United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued February 17, 2021 Decided May 11, 2021 No. 20-1090 RAV TRUCK AND TRAILER REPAIRS, INC. AND CONCRETE EXPRESS OF NY, LLC, PETITIONERS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT Consolidated with 20-1124 On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board Aaron T. Tulencik argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Ronald L. Mason. Gregoire Sauter, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Peter B. Robb, General Counsel, Alice B. Stock, Deputy General Counsel, Ruth E. Burdick, Acting Deputy Associate General Counsel, David Habenstreit, Assistant General Counsel, and Julie Broido, Supervisory Attorney. 2 Before: HENDERSON and TATEL, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge EDWARDS. EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge: This case involves a petition for review filed by RAV Truck and Trailer Repairs, Inc. (“RAV”) and Concrete Express of New York, LLC (“Concrete Express”), as a single employer (collectively, “Petitioner” or the “Company”), challenging a decision and order issued by the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”). A complaint was filed with the Board alleging that the Company had violated sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) and (1), by discharging one employee, laying off another employee, and closing RAV because employees engaged in union activity. Following a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), the Board reviewed the case and issued a decision and order finding that Petitioner had committed the unfair labor practices as alleged. The Board ordered Petitioner to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices; to offer the separated employees reinstatement to their former jobs or substantially equivalent positions; to make the separated employees whole for any loss of earnings or benefits; to bargain with the Union upon request; and to “reopen and restore the business operation of [RAV] as it existed on May 14, 2018.” See RAV Truck & Trailer Repairs, Inc., 369 N.L.R.B. No. 36, at 1, 16-17, 2020 WL 1283464, at *1, *3 (Mar. 3, 2020) (“RAV”). In its petition for review, the Company claims that one employee was discharged because he lacked proper work authorization, not because of his pro-union activity. The Company additionally claims that another employee was laid 3 off and the RAV auto repair shop operation was closed because of RAV’s financial problems and the loss of its lease, not in retaliation for or to chill union activities. And Petitioner also argues that the Board abused its discretion in declining to reopen the record to include a tax return that allegedly demonstrated RAV’s financial losses. Finally, Petitioner argues the Board’s remedial order is impermissibly punitive and cannot be enforced. The Board cross-petitions for enforcement of its order. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Petitioner committed unfair labor practices by discharging one employee and laying off another. We …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals