Town & Country Electric v. National Labor Relations Board

106 F.3d 816 (1997)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Town & Country Electric v. National Labor Relations Board

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
106 F.3d 816 (1997)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Town & Country Electric (Town & Country) (defendant) needed to hire Minnesota-licensed electricians for a contracted job. Town & Country retained a temporary-staffing agency to provide these electricians, making clear to the agency that applicants had to be willing to work a “nonunion job.” The electricians would be employees of the staffing agency under Town & Country’s control. On the day set aside for interviews, Town & Country’s human resources (HR) manager refused to interview or hire 10 of 11 union applicants arranged by the staffing agency on the stated ground that the applicants did not have a scheduled interview. Union member Malcolm Hansen was interviewed and hired to work on Town & Country’s job site. Soon after his first day on the job, Hansen spoke to a few others of his union membership and his intention to organize workers. The other workers were not interested in unionizing, and tensions between them and Hansen rose. Within a few days, Hansen was fired. The HR manager told Hansen that Town & Country could not use an agency employee on the job site and that the company would “absolutely not” hire him directly. The electricians’ labor union (the union) initiated a proceeding before the National Labor Relations Board (the board). The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Town & Country had discriminated against the union applicants and terminated Hansen for improper reasons, in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. In particular, the ALJ disbelieved Town & Country’s witnesses on their rationale for not interviewing union applicants and supposed performance-based reasons that led to Hansen’s termination. The board affirmed the ALJ’s findings. The Eighth Circuit reviewed the board’s decision.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wollman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 820,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. 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.

Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership