🗞️ Safety Complaints Led to Firing, Labor Judge Rules in Washington State Case

A federal labor judge has found that a Washington state electrical contractor unlawfully discharged a union electrician who raised a series of safety complaints during his brief assignment to a food processing facility project, recommending the company reinstate him and compensate him for lost earnings.

The recommended decision, issued April 23, 2026, by Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone of the National Labor Relations Board, found that Townsend Controls & Electric LLC violated the National Labor Relations Act when it discharged Joel Leahy, a journeyman electrician with 22 years of experience and a member of IBEW Local 191, from a project at a JR Simplot food processing facility in Moses Lake, Washington.

During his 12 days on the job, Leahy flagged a string of hazards to his employer and to Fisher Construction Group, which served as the overall project coordinator: extension cords and welding leads strewn across walking surfaces, a scissor lift whose only maintenance record dated to January 2021, missing OSHA-required safety documentation, and the risks posed by multiple trades crowded into the same confined workspace simultaneously, a construction industry phenomenon known as "trade stacking." On the day he was discharged, he also invoked Weingarten rights, which entitle union-represented employees to have a union representative present during investigatory interviews that could lead to discipline.

The company maintained that Leahy had been discharged for physically assaulting a specialty contractor's employee by "shoulder checking" him during a dispute over safety conditions, and for becoming combative when questioned about it afterward. Judge Anzalone found neither account supported by the evidence. None of the laborers who allegedly witnessed or experienced the incident testified at the hearing, and the company's own managers offered contradictory accounts of when and why the termination decision was made. One supervisor testified that the decision had been reached before a critical meeting with Leahy, yet the document he said he relied upon summarized events from that very meeting, which had not yet taken place at the time he claimed the decision was made.

The judge applied the Supreme Court's Burnup & Sims standard, which provides heightened protection to employees accused of misconduct while engaged in protected activity. Unlike the more commonly applied Wright Line burden-shifting framework, Burnup & Sims does not allow an employer to avoid liability by demonstrating a good-faith belief that misconduct occurred. The misconduct must actually be proven. Because the alleged physical incident arose directly out of Leahy's ongoing safety complaints and could not be separated from them, Judge Anzalone concluded the stricter standard applied, and that the company had not met it.

An alternative analysis under Wright Line reached the same conclusion. The judge cited the close timing between Leahy's safety-related standoff with management and his discharge, the company's inconsistent explanations for the termination, a failure to interview a coworker who was present during the altercation, and the unexplained decision by the company's owner not to testify despite attending the entire hearing.

One allegation did not survive scrutiny. The General Counsel had argued that Leahy was also discharged in retaliation for his stated plan to contact Local 191 about the absence of a union steward and the site's safety conditions, a claim requiring proof of anti-union animus under Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The judge dismissed it, finding no evidence that those who made the termination decision were ever informed of Leahy's plans. The foreman who had heard them was supportive of the idea, making it unlikely he conveyed that information to management.

The recommended order directs Townsend Controls to offer Leahy immediate reinstatement to his former position or a substantially equivalent one, pay him full back pay with compounded interest, compensate him for other foreseeable financial harms including job search expenses, expunge the discharge from its records, and post a formal notice of employee rights at its Pasco, Washington facility for 60 consecutive days. As a recommended order, the decision is subject to exceptions being filed with the full Board before it takes effect.

Key Points

• Leahy raised safety complaints about tripping hazards, defective equipment, missing OSHA documentation, and trade stacking during just 12 days on the job before being discharged
• The judge applied the Burnup & Sims standard because the alleged physical misconduct occurred during and was inseparable from Leahy's ongoing protected safety activity
• Under Burnup & Sims, a good-faith belief that misconduct occurred is not a sufficient defense; the employer must prove the misconduct actually took place, and here it could not
• The company's managers gave conflicting accounts of the termination decision, with one supervisor relying on a document that summarized a meeting that had not yet occurred at the time he claimed the decision was made
• No witnesses from the specialty contractor who alleged the assault testified at the hearing, undermining the company's primary justification for the discharge
• The Section 8(a)(3) union activity claim was dismissed because the decision-makers were not shown to have known of Leahy's plan to contact Local 191
• The recommended remedy includes reinstatement, back pay with compounded interest, compensation for foreseeable financial harms and job search costs, record expungement, and notice posting

Primary Source Author: Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone, NLRB Division of Judges, San Francisco Branch Office

Primary Source: Townsend Controls & Electric LLC and Joel Leahy, Case 19-CA-315801, JD(SF)-08-26 (April 23, 2026)

Primary Source Link: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-315801

Supplemental References

• NLRA Section 7 & 8(a)(1): Interfering with Employee Rights (NLRB)
• Protected Concerted Activity: Overview and Case Examples (NLRB)
• Weingarten Rights (NLRB)
• NLRB v. Burnup & Sims, 379 U.S. 21 (1964) (Supreme Court)
• Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), via NLRB Edge
• Protected Concerted Activity (Wikipedia)
• Weingarten Rights (Wikipedia)
• OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200 (OSHA)