National Labor Relations Board v. International Medication Systems, Ltd.

640 F.2d 1110 107 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2214 , 91 Lab.Cas. P 12,693 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS, LTD., Respondent. No. 79-7584. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 15, 1980. Decided April 2, 1981. As Corrected April 8, 1981. Susan Mandle, Atty., NLRB, Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Lee T. Paterson, Palos Verdes Estates, Cal., for respondent. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of The National Labor Relations Board. Before WRIGHT, KENNEDY and ALARCON, Circuit Judges. EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: 1 The Board seeks enforcement of its order directing the respondent to cease and desist from unfair labor practices and to reinstate two employees with back pay. 244 NLRB No. 136 (1979). 2 In 1978 Lavendera and Guzman led an effort to secure union representation for the respondent's employees. During that effort, several company supervisors communicated with employees about the consequences of involvement in union activity. Lavendera and Guzman were ultimately discharged. 3 An administrative law judge and the Board concluded that the respondent interfered with union activity and discharged the…

The Board seeks enforcement of its order directing the respondent to cease and desist from unfair labor practices and to reinstate two employees with back pay. 244 NLRB No. 136 (1979).

In 1978 Lavendera and Guzman led an effort to secure union representation for the respondent’s employees. During that effort, several company supervisors communicated with employees about the consequences of involvement in union activity. Lavendera and Guzman were ultimately discharged.

*1112 An administrative law judge and the Board concluded that the respondent interfered with union activity and discharged the two employees in violation of § 8(a)(1) & (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(1) & (3).

In determining that the dismissals were discriminatory, the Board relied on secondary evidence of the respondent’s policy toward absenteeism and layoffs introduced by the general counsel after the respondent refused to produce subpoenaed personnel records. No effort was made to seek enforcement of the subpoena in district court. Instead, the administrative law judge barred the respondent from rebutting the general counsel’s evidence on these issues by cross-examining…

concurring specially:

I concur in the result.