National Labor Relations Board v. Five Star Manufacturing, Inc. , 278 F. App'x 697 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-1536
    ___________
    National Labor Relations Board,         *
    *
    Petitioner,                *
    * Petition from the United States
    v.                                * National Labor Relations Board.
    *
    Five Star Manufacturing, Inc.,          *        [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Respondent.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 15, 2008
    Filed: May 20, 2008
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Adopting the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ), the National
    Labor Relations Board (Board) issued an order concluding Five Star Manufacturing
    (Five Star) violated 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (a)(3)-(5) by discharging an employee
    for engaging in union activities; materially changing conditions of employment in
    areas that were mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, without giving the union
    notice or an opportunity to negotiate, and in retaliation for employees’ union
    activities; reassigning the discharged employee to less desirable work upon his
    reinstatement, in retaliation for his union activities; and discharging the employee a
    second time for his union activities. Five Star argues the Board’s order should not be
    enforced, because the ALJ was not fair and impartial, and the ALJ’s findings, as
    adopted by the Board, are not supported by substantial evidence on the record.
    To begin, we find no basis for Five Star’s argument the ALJ was not fair and
    impartial, which is essentially based upon Five Star’s disagreement with the ALJ’s
    credibility determinations. See Hall v. NLRB, 
    941 F.2d 684
    , 689 (8th Cir. 1991)
    (rejecting the employer’s argument that the ALJ was biased and impartial where the
    only supporting evidence was the ALJ’s credibility determinations). We further
    conclude the Board correctly applied the law, and the Board’s findings are supported
    by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See NLRB v. Rockline Indus., Inc.,
    
    412 F.3d 962
    , 966, 970 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating applicable standards of review). We
    enforce the Board’s order in its entirety. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1536

Citation Numbers: 278 F. App'x 697

Judges: Wollman, Riley, Gruender

Filed Date: 5/20/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024