National Labor Relations Board v. RELCO Locomotives, Inc.

Summary

The Eighth Circuit reviewed two National Labor Relations Board proceedings involving RELCO Locomotives, Inc.'s discharge of eight employees for protected labor activity. The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's findings and remedies, including reinstatement and backpay, and enforced the Board's orders. The court also declined to decide RELCO's challenge to the recess appointments of several NLRB members.

Holdings

1. The Board's findings that RELCO discharged these employees because of protected union or concerted activity, or because of testimony in an NLRB proceeding, were supported by substantial evidence.
2. An individual employee's contact with a vendor was protected concerted activity because it was a continuation or logical outgrowth of employees' earlier collective dispute concerning uniform-cleaning charges.
3. Repeated employee discussions about the effect of a perceived company decision on workers, including conversations preparatory to possible group action, constituted protected concerted activity under Section 7.
4. The nondisclosure agreement unlawfully interfered with protected concerted activity by barring employees from discussing an ongoing labor dispute with vendors, and the Board's order requiring public rescission and disavowal was not moot.
5. The challenge was nonjurisdictional, waived by RELCO's failure to raise it before the NLRB or in its initial appellate briefs, and barred by the NLRA's exhaustion requirement because no extraordinary circumstances excused the waiver.

Questions Presented

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the NLRB's findings that RELCO unlawfully discharged eight employees in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Whether employee inquiries and discussions concerning uniform-cleaning charges and a coworker's purported termination constituted protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the NLRA.
3. Whether RELCO's nondisclosure agreement unlawfully interfered with employees' protected labor rights and whether rescission and public disavowal were appropriate remedies.
4. Whether the Eighth Circuit could consider RELCO's belated challenge to the recess appointments of NLRB members despite the NLRA's exhaustion requirement.
5. Whether the recess-appointments challenge was jurisdictional or instead waived because RELCO failed to raise it before the Board or in its opening appellate briefs.

Disposition

other