From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...
Nichols Aluminum, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
797 P.3d 548 (8th Cir. 2015)
A union organized a strike at a Nichols Aluminum, LLC (Nichols) (defendant) plant. Most workers participated, but a few crossed the picket line. Afterward Nichols required returning workers to take a “no-strike pledge” to not “strike again over the same dispute.” Employee Bruce Bandy participated in the strike but did not play a central role and took the pledge verbally when he returned to work. Nichols also held a meeting to review its long-standing “zero-tolerance” policy toward workplace violence, which subjected anyone who engaged in threatening or violent conduct to immediate termination. Two weeks later, when a worker who had crossed the picket line blared a forklift horn at Bandy, Bandy drew his thumb across his neck in a “cutthroat” gesture. The forklift driver took the gesture as a threat and reported Bandy, even though workers at the plant often used the gesture to signal shutting off or stopping something, and a witness perceived Bandy’s gesture to mean “stop blaring the horn.” Bandy claimed he was just scratching his throat, but Nichols fired him for violating its zero-tolerance policy. However, Nichols did not terminate a replacement worker who cursed at another employee and physically blocked him from getting in his car or a second replacement worker who verbally threatened to “beat” someone. The union filed unfair-labor-practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (plaintiff), arguing that the no-strike pledge was unlawful and that Nichols treated workers who participated in the strike differently than replacement workers. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Nichols did not violate the National Labor Relations Act by terminating Bandy for the cutthroat gesture. The board adopted many of the ALJ’s findings but reversed, concluding that hostility toward the union motivated Bandy’s termination.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Riley, C.J.)
Concurrence (Melloy, J.)
Dissent (Murphy, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 553,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 553,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.