Dolgencorp, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 18-3695 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Dolgencorp's Auxvasse, Missouri store employed six people. Price, a sales associate, contacted the Union. Myers, an organizing director, obtained authorization cards and filed an election petition. The Union and Dolgencorp agreed to the terms of an election to be held on December 8, 2017. On November 17, 2017, Myers created a group text message conversation between himself, Price, and employees Miles and Durlin. Through the election date, Miles and Durlin actively participated in group conversations and never expressed opposition to Union representation. The six eligible employees voted, 4-2, to unionize. After the election, Miles and Durlin told Dolgencorp’s vice president they voted in favor of the Union but that Price and Myers pressured them using threats and bribes. Dolgencorp filed objections, alleging Price acted as an agent of the Union and engaged in misconduct that materially affected the election result. The NLRB certified the Union as the exclusive representative. Dolgencorp refused to recognize the Union.
The Eighth Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that Dolgencorp engaged in an unfair labor practice (National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5)). Conclusions that Price's comments were not meant to be intimidating or to influence witness testimony and that Price was not acting as a union agent or with apparent authority were supported by substantial evidence. An alleged tire-slashing threat occurred outside the critical period; the offer of an unconditional $100 loan did not substantially impair an employee's free choice in the election.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Arnold and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Petition for review - NLRB. This is a petition for review and cross petition for enforcement from NLRB order concluding Dolgencorp engaged in unfair labor practice by refusing to recognized union representation of employees in Auxvasse, Missouri Dollar General Store when employees voted 4-2 for union representation. Board's decision to credit testimony that employee's comments were not meant to be intimidating or to influence witness testimony, and Board's conclusion that employee was not acting as a union agent or with apparent authority are supported by substantial evidence. Board decision to overrule Dolgencorp's objection relating to the employee's alleged tire-slashing threat because the threat occurred outside the critical period is supported by substantial evidence. With regard to Dolgencorp's objection to the Board's credibility determination and conclusion that the employee did not attempt to bribe another employee for her vote, the Board's conclusion that the offer of an unconditional $100 loan was not objectionable may reasonably be discerned to mean it was not objectionable because it did not substantially impair an employee's free choice in the election and was supported by substantial evidence.
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.