Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

National Labor Relations Board v. Velocity Express, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided January 17, 2006No. 04-9602Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMurphy, Circuit Judge

The backpay awarded Edwin Kirk by the NLRB can only be described as an attempt by the NLRB to pound a square peg into a round hole. Although Kirk’s relationship with Velocity Express was that of employee/employer, it was unusual in that he provided his own delivery vehicle and absorbed all associated fuel and maintenance costs. As a consequence, the NLRB’s standard formula for calculating backpay awards is an improper fit. Because the NLRB ignored the economic realities of the relationship between Kirk and Velocity Express in calculating an appropriate backpay award, and in doing so awarded…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Sure-Tan, Inc. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  4. National Labor Relations Board,petitioner v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of Fayetteville, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2001
  5. Woodline Motor Freight, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Woodline Motor Freight, Inc. v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1992

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API