Aerotek, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 16-4520 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseAerotek petitioned for review of the Board's decision affirming the ALJ's findings that Aerotek violated the National Labor Relations Act in not hiring the Salts and not considering them for hiring. A "salting" campaign is a campaign by which they actively try to organize and recruit for their union on non-union jobsites. The Eighth Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that anti-union animus contributed to Aerotek's actions. The court also held that the Board abused its discretion by determining that one of the Salts was disqualified from full backpay and instatement. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's finding of a violation, but remanded in part for reconsideration of the remedy.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Gruender and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - National Labor Relations Board. The Board did not err in finding that Aerotek had violated the National Labor Relations Act by not hiring or considering for hire four union members who had applied to Aerotek to further a "salting" campaign in which they actively sought to organize and recruit for the union on non-union jobsites; the four men's applications were genuine, there were openings and anti-union animus contributed to the refusal to hire; with respect to the Board's remedy for the violation, the Board erred in ordering instatement and backpay for one of the four union members as his actions in attempting to poach an Aerotek client was not the kind of conduct pardoned or excused under the Board's "unfit for further service" standard; remanded for further proceedings on the appropriate remedy.
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.