From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Timekeeping Systems, Inc.
United States National Labor Relations Board
323 N.L.R.B. 244 (1997)
Timekeeping Systems, Inc. (Timekeeping) (defendant), a small manufacturer of data-collection equipment, employed Larry Leinweber (plaintiff) as a software engineer. Timekeeping’s chief operational officer, Barry Markwitz, sent an email to all of Timekeeping’s employees in which he sought voluntary input on proposed changes to the company’s vacation policy. Markwitz’s email stated that the proposed changes would result in more days off annually than the existing system. Leinweber emailed Markwitz, arguing that the new plan included the same number of days off and would afford employees less flexibility than the old plan. The next day, Leinweber emailed Markwitz again to notify Markwitz of a minor error in his calculations. Markwitz did not reply. A couple of days later, Tom Dutton, another member of the engineering team, emailed the team members, including Leinweber, effusively praising the new plan. Leinweber responded to Dutton and shared his view that the plan was not advantageous to employees. Leinweber also sent a long email to Markwitz and all employees in which he explained his perspective in a provocative and sarcastic tone. Timekeeping ultimately discharged Leinweber because of the disrespectful tone of the email and because he had sent the email to all employees instead of raising his concerns with Markwitz. Leinweber filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that he was discharged because of protected concerted activities in violation of § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The administrative-law judge (ALJ) found that Leinweber’s discharge violated the NLRA, and Timekeeping appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Gould, 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 546,000 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 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 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.