## Facts

- Center Construction Co., Inc. employed a two-person plumbing unit and other trades, including sheet-metal workers.
- Local 370 sought to represent the two plumbers; the plumbers obtained union representation and requested recognition.
- During the organizing effort, Center’s owner, Robert Eagleson, was alleged to have expressed hostility to recognizing the union, including a statement that he would go out of business before recognizing it (which he disputed).
- The union filed unfair labor practice charges alleging that Center:
  - refused to hire union-affiliated plumbers,
  - interrogated employees about union sympathies and solicited grievances in a coercive manner, and
  - discharged a plumber for union activity.
- An ALJ found multiple violations of NLRA § 8(a)(1) and § 8(a)(3).
- The NLRB largely adopted the ALJ’s findings but rejected one count, treating a remark about potential layoffs of sheet-metal workers as a lawful economic prediction based on union contract terms rather than an unlawful threat.
- Center petitioned for review; the NLRB sought enforcement of its remedial order.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that Center violated NLRA § 8(a)(1) and § 8(a)(3) by discharging a plumber for union activity.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that Center unlawfully refused to hire union-affiliated plumbers in violation of § 8(a)(3) and derivatively § 8(a)(1).
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that Center unlawfully interrogated employees and solicited grievances during the organizing campaign in violation of § 8(a)(1).
4. Whether the Board correctly applied the Wright Line burden-shifting framework and whether the Board’s remedial order should be enforced.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit denied Center’s petition for review and granted enforcement of the NLRB’s order in substantial part.
- The court upheld the finding of discriminatory discharge, concluding substantial evidence showed union activity was a motivating factor and that Center’s asserted justification was pretextual under Wright Line.
- The court upheld findings that Center refused to hire union-affiliated plumbers based on anti-union motive, violating § 8(a)(3) and § 8(a)(1).
- The court upheld findings of unlawful interrogation and coercive solicitation of grievances during the organizing drive as interference with protected rights under § 8(a)(1).
- The court left undisturbed the Board’s determination that the sheet-metal layoff remark was a lawful prediction, not a threat.

## Legal Principles

- An employer violates NLRA § 8(a)(1) and § 8(a)(3) by taking adverse action against an employee because of protected union activity.
- Under Wright Line, the General Counsel must show protected activity, employer knowledge, and that the activity was a motivating factor; the employer then bears the burden to prove it would have taken the same action absent the protected activity.
- If the employer’s proffered reason is found pretextual, the Board need not credit a same-decision defense.
- Discriminatory refusals to hire to discourage union membership violate § 8(a)(3) and also interfere with § 7 rights in violation of § 8(a)(1).
- Employer interrogation about union views and solicitation of grievances during an organizing campaign may violate § 8(a)(1) when it carries an express or implied promise of improvement if employees reject the union.
- Statements about potential job loss are unlawful threats if coercive, but may be lawful predictions when grounded in objective economic consequences (including contract terms) rather than retaliation for union support.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the Board’s order because substantial evidence supported findings that Center engaged in anti-union discrimination and coercion—discharging a union-supporting plumber, refusing to hire union-affiliated plumbers, and interrogating and soliciting grievances in a coercive context—while accepting the Board’s distinction between an unlawful threat and a contract-based economic prediction.


Center Construction Co. v. NLRB, 482 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2007)