*1 Lujan, conjectural hypothetical.” not (internal 560, 112 S.Ct. WAREHOUSE U.S. GREAT LAKES omitted). Plotkin Corporation,
quotations and citations Petitioner/Cross- injury argues that has Respondent, suffered risk of accidents be- form of increased illegally have unqualified drivers cause NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS licenses; drivers’ obtained commercial BOARD, Respondent/Cross- however, speculative and this risk is too Petitioner. injury-in-fact constitute generalized to If standing purposes. alleged- Plotkin 00-2191, Nos. 00-2226. risk of ly injury from an increased suffers of Appeals, United States Court accident, people using do all Illi- then so Seventh Circuit. judges highways, including the nois argu- at oral this court as mentioned Argued Jan. many necessarily ment. There are out- Decided Feb. affecting unknown influences all as- side pects standing concepts advanced these
by plaintiffs. it
Finally, the BGA claims that has
standing organization, as an from its apart
members, simply by expendi reason of its money in pursuing
ture of time and However, ordinary
alleged expen fraud. organization’s as of an part pur
ditures
pose necessary inju not do constitute
ry-in-fact required standing. The BGA past has been instrumental ad
vancing government reforms Illinois
using investigators attorneys along journalistic litigation techniques and corruption.8 This decision does expose regular techniques
not curtail those good
BGA. It means intentions are enough for federal standing. it
The district court characterized well “plaintiffs it said that are no simply
when bystanders
more than concerned and do standing
not have challenge these ac- require- court.” Were the this standing compromised
ments of to be suit, in this
suggested longer would no jurisdictional concept.
be a useful parties shall bear own costs.
AFFIRMED. information, site, http://www.bettergov.org. 8. For see the BGA web further
FLAUM, Judge. Chief Corporation Warehouse Great Lakes (“GLW”) appeals from National Labor “Board”) (“NLRB” or Relations Board’s *3 the finding that violated National order (“NLRA”) by firing Act Labor Relations promote employee attempting one and a union another soon before claims that its mere drive. GLW violate NLRA and promotion cannot the that it fired the other accor- disciplinary its For the policy. dance with herein, reject reasons stated GLW’s arguments grant and of the enforcement order. NLRB’s Background I. is a warehousing company GLW by the Northern Indiana owned Faur (“Faur”). Corporation In Brothers Octo- ber, 1997, an International affiliate Teamsters, Brotherhood of AFL-CIO was preparing organizing drive GLW. employees Gary and GLW Anderson Vic- tor were known union Oiler prior attempts who had been active unionize GLW.
On October warehouse distribu- manager posi- tion An|erson foreman, open tion of which had been approximately four Anderson de- months. clined, him manager and if he asked refusing job “because of the un- replied ion?” Anderson that he could not manager responded comment. The “be prepared Anderson should and changes” away. walked On October budding, Anderson leaving officials, management he met three includ- ing the owner of Faur. The owner asked him he why job, had refused the foreman and Anderson said he “couldn’t talk why about it.” then The owner asked and other not talk to her could (argued), J. Walter Liszka Wessels & concerns, seeking about their rather than Pautsch, IL, for Chicago, Petitioner. incurring and at- representation Labor Kinney, Elizabeth National Rela- unresponsive tendant dues. Anderson was Board, IL, Respondent. Chicago, golf and and the conversation turned negative changes in FLAUM, other matters. No Judge, Before Chief COFFEY, pay Judges. working Anderson’s conditions took POSNER Circuit facts, Relying refused the and he on these after he General place March, voluntarily resigned NLRB charged Counsel of the with various An violations NLRA. admin- Oiler, driver, a forklift was fired (“ALJ”) judge istrative law found that repeated written receiving after company NLRA, violated had a warnings company for errors. The 158(a)(1), ways, namely to U.S.C. three disciplinary policy, known progressive Oiler, warning fourth requiring by: with the Anderson threatening unspecified employee’s On termination. October retaliation, coercively interrogating manager the warehouse distribution regarding sympathies, Anderson his union warning first for an inci- issued offering to induce him to *4 1 by on when truck loaded dent October a abandon the union. A transgres- fourth pallet prod- left without a of ordered Oiler 8(a)(3), 158(a)(3), § sion was of 29 U.S.C. warning Oiler his second uct. received by ALJ found GLW violated pay one-day suspension a without firing supporting Oiler for the union. The unloading October 28 for more around findings Board affirmed the regard- ALJ’s product necessary than on eases Octo- violations, ing these four that emphasizing 21. third was issued on warning ber The promotion was to Anderson 30 he mislabelled four hun- October when immediately before the cam- 20; cases on October Oi- product dred paign and fact that posi- this foreman given three-day suspension ler was a with- had tion been vacant for four months. by manager. out The fourth and pay petitions for review of two of the warning presented final was to on Board’s findings GLW violated the putting expi- November 7 for the incorrect in offering promote NLRA to Anderson date cases on ration on of cheese October by firing Oiler. Management presented Oiler with the voluntarily being option resigning and II. Discussion given a severance in return for package signing pre- a settlement offer and release affirm We will the Board’s deci by a pared company. given Oiler was if findings supported by sion its factual are off week to consider this but substantial evidence and its conclusions rejected it 14 and im- on November was have reasonable basis in the law. See mediately fired. Contractors, NLRB, Dilling Inc. Mech. v. ap- more
GLW been lenient (7th Cir.1997). 521, 523-24 This oth- plication disciplinary policy of its requires pro standard that the Board employees by giving only single er warn- duce relevant evidence sufficient for a rea ing multiple mistakes. Barbara Pala to con person accept sonable the Board’s received a second for errors oc- warning Corp. See v. clusion. Universal Camera curring days, on three different which was NLRB, 456, 474, 477, 95 340 U.S. 71 S.Ct. by warning followed a third which also (1951). However, 456 re cursory L.Ed. er- days covered three different worth of insufficient, take ac view and we into eventually was rors. When Pala forced record, including count whole evidence resign, warning her final written stated contrary Dill position. to the Board’s See averaging she had been two mistakes 107 ing, F.3d at Cole, employee, a week. Another Sharon given warning initial was mistakes A. Uncontested Violations occurring days. Campbell on also two Jim has not the Board’s contested given warning an initial for mistakes was 8(a)(1) findings it violated day prior.” on a particular made “and by interrogating Anderson and NLRA warning that he had made numerous noted making of retaliation unspecified threats complained and a customer had errors to fore when he declined performance, yet Campbell about his Therefore, summarily only single man. enforce warning. ceived 890 self-organization issues the exercise of regarding these the Board’s order NLRB, Ill. 30 determining rights. Carry whether substantial See Cos. v.
without
Cir.1994).
(7th
findings.
the Board’s
The evidence
F.3d
Labs., Inc., 99
Champion
NLRB
sparse,
See
was
to the Board
rather
presented
Cir.1996).
These viola-
F.3d
under
it was sufficient
the deferential
but
case,
from the
do not disappear
standard to
substantial evidence
may sup-
as evidence that
rather remain
Board’s conclusion that the offer
is-
findings on contested
the Board’s
port
with Anderson’s
attempt
to interfere
NLRB,
Corp. v.
sues. See
Marine
U.S.
moving
man
to unionize
him to a
right
(7th Cir.1991) (en
F.2d
1314-15
position.
important
The most
agement
banc).
findings
facts are the Board’s uncontested
pro
after Anderson declined the
B. Promotion Offer
manag
motion
warehouse distribution
pro
of the NLRA
Section
interrogated him and then
er
threatened
with, re
employers
interfering
hibits
from
In
unspecified reprisals.
him with
addi
ex
straining
coercing employees
tion,
the Board’s
other evidence buttressed
form, join,
of their
or assist
rights
ercise
talk
position.
unwilling
Anderson
*5
in activities
organizations
engage
labor
why
any
about
union-related reasons as to
purpose
bargaining
or
for
of collective
suggests
he turned down the
protection. 29 U.S.C.
other mutual aid or
Labs.,
Champion
he felt
See
coerced.
158(a)(1).
§
to man
Offers
timing
99 F.3d
8(a)(1)
§
if
positions can violate
agement
supports
also
the Board’s determination.
or
reasonably
these
tend to interfere with
position
open
The foreman
been
employees
exercising
right
coerce
months,
until soon
yet
four
GLW waited
§ 7 of the
self-organization granted by
drive,
in which
before
NLRA,
§ 157.
NLRB v.
29 U.S.C.
See
key
supporter,
Anderson would be
union
(7th
Co.,
750,
Henry
416 F.2d
753
Colder
promotion to
to offer the
Anderson. While
Terminals,
Cir.1969); see also Matson
coer
timing alone is not sufficient to show
(D.C.Cir.
NLRB,
300,
v.
114 F.3d
302
Inc.
interference,
or
it is a
factor
cion
relevant
1997);
Supply
Medo
generally
see
Photo
may
the Board to consider and
685-86,
NLRB,
678,
64
Corp.
321 U.S.
if
strengthen the Board’s conclusion
other
830,
(1944) (holding
L.Ed. 1007
S.Ct.
88
pres
indicia of coercion or interference are
that offers of benefits
union
NLRB,
Tribune
Chicago
ent. See
Co. v.
violate
that induce them to leave the union
(7th Cir.1992).
712,
962 F.2d
717-18
8(a)(1)).
§
determine
coer
We
whether
present by
or
exam
cion
interference
Termination
C.
all
circum
ining
the relevant facts and
8(a)(3)
Shelby
NLRB v.
Mem’l
prevents
stances. See
em
Section
(7th Cir.1993).
550,
Ass’n,
Hosp.
1 F.3d
559
discriminating
from
the tenure of
ployer
or
employment
any
or
term
condition of
Substantial
evidence
employment
encourage
discourage
or
position.
argues
the Board’s
GLW
membership
organization. 29
any
labor
qualified
position,
Anderson was
158(a)(3).
employer
An
violates
U.S.C.
specific
promises
no
threats or
section if anti-union animus was
this
repeatedly
him.
were made to
GLW also
motivating
substantial
factor
change in Anderson’s
stresses
that no
company’s
discharge
an em
decision
working
place
took
after he de
conditions
ployee. See Vulcan Basement Water
clined the
and thus its offer
promotion,
NLRB,
677,
219
684
proofing
Ill. v.
F.3d
However,
cannot be considered coercive.
Cir.2000).
(7th
establish that a termi
To
test
is
whether
interference or
section,
this
the General
occurred,
nation violates
only wheth
actually
coercion
a by
of the NLRB must show
Counsel
employer’s
reasonably
er the
action
tended
(1)
that:
preponderance
to interfere with or
coerce
891
employee engaged
protect-
policy
requires
separate warning
activities
for ev
(2)
NLRA;
employer
knew
error,
ed
ery
the General
produced
Counsel
involvement in these ac-
employee’s
evidence,
above,
described
that other em
(3)
tivities;
employer
harbored animus ployees less identified with the union were
(4)
activities; and
a causal
toward those
given warnings that
multiple
covered
mis
employer’s
connection exists between the
However,
days.1
takes made on different
animus and the decision to terminate. See
given warning
Oiler was
for each error
id;
Cos.,
Carry
cive” him, management as it is to
motion fire pro- unsound. Most workers welcome a
motion, company prac- and so a that has a promoting get
tice of SNODDERLY, Kathy Bill R. Snodder unit, out of the bargaining group them ly, Snodderly, Derick a mi whether of workers vote on to union- nor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, unit, will actually ize the increase the ex- pected being supporter. income of a union eager company buy The more is to off R.U.F.F. DRUG ENFORCEMENT *7 supporters, support- the more union FORCE, TASK Board of Commission therefore, likely, be. ers there will So County, IN, ers Board of Union tactic of discouraging such a unionization Shelby County, IN, Commissioners Board should to backfire hesitate al., Defendants-Appellees. et to infer such motive from No. 99-3688. promotion. stick, carrot; Oiler received the Appeals, United States Court of nonuniformity but the use evidence of Seventh Circuit. imposition discipline Sept. Argued inference to discrimination has downside that, nor again, neither the Board the com- Decided Feb. If a pany recognizes. compa- this case ny legal le- exercising risks trouble
nience enforcement its work
rules, it will have incentive to enforce in a
those rules uniform and therefore manner. will
harsh Lenience be out. may
Workers as whole suffer. It does discriminatory
not follow evidence of inadmissible,
enforcement be be- should having strict rules on attendance or
cause