NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp.
76 L. Ed. 2d 667, 103 S. Ct. 2469 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an unfair labor practice case involving a "mixed-motive" discharge, the NLRB's General Counsel bears the burden of proving that anti-union animus was a substantial or motivating factor in the employer's decision. The burden then shifts to the employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action even in the absence of the employee's protected union activity.
Facts:
- Sam Santillo, a bus driver for Transportation Management Corp., began discussing unionizing with his fellow drivers and distributing union authorization cards on March 19, 1979.
- On March 23, Santillo's supervisor, George Patterson, learned of Santillo's union organizing activities.
- That same evening, Patterson told another driver that Santillo was "two-faced" and that he would "get even with him."
- Patterson also told a different driver that he took Santillo's union activities personally and would remember them the next time Santillo asked for a favor.
- On March 26, Patterson discharged Santillo, stating the reasons were for leaving his keys in the bus and taking unauthorized breaks.
- The practice of leaving keys in buses was commonplace among the company's drivers.
- Taking coffee breaks was a normal practice that the company tolerated unless it interfered with a driver's duties.
- Transportation Management Corp. had not previously disciplined any employee for these specific behaviors and did not follow its customary practice of issuing three written warnings before a discharge.
Procedural Posture:
- Sam Santillo filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB's General Counsel issued a complaint against Transportation Management Corp., alleging an unlawful discharge.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), acting as the trial court, found that the company had unlawfully discharged Santillo due to his union activities.
- Transportation Management Corp. filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision with the full NLRB.
- The NLRB (the Board) affirmed the ALJ's decision and adopted his findings, expressly applying its 'Wright Line' burden-shifting test.
- The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for enforcement of its order against the company.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) denied enforcement and remanded the case, holding that the NLRB's 'Wright Line' test impermissibly shifted the ultimate burden of proof to the employer.
- The NLRB (petitioner) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Labor Relations Act permit the National Labor Relations Board to use a burden-shifting framework where, after the General Counsel proves anti-union animus was a motivating factor in a discharge, the employer must then prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision for legitimate reasons?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. The National Labor Relations Act permits the Board's burden-shifting framework in mixed-motive cases. The Court held that the NLRB's construction of the statute, which treats the employer's justification as an affirmative defense, is a permissible and rational interpretation entitled to deference. The General Counsel retains the ultimate burden of proving the elements of the unfair labor practice—that anti-union animus was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action. Once this is established, it is fair to place the burden of proving the affirmative defense on the employer, as the employer is the wrongdoer who created the causal ambiguity by acting with an illegitimate motive. The Court found this framework analogous to the one it approved for First Amendment retaliation cases in Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle.
Analysis:
This decision validates the NLRB's 'Wright Line' test, solidifying the analytical framework for all subsequent mixed-motive unfair labor practice cases. By defining the employer's 'but-for' causation argument as an affirmative defense rather than an element the General Counsel must disprove, the Court strengthened protections for employees engaged in union activities. This allocation of burdens makes it more difficult for employers to use pretextual reasons to mask unlawful, anti-union motivations for adverse employment actions. The ruling also reinforces the principle of judicial deference to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute it is charged with administering.
Unlock the full brief for NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp.