Garten Trucking LC v. NLRB
Court
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 2, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Practice Areas
Case Summary
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1571 Doc: 62 Filed: 06/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 17 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1571 GARTEN TRUCKING LC, Petitioner, and ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PULP AND PAPER WORKERS, Intervenor, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 24-1614 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PULP AND PAPER WORKERS, Intervenor, v. GARTEN TRUCKING LC, Respondent. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1571 Doc: 62 Filed: 06/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 17 On Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (10−CA−304929) Argued: March 20, 2025 Decided: June 2, 2025 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Petition denied, and cross-petition for enforcement granted, by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion in which Judge Gregory and Judge Quattlebaum joined. ARGUED: King Fitchett Tower, WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent. Gregory P. Lauro, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. ON BRIEF: Agnis C. Chakravorty, WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent. Jennifer A. Abruzzo, General Counsel, Jessica Rutter, Deputy General Counsel, Peter Sung Ohr, Associate General Counsel, Ruth E. Burdick, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Kira Dellinger Vol, Supervisory Attorney, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. David A. Rosenfeld, WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD, Emeryville, California, for Intervenor. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1571 Doc: 62 Filed: 06/02/2025 Pg: 3 of 17 WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: The petitioner challenges a decision made by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) that his rough response to a union flyer constituted an unfair labor practice. The NLRB found that because the petitioner’s message purported to tie wage increases to employees’ union activities, it was a coercive threat of reprisal. As such, the speech violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and was not protected under either the Act or the First Amendment. Because we find that the NLRB had substantial evidence to reach this conclusion with respect to one sentence of the petitioner’s post which recast his communication in a coercive light, we now uphold the Board’s decision. In doing so, however, we distinguish between this one coercive sentence and the remainder of the petitioner’s message. Indeed, we emphasize that employers are constitutionally and statutorily entitled to give their noncoercive opinion on union activities, especially in the midst of organizing campaigns, and that such unfettered exchange advances the democratic values of our nation’s labor systems. I. A. Petitioner Robert “Dizzy” Garten (“Garten”) owns and operates Garten Trucking LC (“Garten Trucking”), a company in Covington, Virginia specializing in the transportation of paper products and other such goods. In early June 2021, two Garten Trucking employees coordinated with Intervenor Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers (“Union” or “AWPPW”) to begin an organizing campaign to unionize 3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1571 Doc: 62 Filed: 06/02/2025 Pg: 4 of 17 approximately 109 workers at Garten Trucking’s facilities. A union representation election was held between August 4-6, 2021, and AWPPW lost the election by a vote of 65-30. See J.A. 107; Garten Trucking, LLC, Nos. 10-CA-279843 et al., 2023 WL 2070300, slip op. at 1 (N.L.R.B. Div. of Judges). However, rather than spelling the end of the Union’s efforts, the election loss led to a series of bitter and lengthy disputes over Garten Trucking’s labor practices. This case thus comes before us amidst a continued organizing push, with both sides deeply entrenched in their positions and desirous of securing the favor of employees. Indeed, after its
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1571 Doc: 62 Filed: 06/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 17
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1571
GARTEN TRUCKING LC,
Petitioner,
and
ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PULP AND PAPER WORKERS,
Intervenor,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Respondent.
No. 24-1614
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Petitioner,
ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PULP AND PAPER WORKERS,
Intervenor,
v.
GARTEN TRUCKING LC,
Respondent.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1571 Doc: 62 Filed: 06/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 17
On Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.
(10−CA−304929)
Argued: March 20, 2025 Decided: June 2, 2025
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied, and cross-petition for enforcement granted, by published opinion. Judge
Wilkinson wrote the opinion in which Judge Gregory and Judge Quattlebaum joined.
ARGUED: King Fitchett Tower, WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK PLC,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent. Gregory P. Lauro, NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. ON
BRIEF: Agnis C. Chakravorty, WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK PLC,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent. Jennifer A. Abruzzo, General
Counsel, Jessica Rutter, Deputy General Counsel, Peter Sung Ohr, Associate General
Counsel, Ruth E. Burdick, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Kira Dellinger Vol,
Supervisory Attorney, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. David A. Rosenfeld, WEINBERG, ROGER &
ROSENFELD, Emeryville, California, for Intervenor.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1571 Doc: 62 Filed: 06/02/2025 Pg: 3 of 17
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
The petitioner challenges a decision made by the National Labor Relations Board
(“NLRB” or “Board”) that his rough response to a union flyer constituted an unfair labor
practice. The NLRB found that because the petitioner’s message purported to tie wage
increases to employees’ union activities, it was a coercive threat of reprisal. As such, the
speech violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and was not protected under
either the Act or the First Amendment. Because we find that the NLRB had substantial
evidence to reach this conclusion with respect to one sentence of the petitioner’s post which
recast his communication in a coercive light, we now uphold the Board’s decision. In doing
so, however, we distinguish between this one coercive sentence and the remainder of the
petitioner’s message. Indeed, we emphasize that employers are constitutionally and
statutorily entitled to give their noncoercive opinion on union activities, especially in the
midst of organizing campaigns, and that such unfettered exchange advances the democratic
values of our nation’s labor systems.
I.
A.
Petitioner Robert “Dizzy” Garten (“Garten”) owns and operates Garten Trucking
LC (“Garten Trucking”), a company in Covington, Virginia specializing in the
transportation of paper products and other such goods. In early June 2021, two Garten
Trucking employees coordinated with Intervenor Association of Western Pulp and Paper
Workers (“Union” or “AWPPW”) to begin an organizing campaign to unionize
3
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1571 Doc: 62 Filed: 06/02/2025 Pg: 4 of 17
approximately 109 workers at Garten Trucking’s facilities. A union representation election
was held between August 4-6, 2021, and AWPPW lost the election by a vote of 65-30. See
J.A. 107; Garten Trucking, LLC, Nos. 10-CA-279843 et al., 2023 WL 2070300, slip op. at
1 (N.L.R.B. Div. of Judges). However, rather than spelling the end of the Union’s efforts,
the election loss led to a series of bitter and lengthy disputes over Garten Trucking’s labor
practices. This case thus comes before us amidst a continued organizing push, with both
sides deeply entrenched in their positions and desirous of securing the favor of employees.
Indeed, after its
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 2, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools