Laro Maintenance Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 45,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Laro Maintenance Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 56 F.3d 224 (1995)
In Laro Maintenance versus National Labor Relations Board, we’ll see whether courts must uphold administrative-law judges’ findings of fact on appeal.
Prompt Maintenance Services provided cleaning services for the federal government in a building known as Cadman Plaza in New York. Prompt’s employees were part of a service worker’s union known as Local 32B. In April of 1990, the General Services Administration, or GSA, awarded Laro Maintenance a contract to take over the cleaning services at Cadman Plaza. A GSA official asked Laro to hire some of Prompt’s employees. However, Laro’s president observed that some of Prompt’s employees were underperforming at work. Laro hired ten Prompt employees and accepted applications from other Prompt employees. However, Laro knew it wouldn’t hire the additional workers, so Laro didn’t seek out additional information about the other Prompt employees. Laro hired other employees who hadn’t worked for Prompt, even though the employees had documented history of poor performance. Laro also entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with another workers’ union, known as Local 355, which covered Laro’s workers at Cadman Plaza.
Local 32B filed an unfair-labor-practice charge against Laro and sought relief from the National Labor Relations Board. Local 32B claimed that Laro violated the National Labor Relations Act by, one, contracting with Local 355, even though Local 355 only represented a minority of workers at Cadman Plaza. And two, by not considering other Prompt employees because of their status as union members. An administrative-law judge, or ALJ, found that Laro violated the act when Laro entered into an agreement with Local 355 and failed to consider or hire other Prompt employees. The ALJ also found that Laro’s explanation for why it didn’t hire the Prompt workers was pretextual and didn’t represent Laro’s true motivations. The board adopted the ALJ’s findings. Laro petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the board’s holding. The board cross-petitioned to have its holding enforced.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.com/cases/laro-ma...
The Quimbee App features over 45,900 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/laro-ma...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our CZcams Channel ► czcams.com/users/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries