United States Sixth Circuit

While the NLRB's interpretation of section 502 of the National Labor Relations Act, which protects employees who take job action due to "abnormally dangerous" working conditions, was not erroneous, its conclusion, that objective evidence supported employees' belief that their workplace had become too dangerous to work in, was not supported by substantial evidence.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/10/2002
• Published 07/10/2002

Judges

• Before KENNEDY, GUY, and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• William M. Earnest (argued and briefed), Robert L. Thompson (briefed), Elarbee, Thompson & Trapnell, Atlanta, GA, Jeffrey B. Kent, Hill & Kertscher, Atlanta GA, for Petitioner., Donald E. Jose (briefed), David Wiedis (briefed), Kristen B. Komer (briefed), Jose & Wiedis, West Chester, PA, George H. Cohen (briefed), Laurence S. Gold (briefed), Jeremiah A. Collins (briefed), Robert Alexander (briefed), Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, DC, for Intervenor., Heather L. MacDougall (briefed), McGuiness, Norris & Williams, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae.


• For Appellees:
  
• Edward F. Hughes (argued and briefed), Aileen A. Armstrong (briefed), Howard E. Perlstein (briefed), National Labor Relations Board, Appellate Court Branch, Washington, DC, for Respondent.