Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jefferson Elec. Co., a Div. of Litton Sys., Inc., 783 F.2d 679 (6th Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jefferson Elec. Co., a Div. of Litton Sys., Inc., 783 F.2d 679 (6th Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, a DIVISION OF LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., Respondent
85-5360.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Feb 24, 1986.
783 F.2d 679
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate General Counsel N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Barbara Atkin (argued), for petitioner., Ralph E. Kennedy, Beverly Hills, Cal., for respondent.
Jones, Nelson, Peck, Per Curiam.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on the application of the National Labor Relations Board to enforce its order. The administrative law judge found that the Jefferson Electric Company committed a violation of section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) (1982), when it discharged an employee who had campaigned actively for a union. The Board upheld the decision of the ALJ on the ground that the[*680] General Counsel established a prima facie showing that the employee’s union activity was a motivating factor in the discharge and the company had not carried its burden of demonstrating that the employee would have been discharged absent her union activity. See NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 398-401, 103 S.Ct. 2469, 2472, 2474, 76 L.Ed.2d 667 (1983).

On consideration of the record, briefs and arguments, we find that the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(e); NLRB v. United Insurance Co., 390 U.S. 254, 260, 88 S.Ct. 988, 991, 19 L.Ed.2d 1083 (1968). We therefore GRANT enforcement of the Board’s order.

DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge, concurring.

I concur in the opinion and judgment of the court, but write separately to express the view that the evidence on which the agency found a violation of the statute passes the “substantiality” test by only the narrowest of margins.