Bradford Furniture Co.

Rumitare Industries, Ine. d/b/a BrnUord Fvniture a d Intemtiod Intsnr- Uonrl Brotberhooe Teametern, ch.udlely Wuehoulcmer and Helpem L o 4 1-RC-15504 On Board this Adastrative alh, 8(a)(3) the ammded, b3 Goranson because sua sRnte, NLRB. &tern RePning Corponation,' in F i t c a d o n cases alleging 8(a)(3) has reconsihered has affum contained itn rcaaoo8 forth below. Administrative Ju@ concluded Raqxmdent 8(a)(3) l a w employees Goran- He pretextual Rbpondent's seleded t h e employees leaat the mmstrative rugon Respondent these employed union Decision thie Fint d&m N.LR.B. Emtern supm, ' 241 (1979). 598 F.Zd Cir. Sr .la L i k y Mumd I w m m Cim- pany N.LRB. 592 F.Zd S9¶ (In Cii. 1979); C o W s Fvrnimm, Inc NLRR. 503 F.Zd Cir. d MLR.E BI1I.r Shoe Ca. I=. 397 P2d 801 (1st Cir. 1968). 1 t used M& Healthy Ciry School District Bwrd of lhyfe, q caee, Williams Goranson W o n 8(8)(3) Acta William Goranson ac- tivitie, layoffs, within f h g as illustrated M o n 8(a)(1) Furthermore, empharized Respondent contended W i b Goranson employow particulat &owed thrt neither Williams Goranson wm the leest Williams, Respondent him the reasons noted Dscieion Re spondmt Saction 8(a)(3) employao William Goramon. is orctmd Orda i s a d C o d Furnirura Industries Inc, d/b/a ' B m d H Furnitun Comprmy, (1979). r-ed. - Alm.~batquent mtheivwaaofour pria Deci*onmd (Xda this cnc, the Boud isuvd deckion W-i Linr Divhh qf W w i Llna Inc. l a 3 (19RT). that ar Boud disc- tb igue d cruutiom irr d& motintion uu and rt fortb tLr u u u t i o f i ~ i t u r i l l u r i a u r h u u m t h s f u t ~ W h i l C w c m W t h c the instant cnc u r p e t cue, Ocnctll Counul mdc r prima fade crsc ch.l cbdcc W i f h w d Oanron w n unlawfully motivrtd by d l - t k anploysag unia dvi- pany's kmwLdgc tbae rmpbym' sctivith, th surpician timing layoff#, and union mimuus. RapoDdmt attempted ahow th( wlectcd W i l k md aoMmrr Irydl bouu thsy were lcw scaia employcar their utegorie* frihd so. 254 109 BRADFORD FURNITURE COMPANY Concord Company of of America, 82. Cases I-CA-14058 and February 20, 1981 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER April 2, 1979, the National Labor Relations issued a Decision and Order1 in pro- ceeding, adopting the Law Judge's finding, inter that Respondent violated Section and (1) of National Labor Relations Act, as discharging employees Wil- liams and of their union activi- ties. Thereafter, the Board, decided to reconsider its Decision in light of the various First Circuit Court decisions, particularly v. Smelting and which the Circuit discussed its analysis of in violations of Section of the Act. The Board its original Decision in light of the record, exceptions, and briefs, and decided to the findings and conclusions in original Decision and Order for the set The Law that violated Section and (1) of the Act by off Williams and son. rejected as strictly contention that it two for layoff because they were the senior employees in their particular job categories. Rather, Ad- . . Law Judge, with whom we agree, found that the real laid off was because they engaged in activities. Subsequent to the issuance of our prior and Order in case, the Circuit issued its in v. Smelting in NLRB 643 666(1st 1979). v. v. 1293(1st 1977); v. which it articulated and applied in dual motivation cases the causation analysis by the Supreme ! Court in Education v. 429 U.S. 274 (1977). Although the instant case, is a pretext not a dual moti- vation case, we find that under any analysis Re- spondent's layoff of and violat- ed of the Thus, we note, as set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's Deci- sion and our own previous Decision and Order, that and engaged in union that Respondent knew of their union activi- ties; that the timing of the 3 weeks of the of the representation petition and a week before the election, is suspicious; and that Re- spondent harbored union animus by its engaging in conduct violative of of the Act. as we in our prior Decision and Order, although it laid off and b e cause they were the least senior in their job categories, the record in fact nor senior employee in his job category, and, indeed, with respect to did not even bother to learn what his seniority status was before laying off. Accordingly, for above, we reaffirm our previous and Order that violated and (1) of the Act by laying off and ORDER It hereby that the by the Board in 241 NLRB 643 85 be, and it hereby is, in ib in A 251 NLRB In t k fully the the of fa layoff two the Gun- of & of the Although to it far the in job it to do NLRB No.