Author Question: What factual difference existed between the Buffalo Linen case referred to in the text and the Brown ... (Read 293 times)

Jramos095 · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

What factual difference existed between the Buffalo Linen case referred to in the text and the Brown case?

Question 2

Did the Supreme Court agree with the Court of Appeals that Section 10(c) of the Act forbids placing the burden on the employer to prove that, absent the improper motivation, the employer would have acted in the same manner for wholly legitimate reasons?

Bsand8 · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

In Buffalo Linen all the employers shut down operations to defend the multiemployer unit against injury from the union whipsaw strike tactic. In Brown Food Stores the employers continued to operate with temporary employees replacing the locked-out workers.

Answer to Question 2

No. The Supreme Court stated that the Court of Appeals was in error in holding that Section 10(c) forbids the placing of the burden on the employer to prove that, absent the improper motivation, the employer would have acted in the same manner for proper reasons. The Supreme Court pointed out that the Board could have construed the Act as stated by the Court of Appeals. However, the Board's interpretation was also reasonable and permissible under the Act and was entitled to deference.