Skip to Content Top

Clarification by NLRB: Understanding the Burden of Proof in Anti-Union Retaliation Cases

Lady Justice Statue

In a recent development that carries implications for labor relations across the United States, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) addressed a contentious issue pertaining to the burden of proof in cases of anti-union retaliation. The decision, handed down on Monday, revisits a previous ruling from 2019 and seeks to establish a clear standard for proving claims of employer animus towards protected activities.

The 2019 ruling in question, known as Tschiggfrie Properties, had raised concerns among practitioners and legal experts due to its perceived impact on the burden of proof in anti-union retaliation cases. Critics of the ruling argued that it provided employers with a potentially easier path to avoid claims of retaliation by imposing a higher standard of evidence on the prosecution. The Tschiggfrie decision had seemingly required prosecutors to demonstrate a direct causal link between an employer's animus and a worker's subsequent punishment, making it more challenging to establish a case of anti-union retaliation.

However, the NLRB's current three-member Democratic majority, led by general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, decided not to discard the Tschiggfrie ruling but instead clarified its stance on the matter. The majority acknowledged that the previous ruling was imprecise and open to misinterpretation. Despite this acknowledgment, the board maintained that the standard it employs for evaluating anti-union retaliation claims remains unchanged.

The key point of contention was whether the Tschiggfrie decision had fundamentally altered the established "Wright Line framework," which has long been the foundation for evaluating anti-union retaliation cases. The board's majority emphasized that the Tschiggfrie ruling did not deviate from the traditional three-element formulation that guides the general counsel's burden of proof. They stated that the Wright Line framework inherently involves a causation test and does not necessitate a separate element establishing a causal nexus.

The decision garnered some level of agreement even among the Republican members of the board. In a concurring opinion, Republican member Marvin Kaplan concurred that the Tschiggfrie ruling did not elevate the proof burden required of prosecutors under the Wright Line framework. However, he criticized his colleagues for distancing themselves from a portion of the Tschiggfrie majority's reasoning, particularly concerning the sufficiency of evidence related to employer animus or hostility.

It's worth noting that the NLRB's decision in this case, which involved packaging products manufacturer Intertape Polymer Corp, has implications for future anti-union retaliation cases and how they are evaluated. The clarification provided by the board offers a comprehensive understanding of how the burden of proof will be applied moving forward.

In conclusion, the NLRB's recent clarification on the burden of proof in anti-union retaliation cases maintains the established framework, assuaging concerns that the previous ruling had shifted the scales in favor of employers. This decision not only highlights the intricacies of labor law but also emphasizes the importance of clear and precise legal interpretations in maintaining the delicate balance between workers' rights and employer interests. As the landscape of labor relations continues to evolve, such clarifications play a crucial role in ensuring fairness and justice for all parties involved.

For the full article, click here