an unfair labor It shall 8(a)(1) allegations. the substance of the employer— an 1992, March, hearing in an ALJ After (1) with, restrain, or coerce to interfere in the found the rights employees in the exercise sufficiently relationship to those bore a close 7,§ in 29 U.S.C. guaranteed [NLRA satisfy requirements in the the 157]; NLRA. He then found that the hаd committed violations of (3) or regard in to hire discrimination 8(a)(1) in the of Tim Matthews’ and form employment any term or con- tenure of threats, plant closure Bill Fred Beisicker’s employment encourage or dis- dition of threat, discharge Forte’s Mellen’s and Glenn organi- courage membership in grievances and threat of sur- solicitation zation. remaining The ALJ dismissed the veillance. (3). 158(a)(1), §§ 29 U.S.C. Finding (1) discharged good Matthews was for complaint alleged that Alen Specifically, the President, Forte, cause, also dismissed the unlawful the ALJ Drug Plastic’s Vice Glenn discharge allegation. The Board affirmed complaints and employees’ had solicited full, findings including the de- knew the ALJ’s grievances, informed them that he union, the com- promised and termination that the there was talk about a plaint properly related to those improved and conditions of em- were them terms review, (2) petitions charge. Drug Plastics ployment; Vice President John Assistant cross-applies for enforcement. employees repri- with and the Board Rogers had threatened cards; they signed authorization sals if (3) had threatened President Fred Beisicker II. DISCUSSION plant in the event of employees with closure is whether The issue for our review (4)

unionization; Supervisor Tim Matthews 8(a)(1) properly violations plant employees with had also threatened charge al- The Union’s (5) closure; Supervisor Bill told Mellen had (1) §§ leged only and a violation employees’ union activities an arising firing of Alen Matthews. from the being and and discussions were monitored complaint, allegation reappeared discharge employee if had threatened to ultimately it after a dismissed but (6) activity; compa- engaged in union he discrediting hearing on the merits and after (7) increase; ny wage had instituted a by the testimony presented of witnesses employee, company had General Counsel. support for because of his Allen n (1), Union, held that the Gen- Supreme §§ Court has in violation of precise not bound original charge. Before the eral Counsel is as (“ALJ”), fashioning the com- Judge Law the Gen- Administrative contents (1989) 52, 107 L.Ed.2d 21 Counsel held 110 S.Ct. is the General plaint. Neither (“Because pleading. activity alleged Al- private the factual to the standard may begin precise Counsel union’s in this case was the though the General allega activity supported without a the Board’s investigation juris- trigger juris to the Board’s merely complaint],” the Board had [in acts as diction.) omitted). rigid limit as a thereon. NLRB (emphasis and not See also diction Co., Milling 360 U.S. NLRB v. Fant Transp. v. Overnite 1179, 1183-84, 307-08, Cir.1991) (“[T]he L.Ed.2d two [in hand, Act the other On complaint] the same le charge and involved authority on the confer carte blanche gal theory out of the same se and arose place allegations events.”) (footnotes omitted); Board to quence of in entirely to those Lines, unrelated that are Freight NLRB v. Braswell Motor 486 309, Cir.1973) 79 at 1184. The charge. (Stevens, J., Id. at S.Ct. 743, F.2d 747 NLRA, statutory (“I hook is dissenting) suppose the Board’s would reads, part: in relevant which jurisdiction by the should be tested General any person allegations proof.”); than his charged it is that Counsel’s rather Whenever Co., engaging Management in Clara 308 engaged in or is such Waste Santa has (“[A] (1992) 50, ... practice, the Board shall N.L.R.B. 50 sufficient nexus unfair labor complaint and cause to be served and is established power have to issue between complaint stating allegations ‘part involve of an upon person a the when all the such (cita- ”) Provided, plan organization.’ respect in overall to resist chаrges that omitted). upon any complaint proof shall issue based If the is insufficient as no occurring properly alleged, more than practice unfair labor to one issue jurisdiction filing deprive to hear the prior six the Board months copy supporting complaint’s the service of a evidence with the Board and Any proper allegations. other rule would thereof.... jurisdiction all demolish the Board’s over 160(b). Drug Plastics claims 29 U.S.C. claims, depriva- meritorious sorts of and to alle- were unrelated its violations until tion could never be discovered after gations and should not have hearing full on the which time all moreover, merits — complaint; in if been included contemporaneous conduct would be time- this, right then Drug about these Plastics practical barred. The result would be time-barred as of the date of request force the General Counsel hearing before ALJ. every alleged amended violation matter, preliminary Drug Plas As a explicitly original in enumerated evaluate the rela argues tics that we should charge. plainly at This scenario is odds with charged and tionship conduct between regime the flexible envisioned Fant Mill- in the conduct based ing. adopted ob- We have never such an findings of the the ultimate factual ALJ 10(b), interpretation of and we structionist found, and the Board. Because do decline to so here. agreed, that no violation arose from Board (the firing of Allen Mat case, then, Our task this is to de thews), argues there could allegations in termine whether each of the relationship be no between that al factual permis is a the General Counsel’s leged conduct and the allegations contained in sible extension of the contained charge. adoptеd the Union’s The Board has reject rigid standard. This Court test that asks whether the We this “closely allega complaint are related” to those has looked to the Counsel’s General tions, charge. E.g., Harmony Corp., proof allega of those 301 not the eventual (1991). tions, 578, determining determining whether a sufficient N.L.R.B. 578 relationship” in a relationship jurisdiction. whether a “close exists exists to confer See NLRB, case, given three-part inqui Delivery, v. the Board uses Land Air Inc. denied, 354, (D.C.Cir.1988), rely ry: on the same 360 cert. 493 U.S. whether the

173 they B. Factual Relatedness theory; whether arose legal or similar sequence factual situation from alleges that all of the The Board events; respondent whether the part single violations were effort to halt or similar defenses raise the same organizing campaign early a union as to those such, closely As were all related to each Redd-I, Inc., 1115, 290 N.L.R.B. other, firing of and to the Allen Matthews (1988). ‍​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‍Chevron, (another we are bound Under part 1118 of the same anti-union cam- interpre- years, accept permissible paign). test as a recent the Board consis- this 10(b). U.S.A., tently “continuing has held cam- Inc. v. tation of Chevron paign” provе rationale can be sufficient to Council, 467 U.S. Resources Natural Defense Management factual relatedness. See Waste 842-43, 2778, 2781-82, 837, 81 308 N.L.R.B. 50 & n. Santa Clara (1984). that, note at least in L.Ed.2d 694 Inc., (1992); Loaf, The Well-Bred prong of the present the second (1991); Harmony n. 1 N.L.R.B. relatedness —is Redd-I test —factual Corp., n. 6 301 N.L.R.B. 579 & the most most contentious and has caused precedents. We address respect, meaning- confusion our In this our case differs NLRB, prongs fully Galloway in turn. of the three from G.W. Co. each (D.C.Cir.1988), in F.2d 275 which this Court relationship found an insufficient factual be- Legal Theory A alleged tween conduct and conduct complaint. Galloway, in the union’s the alleged solely The Union’s charge alleged employer discharged that the 8(a)(3) (1), §§ and while the com violation of protected engaging activi- 8(a)(1) § plaint alleged violations. additional complaint ties. The Counsel’s made General nothing the Board has held But that is new: instead, allegation; alleged only it no such consistently that the same squarely and impermissibly employer had threat- applies “closely standard when these related” strikers with termination. Id. at 276- ened Act are involved. Nickles two sections of the аlleged link threats 77. No facts were the Indiana, Bakery 296 N.L.R.B. 928 employee’s discharge, or to link the to the (1989). proof Frequently, the of anti-union strike) (which discharge occurred before the 8(a)(3) §a viola required animus to establish Id. at 278 & n. 21. to the strike itself. promises tion will consist of threats emphasized that Accordingly, in that case we 8(a)(1). § by themselves violate See Van threats, alleged, discharge and as were the Crotty N.L.R.B. 900 Dyne by continuing campaign Gallo- “part not at 281. See also way against the union.” Id. at n. 7 argument Bakery, 296 N.L.R.B. That is the General Counsel’s Nickles atypical (describing Galloway “a rather legal theory as case: the for the violations this reason). Indeed, 8(a)(3) situation” for this Gallo- alleged is because the viola similar distinguishes from other way explicitly cases of, sought proved out and is to be tion arises continuing anti-union 8(a)(1). circuits that did find (in part), that violates conduct significantly facts more campaign particularly connection is the —and Galloway, ones here. attenuated than the Matthews, Allen the fired em clear because alia, (citing, n. 41 inter 856 F.2d at 281 a victim of all but ployee in the was Lines, Freight NLRB Braswell Motor v. alleged in violаtions one of the other Cir.1973)). Had sufficient facts F.2d 743 Heating & Wilson & Sons Cf. with- alleged, complaint would have been NLRB, Plumbing 763-64 scrutiny. Galloway court’s stood the (insufficient (D.C.Cir.1992) con evidence of alleged two violations where nection between has drawn a reason- think the Board We involved). employees were different in this case. When General able line whole, “legal theory” tie passes allegations, thus test. viewed as Counsel’s matter, charge to the alleged turn to the heart of the the conduct alleged as separate conduct “factual relatedness” test. cаmpaign employer proves reasoning Nippondenso, al- part of a unified unionization, though explicitly it has not overruled the discourage 10(b)’s case. factual relatedness re- comply with quirement. That standard is met in this if Nippondenso origi- But even retains its charge alleged an unlawful dis- case. The vitality, reasonably nal the Board could find Matthews. The of Allen First, govern it this case. alleged discharge sepa- and also six Nippondenso distinguishable in that 8(a)(1) violations, rate all of which are rele- closely conduct is less related as a factual prove alleged anti-union animus vant matter than the conduct our case. The discharge. Significantly, behind the opinion Nippondenso indicates that employee, person- same Allen was discharged employee only peripherally subject ally alleged to all of the acts but one subject to the violations part campaign. be the same anti-union (dis- 299 N.L.R.B. at 547 And the last violation —the one charged employee witnessed re- personally involving Allen Matthews— posted); move union literature that she had discharge was a threat and threat of surveil- alia, (complaint alleged, id. at 545 inter lance similar to the other violations literature). employer prohibited posting of type and was a continuation of the same of Thus, Galloway, as in there was little evi- personally threat to ‍​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‍which Mr. Matthews had linking discharge dence vio- subjected. Notably, been this last threat except they lations occurred around the discharge. came soon after the Matthews plant. same time and at the same Thus, correctly quite the ALJ —that found — Second, distinguished Nipponden- discharge subsequent allega- threat so below as a casе in which closely because related com- alleged, was not itself suggest

bined to Plasties “was to, Thus, complaint. even referred disposed discharge to union adherents.” found, he no “there was factual connection [in These facts constitute credible Nippondenso because there was ] no evi- continuing campaign by Drug Plastics to concerning discharge.” dence the In our discourage with unionization. Faced similar course, of the General Counsel did al- allegations, consistently ap- the Board has lege charged complaint; the conduct in the proved in a their inclusion Waste and, employee because the same who was the 2; Management, 308 N.L.R.B. at 50 & n. The charged victim of the conduct was also sub- 1; Loaf, Well-Bred 303 N.L.R.B. at 1016 n. ject to all but one of the Harmony Corp., 301 N.L.R.B. at 579 & n. 6. complaint, charge allegation supported the complaint allegations. the outlying gives pause.

One us In case some U.S.A, Inc., Nippondenso Mfg. 299 N.L.R.B. today We do not hold a that failure to (1990), allega- allege the Board held that charged always the the requires conduct supporting “continuing campaign a to contrary, dismissal of the On the discourage organization” theory were insuffi- the Board and аt least one circuit have held cient allegations factually to establish a close connection that between related to the complaint allegations. may the and the be included the (“[Ajpart charged Id. at 545-46 from their relation- if even is not. conduct See ship organizing 50; campaign, Management, the Waste 308 N.L.R.B. at NLRB Disposables, and those set forth v. Rex (5th Cir.1974). arise from different factual 589-91 we need not While circumstances.”). opin- today, In its more recent decide that issue we do observe that it ions, sought distinguish the Board has is reasonable for the Board tо look to wheth- Nippondenso, essentially confining that ease er the conduct was Management, to its facts.- See Waste as some evidence of “close related- Indeed, suspect N.L.R.B. at precisely 50 n. 5. ness.” that is what this —and attorney Board’s Galloway, all but conceded at oral court did in 856 F.2d at 281 (where argument longer ap- the Board no General Counsel no link be- —that merits, that it stands to reason their employee and threatened tween similar defenses company Board’s omission would have offered light “in of the employees, 8(a)(3) § from the discharge [charged conduct] and the against those of hardly argued can be that it whether complaint, charge. Because we decide made to the strik- and the threats discharge “closely complaint allegations related” to are part of a complaint] [alleged ers charge allegation based on the Galloway against the continuing campaign themselves, supra proof, and not see union”). investigates If the General Counsel 172-173, it not matter what defenses at likely violation from no charge and finds a actually ask Drug Plastics offered. We therеin, his inclusion conduct whether, perspective from the General complaint may be evi- in a complaint, the prepared when he his Counsel necessarily dispositive ev- though not expectation dence— allegations warrant an overstepped his bounds. has he idence—that likely raise similar employer would be event, was not find the Board In we defenses. approve the and we by Nippondenso, bound 8(a)(3) claim, defending against rela- factual finding of sufficient Board’s argue that it was not Drug Plastics had to tionship. by firing trying discourage unionization today’s holding imрlies dissent The defending against the Allen Matthews. factual relatedness require finding 8(a)(1) claims, argue Drug Plastics had to complaint allegation predicated whenever — employ- its it did not threaten or coerce employer by one of its charge against an on a organize. right to in the exercise of their ees practice an unfair labor employees—involved 8(a)(1) violations can consti- Because the affecting employ- all of its by the hostility to background tute evidence so, 171. This is accord- op. at ees. See dis. 8(a)(3) claim, unionization, rеlevant to dissent, single whichever ing to the because is to against the claims to defend will, like the basis of the is Thus, all against the claim. defend Matthews, necessarily if the be a victim Allen support the Redd-I test prongs three employer committed alleges that his Board practices ruling that unfair labor Board’s all of its practice affected an unfair labor scope fell within the wrong. employees. But the dissent personally sub- Allen Matthews fact alleged by the III. acts CONCLUSION

ject to all but one of the bolsters, but is not complaint significantly review and en- deny petition Here, of, holding. Board our dispositive Drug Plastics Board’s force the order. part of an alleged violations that were has 8(a)(1) violations, to have committed found single ongoing effort to halt employer’s complaint and alleged were which such, they campaign; as organizing in the closely related were to and to the closely to related each charge. Thus, Allen alleged charge. alleged vio- during those presence Matthews’ Enforced. secondary to our conclusion is lations sufficiently the General Counsel’s dissenting: SENTELLE, Judge, Circuit alleged in the employer’s conduct tie the depends on the case The decision al- separate employer conduct charge to the 10(b) application of section construction focus is complaint. The court’s leged in the Act Labor Relations the National employee, but on Allen (“NLRA” “Act”), U.S.C. of the em- on the factual relatedness rather that section part of The relevant charge and alleged in the ployer conduct reads: any person charged that it is Whenever Similar C. any such engaging in engaged Defenses in or has is ... shall Board practice, the unfair labor Drug chose not Finally, although Plastics served cause to be power to issue and have against the to defend upon person complaint stating ring such more than six filing months before the Provided, respect charges in that ... complaint.1 of the upon any shall issue based no hearing, After a an Administrative Law practice occurring unfair more than (“ALJ”) Judge opinion May issued dated filing prior six to the of the months 20, 1992. The ALJ found that on the copy with the Board and the service of a Matthews was because he thereof.... “supported and assisted the Union today, imposed Until this section two limitа- paltry evidence is op. to nonexistent.” ALJ authority; today, tions on Board after I am Instead, at 11. he found that Matthews was imposes any not sure that it in this Circuit. legitimate reasons, disciplinary fired for most First, applied statute on its face and as particularly that smoking pro- he was near prior “obliges circuit law [the Board] drug manufacturing duction in in violation of may await a before it initiate an “extraordinary steps” Drug investigation complaint.” or issue a G.W. took products to insure that its were “free NLRB, Galloway v.Co. However, from contamination.” (D.C.Cir.1988). The second limitation is аd- also found that Plastics had committed junct only may to the first. Not the Board six other acts not issue a filing without the None those acts were to have “no but shall issue based involved Allen Rich Matthews. None were upon any practice occurring unfair labor charge. mentioned in the None occurred prior filing more than six months of within six filing months of the of the com- ” charge.... todays opinion, Under plaint.2, That would seem to me to end the exception statute is re-written to add an inquiry writing and were I opinion reading: the limitations “these limitations do Court, dissent, rather than a I stop would apply repre- where an or his there. timely utterly sentative files a but meritless plain Under the words of the Act and charge that some other unrelated unfair la- under our in Galloway, decision the Board practice bor has occurred.” As this new authority investigate has no uncharged qualification on the limitations writes them Granted, conduct. rigidly Board is not existence, out contrary and is existing bound to language the exact law, circuit respectfully I dissent. Supreme recognized Court has “that the I briefly restate the factual back- precluded Board is not dealing from adе ground by my colleagues offered in the ma- quately with practices unfair labor which are 11,1991, jority. July represen- On the union related to those “Charge Against tative Employer” filed grow which out of them proceeding while the alleging, in toto: pending before the Board.” NLRB v. employer unjustly The above named ter- Milling 301, 309, Fant 360 U.S. minated Allen Rich Matthews because ‍​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‍of 1179, 1184, (1959) (internal 3 L.Ed.2d 1243 his Union activities support omitted). quotation marks and citation But Union effort in the plant. above named give this does not the Board “carte blanche Allen Rich Matthews was expand they might please, as April arоund 1991. ignore altogether.” or to it majori Id. The 3, 1991, September On with ty’s that opinion today gives as that carte blanche. basis, supposed its the Board filed a com- majority’s The claim that “Allen plaint and against Drug notice alleg- the fired was a ing only firing of Matthews but also a victim of all but of one the other violations list of approximately nine complaint,” only is true unfair practices, naming none Allen most convoluted and irrelevant sense. That Rich any capacity is, Matthews in and all occur- majority to which the re- 1. charge reciting No these supra. was ever 2. Seе footnote 1 filed. “employ- company’s language couth

fers each mention nor consistent antiunion majority apparently purpose The reasons that controlling; ees.” should be for at least employee, anything since Matthews was always the latter can be and I would sufficiently closely involving employees was suppose jurisdiction the Board’s should be language related to come within the of Font. by tested the General Counsel’s only support Fant not this con- Not proof.” rather than his at Id. 747. struction, Galloway compels our decision Indeed, сontinuing anti-union animus contrary result. always alleged. though can be Even here it Galloway strikingly parallel to The case is not, my colleagues supplied have it for case, present as in this facts. that the General Counsel and have held it suffi- one, practice charge the unfair labor Therefore, cient. I would not. I dissent. improper firing specific employee protected activity. com- The Board’s

plaint allegations concerning general added activity by

anti-union against employees plant. its at the same the claim of relatedness was one,

stronger questionable than this as the only day allegatiоns concerned events one firing alleged earlier than the NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPA specifically held: (MINNESOTA), NY Northern States It cannot be that in a Company (Wisconsin), Power Petition having and a no more com- ers they mon than that concern the same em- ployer and occur at the same location are 10(b). sufficiently satisfy related to Section FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY Galloway, 856 F.2d at 280. COMMISSION, Respondent. supposed campaign” “unified distinc- majority changes tion claimed noth- SYSTEM; Wisconsin Public Power Inc. Granted, ing. Galloway complaint did Light Company; Minnesota & Power allege allegations in question Public Service Commission of Wiscon “part continuing campaign [the sin; Municipal Southern Minnesota employer] against Maj. op. the union.” at Agency, Power Intervenors. 281). (quoting Galloway, 856 F.2d at Not can I not see that the addition of No. 92-1449. language any- to a would add Appeals, United States Court thing, language present is not in the District of Columbia Circuit. If either. its absence was critical holding Galloway, which I do not Argued Jan. 1994. concede, then the same absence would seem present complaint. to doom the Aug. Decided suggest my colleagues I

majority full read the sentence

quoted part by them from the dissent of then-Judge Stevens in NLRB v. Braswell ‍​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‍Lines, Inc., Freight Motor 486 F.2d 743 Cir.1973). “[i]t He stated there does not seem to me that the fact

company, or even the same executive of that

company, was involved both transactions supply should be sufficient to the nexus.” tellingly, More he noted that “neither un-

Case Details

Case Name: Drug Plastics & Glass Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Nov 15, 1994

Citation: 30 F.3d 169

Docket Number: 93-1013

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.