Southern Bakeries, LLC v. NLRB, No. 16-3328 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseSouthern petitioned for review of the Board's decision ordering the company to bargain with the union. The Eighth Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Southern violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by making a number of unlawful campaign statements that threatened plant closure; by making promises of benefits to employees who voted to decertify the union; by promulgating an unlawful reporting rule; by creating the impression that protected activities were under surveillance; and by unlawfully interrogating employees. However, the Board erred by determining that Southern violated section 8(a)(1) by communicating to employees that continued unionization was futile; by disparaging the union; and by threats of discipline, job loss, and other reprisals. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the Board's determination that Southern violated section 8(a)(3) because the company was motivated by anti union animus, and Southern did not prove otherwise. The Board did not err in determining that the company violated sections 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally restricting union meetings to a cubicle because the union's meeting space was a subject of mandatory bargaining. Finally, there was sufficient evidence to support the Board's findings that the 2012 petition was tainted by the company's unfair labor practices.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - National Labor Relations Board. For a related case, see McKinney, ex rel. NLRB v. S. Bakeries, LLC, 786 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2015). The NLRB did not err in determining Southern had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by threatening plant closure if the union was not decertified; however, the NLRB erred in finding that statements suggesting unionization was futile were a violation because it did not determine that the statements contained a threat of reprisal or force or promise of a benefit; promises of benefits of employees voted to decertify the union were an unfair labor practice; Southern's comments about reporting union solicitation activities were an unfair labor practice;statements by Southern that the union was appealing to racial prejudice were not a threat to the employees and were not unlawful; substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Southern's placement of cameras in a break room used by union representatives to meet with employees created an impression of improper surveillance; where Southern filed exceptions to the ALJ's determination on some activities, the NLRB erred in adopting the ALJ's recommendation as unopposed; NLRB's determination that Southerns violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) when it investigated and disciplined two employees was supported by substantial evidence; the NLRB erred in finding Southern had violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by making efforts to restrict the union's visits to the plant other than those described in the CBA; the NLRB did not err in determining Southern had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) by unilaterally restricting union meetings to a cubicle because the union's meeting space was a subject of mandatory bargaining; there was sufficient evidence to support the NLRB's finding that the 2012 union decertification petition was tainted by Southern's unfair labor practices. Judge Gruender, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
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.