Daikichi Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

D.C. Circuit

Daikichi Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

56 F. App'x 516

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 2003

DocketNo. 01-1473

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 56 F. App'x 516 (Daikichi Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daikichi Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 56 F. App'x 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This cause was considered on the record compiled before the National Labor Relations Board, the briefs of the parties, and oral arguments by counsel.

The Board reasonably determined, based on substantial evidence in the record, that Daikichi violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by making certain statements to employees and violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act by refusing to rehire certain employees based on union activity. Drawing an adverse inference from Daiki-chi’s failure to produce Watanabe to testify regarding his speech was not improper under the circumstances. Warshawsky & Co. v. NLRB, 182 F.3d 948, 955 (D.C.Cir. 1999); Int’l Union, UAW v. NLRB, 459 F.2d 1329, 1344-45 (D.C.Cir.1972). Viewed in context, Lu’s comments could reasonably be construed as creating an impression of surveillance. Likewise, the comments by Saito and Dipu, which would be close calls if viewed in isolation, could reasonably be interpreted as coercive in light of Watanabe’s prior threats. As for the failure to rehire, the General Counsel presented a sufficient prima facie case to shift the burden of proof to Daikichi without presenting evidence of disparate treatment. Parsippany Hotel Mgmt. Co. v. NLRB, 99 F.3d 413, 423-424 (D.C.Cir. 1996); MECO Corp. v. NLRB, 986 F.2d 1434, 1437-38 (D.C.Cir.1993). The employees may not have had a right to be rehired, but the company still had an obligation not to make its decisions on the basis of protected activity. NLRB v. Low [517]*517Kit Mining Co., 3 F.3d 720, 726-27 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review be DENIED, and the cross-application for enforcement be GRANTED.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This cause was considered on the record compiled before the National Labor Relations Board, the briefs of the parties, and oral arguments by counsel.

The Board reasonably determined, based on substantial evidence in the record, that Daikichi violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by making certain statements to employees and violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act by refusing to rehire certain employees based on union activity. Drawing an adverse inference from Daiki-chi’s failure to produce Watanabe to testify regarding his speech was not improper under the circumstances. Warshawsky & Co. v. NLRB, 182 F.3d 948, 955 (D.C.Cir. 1999); Int’l Union, UAW v. NLRB, 459 F.2d 1329, 1344-45 (D.C.Cir.1972). Viewed in context, Lu’s comments could reasonably be construed as creating an impression of surveillance. Likewise, the comments by Saito and Dipu, which would be close calls if viewed in isolation, could reasonably be interpreted as coercive in light of Watanabe’s prior threats. As for the failure to rehire, the General Counsel presented a sufficient prima facie case to shift the burden of proof to Daikichi without presenting evidence of disparate treatment. Parsippany Hotel Mgmt. Co. v. NLRB, 99 F.3d 413, 423-424 (D.C.Cir. 1996); MECO Corp. v. NLRB, 986 F.2d 1434, 1437-38 (D.C.Cir.1993). The employees may not have had a right to be rehired, but the company still had an obligation not to make its decisions on the basis of protected activity. NLRB v. Low [517]*517Kit Mining Co., 3 F.3d 720, 726-27 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review be DENIED, and the cross-application for enforcement be GRANTED.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F. App'x 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daikichi-corp-v-national-labor-relations-board-cadc-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack