NLRB Advice Memoranda, Congruex, National Labor Relations Board, (Mar 27, 2024)

This case was submitted for advice as to whether a discharge violated Section 8(a)(1) where the Employer, A&M Communication, a subsidiary of Congruex, lacked knowledge and animus toward the Charging Party's protected concerted activities. We conclude there is no evidentiary or legal basis to impute the remarks of a manager working at a different Congruex subsidiary to the Employer in order to prove either of those elements of the Wright Line analysis.

However, even assuming such were proper, the charge only names the parent corporation, Congruex, and a newly filed charge against the correct Employer would be untimely. Nor is there any evidence that the parent company caused the subsidiary to violate the Act, and there is no assertion or evidence of a single or joint employer relationship. Thus, there is no basis to pursue the discharge allegation. See Esmark, Inc., 315 NLRB 763, 764-65, 767-70 (1994) (discussing bases for liability of parent corporations under Section 8(a)(3) given that they are generally insulated from liability for unfair labor practices of subsidiaries).

For similar reasons, there is also no basis to prosecute certain statements made by agents of the Employer and by agents of another subsidiary, True North (also not named in the charge), assuming arguendo that they were unlawful. [1]

This email closes this case in Advice. Please contact us with any questions or concerns.

​          ​

Please be aware that this email may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or other authorities, though exceptions may apply for certain case-related information, personal privacy, and other matters.