Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., No. 14-1651 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseGreater Omaha employs several hundred workers in its beef processing plant. In 2008, the entire non-union fabrication workforce stopped working until the owner listened to their concerns. None were fired. In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security notified Greater Omaha that the employment eligibility of 179 employees could not be verified. Some employees were arrested and others quit. Remaining employees complained that the speed of the meat lines forced them to assume heavier workloads because there were so many new workers; 10-12 employees, including Zamora, left their workstations to protest working conditions. They returned to work when Plant Manager Correa agreed to meet. Correa told them that the compensation package was competitive, agreed to speak with management about other concerns, and reminded employees of the safety rule that they not leave the production lines without permission. Employees remained disgruntled. Degante planned a work stoppage and asked Salgado to tell other employees; when she told others, they were already aware of the plan. Zamora and Degante were fired. The National Labor Relations Board charged Greater Omaha with wrongfully terminating employees for engaging in protected concerted activity, interrogating employees regarding protected concerted activities, and creating the impression it was conducting surveillance of protected concerted activities. An ALJ concluded that the employees were wrongfully terminated (29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1)), but found that Greater Omaha had not made coercive statements or created the impression that protected activities were under surveillance. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the wrongful termination rulings, declined to uphold the interrogation and surveillance rulings, and enforced the Board’s Order, as modified.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Smith, Circuit Judge] Petition for Review - NLRB. Substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1)of the National Labor Relations Act by terminating three employees who were planning a work stoppage to protest work conditions and salary; manager's pre-termination statements were not coercive and the Board's order with respect to the statements would not be enforced; the Board's finding that management's statements accusing two of the employees of being leaders of the work stoppage impermissibly created the impression of surveillance was erroneous and and the order directing the employer to cease and desist would not be enforced; claim that the Board's backpay remedy could not be enforced because the case in which the Board initially adopted the remedy was decided by a panel which lacked a quorum because two members were invalid recess appointments is rejected as a properly constituted Board has since affirmed and explained the remedial policy.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.