Vincent Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
209 F.3d 727 (2000)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
The International Chemical Workers Union (the union) filed unfair-labor-practice (ULP) charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (plaintiff) against manufacturer Vincent Industrial Plastics, Inc. (Vincent) (defendant). The union alleged Vincent unilaterally changed employment terms and conditions, coercively interrogated an employee, terminated employees for supporting the union, and unlawfully withdrew its recognition of the union, all in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). An administrative-law judge (ALJ) found Vincent guilty of all but one charge and recommended a cease-and-desist order with reinstatement and backpay for unlawfully fired employees, and an order affirmatively requiring Vincent to recognize the union and resume collective bargaining. All the ALJ said to justify the affirmative order was that the “serious and egregious misconduct shown here[] demonstrates a general disregard for fundamental rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the [NLRA].” The NLRB applied its own traditional four-factor test for determining whether a causal connection existed between unremedied ULPs and a petition to decertify a union, found multiple ULPs had tainted the decertification petition, and explained in detail how each factor supported its decision. However, the NLRB also approved the affirmative order as written, without adding additional justification in support. Vincent appealed, and the NLRB cross-appealed for enforcement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edwards, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.