## Facts

- J.M. Lassing and partners, doing business as Consumers Gasoline Stations, operated an independent chain of gasoline and service stations in Tennessee and Kentucky.
- The partnership delivered gasoline to its stations using its own trucks and employed truck drivers to do the work.
- During the latter part of 1958, the partnership studied whether to discontinue its in-house trucking operation because of rising costs and concerns about its equipment.
- Before any union activity, the partnership decided it would adopt a common-carrier delivery system as soon as some event increased costs and, in any event, by April 1, 1959, when its trucking licenses would expire.
- On January 1, 1959, three truck drivers joined a labor union, and the union sought recognition and a meeting to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement.
- Before the scheduled meeting, the partnership terminated the three drivers, telling them it would contract with a common carrier for gasoline transportation.
- The partnership refused to recognize the union, stating that it had already developed the plan to change delivery operations and would implement that plan after the union’s request in light of expected higher payroll costs.
- The National Labor Relations Board found unfair labor practices, concluding the partnership unlawfully discharged the drivers and unlawfully refused to bargain, and issued an order on March 8, 1960.
- The NLRB petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to enforce its order.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that the discharge of the three drivers violated NLRA § 8(a)(1) and § 8(a)(3) as discrimination to discourage union membership, where the employer discontinued its trucking operation and used a common carrier for asserted economic reasons.
2. Whether the employer’s implementation of the operational change and its refusal to recognize and bargain with the union violated NLRA § 8(a)(1) and § 8(a)(5).

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit denied enforcement of the NLRB’s order.
- The court concluded the record did not support the Board’s inference that the employer’s change in operations and resulting terminations were driven by anti-union motive rather than a preexisting, economically based business decision.
- Because the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings were not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, the court refused to compel the requested remedies.

## Legal Principles

- A change in operations motivated by financial or economic reasons, standing alone, is not an unfair labor practice under the NLRA.
- The NLRB cannot treat an ordinary business decision as unlawful absent evidence that the decision was made with an illegal purpose, such as discouraging union activity or avoiding statutory bargaining duties.
- For § 8(a)(3) discriminatory-discharge findings, the Board must show more than timing and adverse impact on union supporters; it must show that anti-union animus caused the employment action.
- For § 8(a)(5) refusal-to-bargain findings tied to an operational change, the Board must establish that the employer’s conduct amounted to an unlawful refusal to bargain rather than implementation of a legitimately motivated managerial decision.

## Conclusion

In *National Labor Relations Board v. J.M. Lassing*, the Sixth Circuit refused to enforce the NLRB’s order because the evidence showed the employer had decided, before the union activity, to replace its in-house gasoline delivery with a common-carrier system for economic reasons, and the Board lacked substantial evidence that the resulting discharges and the employer’s refusal to recognize and bargain were caused by anti-union motive or an effort to evade the Act.


National Labor Relations Board v. J.M. Lassing, 284 F.2d 781 (1960)