Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01354/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01354-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent
Staffing Network Holdings, LLC
Petitioner

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582

STAFFING NETWORK HOLDINGS, LLC,

Petitioner/Cross‐Respondent,

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent/Cross‐Petitioner.

On Petition for Review and Cross‐Application

for Enforcement of an Order of the

National Labor Relations Board.

No. 13‐CA‐105031

ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2015 — DECIDED MARCH 2, 2016

Before FLAUM, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

ROVNER, Circuit Judge.  The National Labor Relations Board

(“NLRB” or “Board”) concluded that Staffing Network

Holdings, LLC (“Staffing Network”) violated the National

Labor Relations Act by twice threatening employees with

discharge for engaging in protected, concerted activity, and for

actually discharging employee Griselda Barrera for engaging

in protected, concerted activity. See 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
2 Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582

(hereafter “the Act”). The NLRB ordered Staffing Network to

offer Barrera reinstatement and to make her whole for lost

wages. Staffing Network petitions this court for review of that

decision and asks that we reverse the Board’s decision in its

entirety. The NLRB cross‐petitions for enforcement of its

Order. We deny Staffing Network’s petition for review and

grant the NLRB’s petition for enforcement.

I.

Staffing Network is a staffing agency, providing temporary

and long‐term employees to a variety of employers. The

company operates at free‐standing locations and on‐site at its

clients’premises.ReaderLink, an Illinois company, is an on‐site

client that fills book orders for other businesses. At the time of

the incident leading to this action, Staffing Network provided

approximately eighty full‐time employees for ReaderLink,

including an on‐site manager, a staffing assistant, pickers and

stockers. Pickers at ReaderLink work side‐by‐side on a

production line, selecting books to fill orders,placing the books

in boxes and sending them down the line. Stockers ensure that

pickers have an adequate supply of books to fill the orders.

Barrera began working for Staffing Network in 2004, and was

placed at ReaderLink as a picker. Except for once punching the

clock too early for her shift, Barrera worked at ReaderLink for

eight years without incident. Staffing Network’s on‐site

manager at ReaderLink was Andy Vega, who had been

working for the company for only a few months at the time of

these events. Monica Amaya worked as Vega’s staffing

assistant. ReaderLink also had its own in‐house supervisors,

including Mari Perez.

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582 3

On November 15, 2012, ReaderLink was working to fill an

especially large book order. At some point in the day, Perez

told Vega that two of the stockers were not working quickly

enough. Vega asked both stockers to work more quickly, but

one of the workers, a man named Juan, said that he would

work no faster for $8.25 an hour. Perez told Vega to send Juan

home and Vega complied. Juan’s dismissal caused an immedi‐

ate reaction among the pickers, including Barrera, Olga

Gutierrez and other women. They asked why Juan had been

sent home, and they told Vega that Juan could not keep up

with the line because he was new at the job. Vega replied that

Juan was sent home because of his attitude as well as his

inability to keep up with the work. Barrera, Gutierrez and

others told Vega that this was not fair. Vega replied that it was

not the pickers’ matter to deal with and that they should get

back to work. Vega also said that he could send them home as

well for their attitude. He then left the area.

Vega returned a short time later. He angrily and repeatedly

asked Barrera if everything was fine and told her again that he

could send her home if she had an issue. Barrera asked Vega if

he was threatening her and said that she could send a letter to

the Department of Human Rights. Vega then told Barrera to

collect her things and go home. Barrera refused, insisting that

she had done nothing wrong. Vega became angrier, pointed at

Barrera and said in a raised voice, “Let’s see if you’re not

leaving.” Gutierrez and others came to Barrera’s defense,

saying she had done nothing wrong. Vega again left the area

and returned to his office.

Vega then directed Amaya to tell Barrera to go home.

Amaya went to the production line and told Barrera to take her

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
4 Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582

personal items and leave. She told Barrera that if she did not

leave, Vega intended to have security guards escort her out.

Again, the other women came to Barrera’s defense, telling

Amaya that Barrera had done nothing wrong and that Vega

had been rude. Amaya said there had been a lot of complaints

about Vega but that there was nothing she could do. Barrera

then left the work area with Amaya, turned in her radio

headset that pickers used to communicate, and waited in the

cafeteria for a ride to pick her up.

Amaya initially told Barrera to leave for the day. However,

later in the day, Barrera sent Amaya a text message asking if

she could return to work the next day. Amaya asked Vega how

she should reply to the message. Amaya then sent Barrera a

text message stating that Barrera needed to speak to Vega

about what had happened that day, and that she should not

return to work.

Having been told to leave and not come back, Barrera

reasonably surmised that she had been terminated and she

appliedforunemployment benefits.The IllinoisDepartment of

Employment Security (“IDES”) sent a request for information

about Barrera’s claim to Staffing Network. Vega and Amaya

composed and sent Staffing Network’s reply to the State. The

IDES form requested that the employer provide the claimant’s

“current status with your company, including details.” The

form presented four possible statuses: (1) Lack of Work (with

sub‐categories of Permanent or Temporary); (2) Voluntary

Separation; (3) Involuntary Separation; and (4) Still Working.

Vega and Amaya checked the box for “Involuntary Separa‐

tion.” For Involuntary Separation, the form requested that the

employer “[p]rovide reason, policy violation (include policy

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582 5

section), dates and details of prior warnings, and written

documentation of the final incident details. Include the name

& title of the individual who terminated the claimant.” Vega

and Amaya replied:

On 11‐15‐2012 the client (Mari Perez) informed

me that a stacker [sic] was not working at the

level he should be. When told to speed it up a

bit Griselda Barrera took it upon herself to tell

the onsite manager that he doesn’t know what

he’s talking about and that he should do his

homework. After this Griselda Barrera went to

the rest room for about 10 min [and] when she

returned she was talking to some of the ladies in

the line disrupting the production. Mari Perez

told the on site manager to tell Griselda Barrera

if she does not want to work to punch out and

go home. To which her reply to Andy Vega (on

site) was “do not threaten me with nonsense, I

have been here for many years and I know my

rights! And you are nobody to tell me what to

do,” [sic] After this she was told to punch out

and go home for the day but she ignored the

request and continued to get the ladies in the

line worked up saying this was going against

the law and that they have to stand up against

all the injustice we are committing.

Due to this Griselda Barrera cannot return to

ReaderLink.

Ex. R‐8.

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
6 Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582

In response to questions specific to the staffing industry,

Vega and Amaya also indicated on the form that Barrera

would “be considered for future assignments with your

agency,” stating, “Yes, with any account other than

ReaderLink. She may call other branches for work.” In re‐

sponse to a question regarding whether there had been any

“job refusals since the last assignment ended that have not

been reported,” Vega and Amaya replied, “No she has not

been called due to her being placed on DNR from this ac‐

count.” In this context, “DNR” means “Do Not Return,” a

status given to a Staffing Network employee when a particular

clientrequests thatthe employee notreturn to the client’s work

site. The State ultimately approved Barrera’s unemployment

benefits. Staffing Network never told Barrera that she had not

been terminated. Nor did the company tell her that she could

return to work at ReaderLink or that she could work at an

alternate location. After the termination, Barrera tried to meet

with a representative of ReaderLink’s human resources

department directly. But when Barrera visitedReaderLink and

asked to speak to a ReaderLink employee, Vega and Amaya

met her instead and told her the ReaderLink employee was

unavailable.

Barrera filed an unfair labor practice charge, and the

Board’s General Counsel issued a complaint alleging that

Staffing Network violated section 158(a)(1) of the Act by twice

threatening to discharge employees for engaging in protected,

concertedactivity, andby actuallydischargingBarrera because

of her protected, concerted activity. An Administrative Law

Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing at which both the General

Counsel and Staffing Network presented witnesses and

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582 7

entered documentary evidence. The ALJ determined the facts

as we have recited them above, generally crediting the General

Counsel’s witnesses and finding that Staffing Network’s

witnesses were either partly or entirely not credible. The ALJ

agreed that Staffing Network violated section 158(a)(1) as

alleged by the Board. The ALJ rejected the company’s claims

that Barrera was not terminated, or that if she was terminated,

the discharge was justified by Barrera’s insubordinate behav‐

ior. The ALJ further found that Barrera did not lose the

protection of the Act under the factors delineated in Atlantic

Steel Co., 245 N.L.R.B. 814 (1979). Finally, the ALJ determined

that a burden‐shifting analysis under Wright Line, 251 N.L.R.B.

1083 (1980),enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), was not necessary

but that a violation would be found under Wright Line if the

case applied.

As a remedy, the ALJ ordered that Staffing Network offer

reinstatement to Barrera and make her whole for lost earnings

and benefits. The ALJ further ordered that Staffing Network

cease and desist from threatening to discharge or discharging

employees for engaging in protected, concerted activity. The

ALJ also directed the company to post a notice in both English

and Spanish informing workers of their rights and summariz‐

ing the outcome of the proceedings. On appeal, the Board

affirmed the ALJ’s rulings, findings, and conclusions and

adopted the ALJ’s Order with slight modifications that are not

relevant to this appeal. Staffing Network then petitioned this

court for review of the Board’s decision, and the Board cross‐

petitioned for enforcement of its Order.

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
8 Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582

II.

In its petition for review, Staffing Network asserts that

(1) the Board erred in finding that the company terminated

Barrera; (2) in the alternative, if the Board was correct that

Barrera was terminated, the Board erred in concluding that

Staffing Network was prohibited by the Act from terminating

Barrera; (3) the Board erred in concluding that the company

unlawfully threatenedemployees twice on November 15, 2012;

and (4) the Board erred in crediting the testimony of all of the

General Counsel’s witnesses and discrediting all of Staffing

Network’s witnesses. Our review of the Board’s findings is

deferential, assessing only whether they are supported by

substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.

N.L.R.B. v. Enterprise Ass’n of Pipefitters Local 638, 429 U.S. 507,

531 (1977); AutoNation, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 801 F.3d 767, 771 (7th

Cir. 2015); 29 U.S.C. § 160(f) (“the findings of the Board with

respect to questions of fact if supported by substantial evi‐

dence on the record considered as a whole shall ... be conclu‐

sive.”). See also Big Ridge, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 808 F.3d 705, 713 (7th

Cir. 2015) (we will affirm and enforce the Board’s findings if

they are supported by substantial evidence and if the Board’s

conclusions have a reasonable basis in law). “Substantial

evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

support a conclusion.” Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). See also AutoNation,

801 F.3d at 771.

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582 9

A.

We begin with Staffing Network’s claim that the company

never terminated Barrera. According to the company, no

Staffing Network employee evertold Barrera that her employ‐

ment was terminated and Barrera, at the time of briefing,

remained an active employee in the company’s database.

Staffing Network also asserts thattheBoardmisunderstoodthe

nature of the company’s business as a staffing agency, and that

an inability to be placed at a particular client such as

ReaderLink was not an indication that Barrera was terminated

from Staffing Network. Rather, she could be placed at other

employers. The company also faults the Board for relying on

a “phantom” text message from Amaya to Barrera, purporting

to tell Barrera notto return to work. Staffing Network contends

that the Board ignored undisputed evidence that Barrera has

never been terminated.

None of these assertions has any merit and we easily

conclude that the Board’s determination that Barrera was

terminated was supported by substantial evidence. Indeed, in

light of the smoking‐gun admission that the company made in

response to the State of Illinois’ unemployment inquiries,

Staffing Network’s claim that it did not terminate Barrera is

frivolous. As we noted above, in its response to the State, the

company indicated that Barrera’s status with Staffing Network

(as opposed to ReaderLink) was an “involuntary separation.”

Staffing Network did not check the box on the form indicating

that Barrera was “still working,” or even the box for “volun‐

tary separation,” even though it now claims both that Barrera

is still employed and also that Barrera simply abandoned her

job. In fact, Staffing Network did not attempt to explain this

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
10 Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582

conclusive admission at the hearing before the ALJ or in its

briefing in this court, even though the ALJ relied on it and the

Board also cited it. Asked at oral argument about this singu‐

larly damning piece of evidence, Staffing Network’s counsel

responded:

The person who filled out the IDES form, ac‐

cording to the testimony, was not a lawyer. He

filled it out as best he could. He put information

in there that conveyed that the person could not

return to ReaderLink but also was eligible for

assignments. Someone who is eligible for assign‐

ments is not separated from Staffing Network.

They are active in the system and able to go on

other assignments.

R. 31, at 2:47. A manager need not be a lawyer to know

whether an employee has been terminated or simply sent

home for the day.

Moreover, this interpretation of the document is unsup‐

ported by the facts as determined by the ALJ and affirmed by

the Board. As we noted, Vega did not check boxes indicating

that Barrera was “still working” or that her separation was

“voluntary.” He checked the box for “involuntary separation”

from Staffing Network. That Vega is not a lawyer (a fact also

not contained in the record but we see no reason to doubt

counsel on this point) does not explain why he indicated an

involuntary separation when the company really meant there

had been no separation at all. Having made this conclusive

admission in adocumentfiled with the State, Staffing Network

could have asked Vega to explain his answer, and Vega was

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582 11

free to clarify that he meant only that Barrera could not return

to ReaderLink, not that she had been involuntarily terminated

from Staffing Network. But Vega never clarified why he

checked the “involuntary separation” box in response to the

State’s inquiry. There is no evidence in the record supporting

counsel’s claim on appeal that checking the box for “involun‐

tary separation” meant something other than involuntary

separation from Staffing Network.1 The ALJ was justified in

relying on this admission in concluding that Barrera had been

terminated from the company, and this document alone

provides substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that

Barrera was terminated by Staffing Network.

But in addition to the company’s response to the State

indicating involuntary separation, other evidence supported

the Board’s determination that Barrera had been terminated.

Barrera testified that Amaya told her, at first, to go home for

the day (under threat of a security escort). After Barrera heard

from a co‐worker that Vega told another co‐worker that

1

  Staffing Network relies on other parts of the company’s IDES response to

contend that Barrera was not terminated from Staffing Network but simply

could not return to ReaderLink. For example, on the IDES form, Vega

indicated that Barrera could not return to ReaderLink, and in the section

devoted to “questions [that] are specific to yourindustry,” Vega stated that

Barrera would “be considered for future assignments” “with any other

account than Readerlink [sic].” The ALJ found that this statement indicated

that Barrera was eligible for rehire. Nothing in the company’s IDES

response undermines the ALJ’s conclusion that Barrera was terminated

from Staffing Network and also was eligible for rehire.

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
12 Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582

Barrera no longer worked at Staffing Network,2 Barrera sent a

text message to Amaya asking if she could return to work the

next day. Amaya indicated in her reply to Barrera that Vega

wanted to talk to Barrera the next day “but it wasn’t for me to

go back to work.” Tr. at 26. Having been told to go home and

to not come back, Barrera did not return to work, and instead

applied for unemployment benefits. See AutoNation, 801 F.3d

at 776‐77 (finding employer’s claim that it fired employee due

to job abandonment to be a pretext because employer knew

that employee had filed for unemployment benefits and was

underthe impression that he had already been terminated and

yet the company did nothing to correct the employee’s alleged

misimpression). On the question of termination, the ALJ

credited Barrera’s version of events.3 That version of events

2

  The ALJ allowed Barrera to testify to this double‐hearsay not forthe truth

of the matter asserted but simply to show why Barrera sent a text message

to Amaya inquiring about her status. Like the ALJ, we do not credit the

truth of the co‐worker’s assertion that Vega told another worker that

Barrera no longer worked at Staffing Network. The evidence is relevant

only to demonstrate why Barrera sought clarification of her status.

3

  The ALJ discredited Vega’s testimony about his response to Barrera’s text

message to Amaya because Vega’s testimony conflicted with Amaya’s

version of events and was also contradicted by Vega’s own testimony

regarding whether Barrera could return to ReaderLink the next day. In

particular, the ALJrejected Vega’s claim that Barrera was directed to return

to ReaderLink the next day because Vega also testified that Barrera could

not return to ReaderLink because she was on “DNR” status, a fact he

confirmed with the State as well. To the extentthat Staffing Network asserts

that a DNR with a particular client was not a separation from Staffing

Network, that claim is belied by the company’s admissions to the State of

(continued...)

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582 13

provides substantial evidence to support the conclusion that

Staffing Network terminated Barrera.

B.

Staffing Network’s remaining arguments are allfoundedon

a version of the facts that was thoroughly rejected by the ALJ.

Under the company’s version of events, Vega did not fire

Barrera; he simply sent her home forthe day after she had been

insubordinate and abusive towards him. When Vega sent Juan

home at the request of ReaderLink’s management, Barrera

refused to go back to work, called Vega “a nobody,” threat‐

ened to report him to immigration authorities, and told him he

was just Amaya’s “secretary,” according to Staffing Network.

Vega denied yelling at Barrera or pointing at her, and claimed

that he sent her home not because she was complaining about

“injustice” but because she had been abusive and insubordi‐

nate, causing him embarrassment in front of other employees.

Under Staffing Network’s version, no one evertoldBarrera she

could not return to work, and in fact Amaya told her to return

the next day. The company also asserted that Barrera’s adult

son repeatedly called Vega’s cell phone and left threatening

and harassing voice mails. Staffing Network asserts that it

repeatedly attempted to meet with Barrera but that she

rebuffed all attempts to communicate. Staffing Network also

claims that ReaderLink alone made the decision to place

Barrera on “do not return” status.

3

  (...continued)

Illinois that Barrera was involuntarily separated from Staffing Network.

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
14 Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582

But this version of events was almost completely rejected

by theALJ.Basedon this discreditedversion of events, Staffing

Network asserts (1) that the Board erred in finding that the

termination violated the Act; (2) that the Board was mistaken

in concluding that the company unlawfully threatened

employees twice on November 15, 2012; and (3) that the Board

wrongly credited the testimony of all of the General Counsel’s

witnesses while discrediting all of Staffing Network’s wit‐

nesses. Because the ALJ’s findings were based in large part on

concluding that Barrera and the General Counsel’s other

witnesses were credible, and that Vega and Staffing Network’s

witnesses were not, we begin with the company’s complaint

that the Board erred in reaching its credibility findings.

We must defer to the Board’s credibility determinations

and will disturb them only in extraordinary circumstances. Big

Ridge, 808 F.3d at 715; Jet Star, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 209 F.3d 671, 676

(7th Cir. 2000). The category of “extraordinary circumstances”

includes a clear showing of bias by the ALJ, an utter disregard

for uncontroverted sworn testimony, and the acceptance of

testimony to a fact that would be physically impossible. Jet

Star, 209 F.3d at 676; J.C. Penney Co. v. N.L.R.B., 123 F.3d 988,

995 (7th Cir. 1997); Carry Companies of Ill., Inc. v. N.L.R.B.,

30 F.3d 922, 928 (7th Cir. 1994). “The judge on the front line is

in the best position to determine which of two stories told by

competing witnesses should be credited.” N.L.R.B. v. Joy

Recovery Tech. Corp., 134 F.3d 1307, 1313 (7th Cir. 1998). That is

so because credibility is “a function not only of what a witness

says but of how a witness says it.” N.L.R.B. v. Overnite Transp.

Co., 938 F.2d 815, 819 (7th Cir. 1991). Moreover, an ALJ does

not necessarily exhibit bias when crediting all of the witnesses

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582 15

on one side of a dispute and none of the witnesses on the other.

N.L.R.B. v. Q‐1 Motor Express, Inc., 25 F.3d 473, 479 (7th Cir.

1994). See also N.L.R.B. v. Pittsburgh S.S. Co., 337 U.S. 656, 659

(1949) (“total rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself

impugn the integrity of competence of a trier of fact”).

Staffing Networkpoints tonothing in the recordthat would

demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances necessary to set

aside the credibility determinations here. The ALJ carefully

considered the testimony of all of the witnesses and assessed

the demeanor and credibility of each witness. The ALJ discred‐

ited Vega’s testimony based on his demeanor when testifying,

the “self‐serving,” “illogical,” “rambling andnarrative” nature

of his testimony, and the contradictory testimony of other

witnesses, including witnesses also employed by Staffing

Network. For example, the ALJ discredited Vega’s testimony

in part because it conflicted with the testimony of Amaya, his

assistant and a Staffing Network employee. Vega’s testimony

was also contradicted by the written record including Vega’s

own written statements to the State of Illinois. At times, Vega’s

testimony was also internally inconsistent. For example, Vega

testified both that he told Barrera to come back to work at

ReaderLink the next day and that ReaderLink had placed her

on “do not return” status. These are valid reasons to reject

Vega’s testimony and to find that he was not credible.

In contrast, the ALJ found the testimony of Barrera to be

“both believable and reliable,” noting that she had testified “in

a steady and forthright manner,” and that her testimony was

corroborated by other witnesses. The ALJ also found her

testimony to be “logical and consistent” for the most part. On

a few minor points, the ALJ did not credit Barrera’s testimony

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
16 Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582

to the extent that it contradicted an earlier affidavit. Again,

these are valid reasons to find a witness credible and there is

no hint of bias in the ALJ’s decision and order much less

“extraordinary circumstances” that would cause us to disturb

credibility findings.

Accepting the ALJ’s factual findings (which were in turn

affirmedby theBoard),the only remaining question is whether

those facts lendsubstantial evidence to theBoard’s finding that

the company wrongfully terminated Barrera, and the Board’s

conclusion thatthe company twice threatened employees with

discharge for engaging inprotected, concertedactivity.TheAct

provides, in relevant part, that employees have the right “to

self‐organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to

bargain collectively through representatives of their own

choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the

purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or

protection[.]“ 29 U.S.C. § 157. Employers may not “interfere

with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights

guaranteed in section 157ʺ of the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). An

employer violates section 158(a)(1) when it threatens employ‐

ees with discipline or discharge for engaging in concerted

activity that is protected under section 157. Fleming Companies,

Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 349 F.3d 968, 973 (7th Cir. 2003). Threats of

discharge, discipline, other reprisals against employees for

engaging in union activity violate the Act because “these acts

reasonably tend to coerce employees in the exercise of their

rights, regardless of whether they do, in fact, coerce.” Fleming

Companies, 349 F.3d at 973. The tendency to coerce is judged

from the viewpoint ofthe employee.N.L.R.B. v.Champion Labs.,

Inc., 99 F.3d 223, 228 (7th Cir. 1996); N.L.R.B. v. Gold Standard

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582 17

Enters., Inc., 679 F.2d 673, 676 (7th Cir. 1982). We easily

conclude thattheBoard’s findings are supportedby substantial

evidence.

As was the case with the question of termination, the

company’s response to the State’s unemployment inquiry

provides a veritable smoking gun on the issue of the reason for

Barrera’s termination. Asked to provide the reason for

Barrera’s involuntary separation, Staffing Network explained

that after a stocker was told to speed up his work, Barrera

objected and then began “talking to some of the ladies in the

line disrupting the production.” According to Vega’s own

description of events, after he told Barrera to punch out and go

home “if she does not want to work,” Barrera “ignored the

request and continued to get the ladies in the line worked up

saying this was going against the law and that they have to

stand up against all the injustice we are committing. Due to

this, Griselda Barrera cannot return to ReaderLink.” With this

response to the State, the company essentially admitted the

relevantfacts supporting the ALJ’s conclusion.It is well settled

that a brief, on‐the‐job work‐stoppage is a form of economic

pressure entitled to protection under the Act. Molon Motor &

Coil Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 965 F.2d 523, 525 (7th Cir. 1992). That is

the type of action that Vega described in his response to the

State in justifying Barrera’s discharge. Witness testimony also

supported the finding that Staffing Network terminated

Barrera because of her concerted, protected activity in protest‐

ing Vega’s treatment of Juan in relation to the terms and

conditions of his employment and that of the pickers. Namely,

Barrera and Gutierrez both testified that Vega told Barrera to

leave because she andthe otherpickers protested Vega’s unfair

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18
18 Nos. 15‐1354 & 15‐1582

treatment ofJuan.Therefore, substantial evidence supports the

Board’s finding that the company violated the Act when it

discharged Barrera for engaging in protected, concerted

activity.

Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding that

Vega twice threatened workers with discharge for engaging in

protected, concerted activity. As we have noted, the pickers’

temporary work stoppage and complaints to Vega regarding

his treatment of Juan constituted protected, concerted activity.

According to the testimony of both Barrera and Gutierrez,

Vega told the workers to get back to work, said that what

happened to Juan was not the pickers’ matterto deal with, and

threatened that he would send the workers home for their

attitude if they did not comply. And both Barrera and

Gutierrez testified that Vega made a second threat to Barrera,

telling her he would send her home after repeatedly and

angrily asking herif she was fine. Of course, Vega then carried

through on that threat when he terminated Barrera moments

after delivering the threat. The ALJ determined that Vega’s

statements had a tendency to coerce workers who were

engaged in protected, concerted activity. The testimony of

Barrera andGutierrez suppliedsubstantial evidence to support

that finding.

III.

Staffing Network’s remaining arguments are unavailing.In

light of the deference we owe to the fact‐findings of the Board,

we conclude that the Board’s findings are supported by

substantial evidence. We therefore deny Staffing Network’s

petition for review and we ENFORCE the decision of the Board.

Case: 15-1354 Document: 32 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pages: 18