143099P.pdf   07/03/2017  MikLin Enterprises, Inc.  v.  NLRB
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3099
                          and No:  14-3211
   National Labor Relations Board   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, for the Court En Banc, joined by Smith, Chief 
   Judge, and Wollman, Riley, Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Petition for Review - National Labor Relations Board. The means the 
   disciplined employees used in their poster attack on MikLin's "Jimmy 
   John's" sandwiches suggesting the sandwiches posed a health threat to 
   consumers, were so disloyal as to exceed their right to engage in 
   concerted activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act, as 
   construed in the controlling Supreme Court precedent, NLRB v. Local Union 
   No. 1229, IBEW, 346 U.S. 464 (1953)("Jefferson Standard"); the court 
   declines to enforce the determination that MikLin violated the Act by 
   disciplining and discharging those employees and by soliciting removal of 
   the unprotected posters; the Board's order finding MikLin violated Section 
   8(a)(1) of the Act during the union's organizing campaign when its 
   managers used Facebook postings to disparage, degrade and harass a union 
   leader employee for protected activities is enforced; the Board's order 
   concluding that removal of flyers and copies of the union's amended charge 
   violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act is also enforced. Judge Colloton, with 
   whom Judge Benton joins, concurring in the judgment. Judge Kelly, with 
   whom Judge Murphy joins, dissenting in part. 
  
143099P.pdf   03/25/2016  MikLin Enterprises, Inc.  v.  NLRB
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3099
                          and No:  14-3211
   National Labor Relations Board   
   [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Loken and Bye, Circuit Judges] 
   Petition for Review - National Labor Relations Board. The Board did not 
   err in finding that the employer violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the 
   National Labor Management Relations Act by terminating or disciplining 
   employees for engaging in protected concerted activity and violated 
   Section 8(a)(1) by soliciting the removal of protected materials from 
   public places, removing union literature from an unrestricted employee 
   bulletin board and encouraging employees on Facebook to harass union 
   supporters; the materials the employees distributed or posted were not 
   materially false and misleading and did not lose their status as protected 
   communications; the Board did not err in finding there was sufficient 
   evidence in the record to find the communications were not made with 
   knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth; 
   likewise, the Board did not err in finding that the statements fell short 
   of unprotected disloyalty and disparagement. Judge Loken, dissenting.