NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0199n.06 Filed: Mar ch 16, 2007 Nos. 05-1138; 05- 1268; 05-1324 , 05-2244, 05-2354
UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT DYNCORP , INC., P etitioner/Cross-Re spon dent,
v . NATIONAL LABOR REL ATIONS B OARD, Respondent/Cross-P etitioner .

_____________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ AMERICAN P OST AL WORKERS UN ION, AF L- CI O, P etitioner , v. NATIONAL LABOR REL ATIONS B OARD, Respondent, and DYNCORP , INC., Interve nor. / ON P ETIT I ONS FOR REVIEW AND C R OSS- A P P L I C A T ION OF EN F OR CE M EN T OF AN ORD ER OF THE NAT IONAL LABOR REL ATIONS BOARD

BEF ORE: NORRIS, COLE, an d CLAY, Circuit Judges.Nos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

2 CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge. This case involves five petiti ons to this Court. The National L abor Relations B oard (“N .L .R.B.” or “the Boa rd”) issued an opinion f inding that Dy

nCorp , I nc. (“D y nCorp”) violate d § 8(a) (1) o f t he National L abor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (“N. L .R. A. ” or “ the Ac t” ) an d ord e ri ng a ne w uni on e le c tio n at the pla nt. Th e B oa

rd a dd iti on a lly f o u n d th a t D y n Co r p ’ s d is mi s s a l o f

G r an t T u r

n e r , an e mp lo y e e w h o h e a d e d th e e f f o rts to u n io n iz e the plant, was la

wful. The A FL -CI O (“ the union”) br ings a petition to review the B oard’ s decision that Turner

was terminated l awf

ully
. Dy nCorp bring s a petition to review the Boa rd’s de cision that it committ ed a § 8(a) (1) violation. Dy nCorp additionally bring s a separ ate petition to reque st review of the B oard’ s order compelling Dy nCorp to ba

rg ain. Finally , the Boa

rd cross-pe titions to compel Dy nCorp to comply with its order
. For the re asons set for

th below, we AF F IRM the finding s of the Boa rd with respe ct t o t h e § 8(a )(1) violations and the termination of Tur ner a nd ENF ORCE the Boa rd’s orde r in full; we DENY Dy nCorp’s motion to review the B oard’ s order
. STA TEM EN T OF F AC TS F actual History Dy nCorp was a

g overnme nt contrac tor cha rg ed with inspectingand re pairingequipment for the Un ite d St a te s Po sta l Se rv ic e . In O c tob e r o f 1 99 9, Turn e r a lo ng wi th D anny Ho llo n, bo th employ ees at Dy

nCorp, beg an eff

orts to unioniz e the plant’ s employ ees. Tur ner be g an handingout fly ers se eking“intere sted parties” for the union a nd posted one of the se fly ers on the D y nCorp bulletin b o ar d

in th e c a f e te r ia
. T h is b u ll e ti nb o ar d w a s o f te nu s e d b y e mp lo y e e s to p o s t p e r s o n al notices and fly ers. Such fly ers ty pically rema ined on the board for sever al wee ks and no disciplinary action was ever taken ag ainst any employ ee who used t he bull etin board for per sonal matters. WhenNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

3 Dunca n Dawkins, the pla

nt manag er, le arne d of t he fly er Turner had pos ted, he removed it, informed Turner the bulletin boards we re f or compa ny use only , and threatene d disciplinary action if Tur ner posted non-business re lated mater ials ag ain. Afte r this incident, Dawkins plac ed a sign above the bulletin board stating “F or Dy nCorp Business Use Only .” By ear ly 2000, the union campa ign w as in full swing . Many employ ees distributed information on unionization and wore pro- union buttons. An election petition was filed on January 24, 2000, and the e lection was sche duled for Ma rch 8, 2000. D awkins and the rest of the
mana g e me nt te am be g an w e ari ng“ Vo te No ” bu tto ns . M any e mpl oy e e s te sti fi e d th a t in a dd iti on to the buttons, the m anag ement team made other eff orts to campa ign ag ainst the elec tion of the union. Severa l employ ees te stified that they wer e told by

supervisors that be nefits would be lost if they elec ted a union. Employ ees a lso testified that manag ement wa rned the m that some unions had put some companie s out of business. Specifica lly , Turner testified that on Fe bruar

y 15, 2000, he wa s told by Supervisor Wade Moore at a mee ting with several other employ ees that if they elec ted the union they

would “automatica lly

lose” their stock owner ship benefits (ESOP) to which the c ompany
curr ently contributed thirty

cents pe r hour. The c ontainer r epair

employ ees at the plant, a g roup which inc luded both Turner and Hollon,
we re t h e m o s tv o ca l s u

p p o rt er s o f t h e u n i o n . S ev er al em p l o y ee s t es t i fi edt h at o n ce t h e c am p ai gn beg an, m an age m en tch an gedt h e r o u t e t h at t h e c o n t ai n er re p ai r e mp l o y ee s we re al l o we d t o t ak e when g oin g to the c a fe te ri a

fo r b re aks and

lun c h. Th e ne w r oute ma de it i mpo ssi ble fo r t he e mpl oy e e s to talk to other unit s as t hey walked to the cafete ria. Whil e it is undisputed that the route did cha ng e, Dy nCo rp c on te nd s it

wa s so tha

t th e wa lkw ay s wo uld no t be imp e de d. On e e mpl oy e e a dd iti on a llyNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

4 testified that the conta iner re pair e mploy ees had their bre ak times cha ng ed so that they

no longe r too k brea ks with the proce ssing e mploy ees. Super visor Dale L awr ence testified that the diffe rent shifts alway s took breaks separately and supervisor Trac ey Coulter confirme d that this had been true since she be g an wor

king at Dy

nCorp in 1999. Throug hout the campa ign, ma ny people at Dy

nCorp wore “Vote Y es” a nd “Vote N o” buttons to show their support for either side of the campa ign. Some e mploy ees e lected not to we ar buttons, and some wer e rar ely seen without their s. L inda Rey nolds, an employ ee who had chose n
no t to we ar a butto n, te sti fi e d that sh e wa s a pp ro a c he d by Sup e rv iso r T im Wo lf e and of fe re d a “ Vo te No” button. Rey

nolds declined to take th e b u t ton beca use she “ considere d her position private.” (J.A. at 5 ). An o t her e mploy ee, John Groves, testified that he was a pproac hed by

L awr ence and offe red a “Vote N o” b u t ton, which Grove s acc epted. L awr ence told Groves, “I didn’t think y ou
wer e gonna take it .” (J.A. at 6). Grove s testified that he wor e the button that day to avoid hurting L awr e nc e ’s fe e lin g s. Ha

ro ld G od be y , a vo c a l un ion

su pp or te r who a lmo st a lw ay s w or e a “ Vo te Ye s” button was also appr oache d by L awr ence . One day , when Godbey was not wearinghis pro-union button, L awr ence inquired wher e Godbe y ’s “or nament wa s.” (J.A. at 6). L awr ence explained that he me ant h is p ro -u

nio n b utt on

and Go db e y re sp on de d that he did no t we ar i t th a t da y . L awr e nc e a lso asked Phil Hende rson, another known uni on supporter, where his “medals of honor ” we re. ( J .A. at 6) . L awr e nc e cla ri fi ed that he wa s r e fe rr ingto H e nd e rs on ’s pr o- un ion butto n, wh ic h h e us ua lly
wore . L awr ence then asked Hende rson i f he was on the uni on org anizing commit tee and if he we nt to m e e tin g s. He nd e rs on re sp on de d th a t he wa s o n th e c omm itt e e and that he did

a tten d th e irNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

T h e re is so m e d isc re p a n c y a s to w h e n the se two inc id e n ts to o k p la c e in re la tio n to e a c h o the r, w h ic h is 1 a d d re sse d late r in the o p inio n . 5 m e e t i n g s an d

L aw r e n c e r e m a r k e d t h a th e w a s “ d i s a p p o i n t e d ” i nH e n d e r s o n ’ s p r o - u n i o na c t i v i t y. (J.A. at 7). The da y afte r this conver sation took place, Hende rson aske d Moore f or assistance 1 completing his inspections for the da y as he ha d done pre viously . Ty pically he re quested such assistance on aver ag e about thre e day s a week, and he had ne ver be en denie d. This time Hender son
wa s to ld b y

Mo or e tha

t he wo uld

no t r e c e ive he lp a

nd wh e n h e inq

uir e d a s to why , h e wa s to ld t o talk to L awr ence . Hende rson aske d to speak to L awr ence who conf irmed that he w ould not rece ive the as si st ance he re qu e ste d. Whe n H e nd e rs on pr e sse d L awr e nc e fo r a

re a so n h e wa s r e fu sin g to g rant He nderson a ssistance, L awr ence told Hende rson“be cause I can.” (J.A. at 552). The next day when He nderson c ame to wor k , howeve r, Moore asked him if he ne eded a ssistance a nd when Hende rson said y es, h e wa s given assistance as he ha d been g iven on all occ asions prior to the previous day ’s incident. On either Marc h 6, 2000 or Mar ch 7, 2000, Da wkins spoke to a g roup of e mploy ees a nd urg ed them to vote ag ainst the union. Specifica lly , he said: Also ask y ourself if you think that Inow know the issues. You have done a great job of ide nti fy ingare a s tha

t ne e d to be c ha

ng e d. Exampl e : O ve rt ime , w or kf low iss ue s, se nio ri ty iss ue s, su

pe rv iso ry pr ob le ms, po lic y iss ue s. I a m fo rb idd e n b y law t o te ll y ou today that Iam g oing to make chang es. B ut Ican a ssure you that Irec og nize that the re are c hanges th at ne e d to be ma de . It w ou ld b e fo oli shfo r m e no t to a dd re ss these issues. In fac t it would be quite probable that significan t ch an ges would be made longbefor e a c ontrac t is ratified.Nos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

6 (J.A . a t 8) . It is un c le ar whe n th e sp e e c h to ok pla c e . Se ve ra l pr o- un ion emp lo y ees rem e mbe r i t beingon Marc h 7, 2000, which would have put it less than t wenty -four hours before the e lection and, there fore , in pe r seviolation of the N.L .R.A. Dawkins and sever al anti-union employ ees, how ever , reme mber it beingon Marc h 6, 2000. On Marc h 8, 2000, the elec tion was held and the union lost t he vote 94- 114. Sometime after the e le c tio n, Turn e r r e c e ive d a dis c ipl ina

ry no tic e fo r f

a ilure to wear saf

ety gla sse s o uts ide of

his work a rea . Turner

admitted that he had done so, but he testified that he attributed the disciplinary notice to linge r in g

b itter ness over the elec tion. I n October , Turner rec eived two disciplinary citations fo r e xce ssi ve a

bs e nte e ism . Wh e n h e c omp la ine d to Da wk ins that he ha d not be e n e xce ssi ve ly absent, the c itations were r emoved a nd Dawkins e x plained that they had bee n issued in error
. All employ ees at the plant wer e re quired to mee t daily quotas of “100% eff

iciency .” In an eff ort to encour ag e more eff iciency , the company

cre ated the “1 2 0 % club.” When an e mploy ee
rea ched 120% of his or her quota for the day , he or she rec eived a restaur ant g ift cer

tificate a nd a small celebr ation was he ld. Accor ding to se vera l employ ees, in orde r t o get as many people a s possible pe rfor

ming at this leve l e very day , supervisors encour ag ed worke rs to “buddy up” and sha

re work produc t so that they sometimes took cre dit for work they did not do and g ave c redit for work they did do to the ir fellow employ ees. Wolfe was name d by employ ees a s one of se vera l supervisors who ac tively

encour ag ed this proce ss. C o u l ter wa s also named a s a super visor who knew of

the pr a c tic e , th ou g h s he de nie d e ve r h e ari ngthat e mpl oy e e s w e re sh ari ngwo rk pr od uc t. Duringthe fal l o f 2 0 0 0 , Turner ’s ef ficienc y had droppe d to about 76% ef ficienc y , and he
rec eived a disciplinary notice for this. Turner complained that this wa s due to the fac t that he wasNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

7 not r ece iving enoug h work beca use the supervisors still rese nted him f or his involveme nt i n t he union campaig n. He ci rc u l at ed a le tter to the other e mploy ees c omplaining of these unfa ir labor prac tices and infor

ming them he planned to beg in campaig ning a g ain to elec t a union at Dy nCorp. Da wk ins de nied ha

vin g any kn ow le dg e of

thi s le tte r o r o f T ur

ne r’ s in te nti on s to a tte mpt a g a in t o org anize. Three employ ees, Rob Honne rlaw, Mitz i Gunn, and Delore s J ohnson, believed Tur ner w as be ingde nie d e no ug h w or k pro du c t to make his qu ota and tho ug ht t his wa s unf

a ir . T he y de c ide d to share work produc t with him t o help him rea ch his quota, and the y beg an perf

orming work a

nd g iving it to him so that he could take c redit for its completion. Be cause of t heir efforts, his efficienc y numbers jumped to 113% a nd 150% for

No v em b er . Coulter noticed this substantial chang e and informed Da

wkins. D a

wk in s b e g a

n an investig ation and spoke w ith Honnerlaw , Gunn, J ohnson, and Turner . When asked, Honne rlaw, Gunn, and Johnson admit ted they had bee n sharingwork produc t
w i t hT u r n e r . H o w e v e r , w h e n D aw k i n s a s k e d T u r n e r a b o u t t h e s u d d e nc h an g e i nh i s p r o d u c t i v i t y, he re sponded that he ha d simply made a mistake whe n he submitted his paperw ork. Turne r testified that he ha d li e d in

an atte mpt

to p ro te c t hi s c o- wo rk e rs fr om g ett in g i n tr ou bl e fo r h e lpi nghim
. Dawkins a sked all of the supervisors if any of them knew of the pra ctice of employ ees sha

ring work and if a ny of t hem encourag e such a prac tice and the y responde d that they

did not. Turner w as fire d immediately

and the other

three employ ees who had par ticipated we re f

ired four day s later. Prior to this incident, no other e mploy ees ha d been f ired for sharingwork produc t. I n 1999, an employ ee, Cha d Wil liamson, had bee n suspended f or three day s for claiming c redit for work that ha d n ot b e e n c omp le te d at all
. Dawk ins e xpla ine d th a t th e de c isi on to f ir e Turn e r, a s o pp os e d toNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

8 suspend him was justified bec ause when Willi amson was suspende d it had not been pr oven that the
err or had been Wil liamson’s fault. Dawkins further explained that T urner was t er m i n ated immediately , as opposed to the ot her e mploy ees involved, who wer e ter minated four da

y s later, beca use of Tur

ner’ s dishonesty

about the incident. After the union lost the election, it fi l ed o b jections to the elec tion and filed Unfa ir L abor Practice (“U L P”) cha

rg es ag ainst Dy

nCorp. Turner additionally filed UL P charg es ag ainst Dy nCorp beca use of his termination. The parties went befor e an administrative law judge (“A L J ”), who found numerous violations of the N.L .R.A., b u t u l timately conclude d that none of the m affe cted the outcome of the elec tion. The case then came befor e the N.L .R.B. The Boar d conclude d that, as the AL J had held, Dy

nCorp vio l at ed § 8 (a) (1) by unlawfully

interrog ating employ ees, making impermissible threats ag ainst Hende rson of more onerous workingconditions, and discriminating ag ainst pro-union employ ees when deter mining who c ould use company bulletin boards. The B oard disag ree d with the AL J and held that Dy nCorp also impermissibly thr ea t ened employ ees w ith the loss of their stock bene fits a nd made impermissible pr omises of benef its if they voted to reje ct the
un ion . T he B oa

rd al so concl ud e d th a t T ur ne r w a s n ot d isc ha

rg e d b e c a us e of his un ion a c tiv ity in violation of the Act. The union f iled objections to this order which ha ve bee n consolidated a

nd are now bef ore this Court. L ater , Dy

nCorp rec eived lea

ve to interve ne in that ac tion. The B o a r d additionally

found that Dy

nCorp’s violations affe cted the outc ome of the e lection, and it set aside the re s u l t s of the initial elec tion and order ed a se cond one. O n April 6, 2005, a second e lection was he ld. The union won by a vote of 65-54. On Apr il 25, 2005, the union made
a wri tte n r e qu e st that D y nCo rp ba rg a in w ithit. Sin c e Ap ri l 28 , 2 00 5, Dy nCo rp ha s a dmi tte dlyNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

9 ref used to barg ain bec ause it alleg es that the union wa s improperly cer tified beca

use the B oard e rre d in o rd er ing a

second e lection. The union brought the case to the Boa rd to g et an or der to c ompel Dy nCorp to barg ain. The B oard declar ed that Dy nCorp was in violation of § 8(a )(5) and (a )(1) and that “all iss u es ra i sed by Dy nCorp wer e or c ould have be en litigated in the prior r epre sentation proce eding ” and thus, Dy nCorp was ba

rre d from ra ising them for th e fi rs t time at that stag e. Dy nCorp broug ht a petition to revi ew t h e Bo ar d ’s orde r and the Boa rd filed a cross-pe tition for enfor ceme nt of its order. This ca se wa s consolidated with the other s now befor e this Court. DI SCU SSIO N I. There was su bstantial evid ence to supp ort t he Board’s fi ndi ng that DynCorp violated § 8(a)( 1) of the N.L.R.A. by its behavior leadin g up to the un ion election A. Stand ard of Review The N.L .R.B. finding s of fa ct will be upheld “if supported by

substantial ev i d en ce on the
rec ord.” Kamtech, Inc . v. NLRB , 3 14 F .3 d 8 00 , 807 (6 th C ir . 2 00 2) . Su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e re fe rs to “such releva

n t e v id e n c e a s a

r e a s o n a b le mi n d mi g h t a c c e p t a s a d e qu a te to s u p p o rt a c o n c lu s io n.” DuPont Dow Elastomers, L.L.C . v. NLRB , 2 9 6 F
. 3 d 4 9 5 , 5 0 0 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )
. A d d it io n a ll y , “ [w ]e also revie w the Boa

rd’s application of the law to pa rticular fac ts unde r the substant i al ev i d en ce standard.” NLRB v . Ta lso l Co rp ., 155 F.3d 785, 793 ( 6th Cir. 1998) (interna l quotation marks omitted). Thus, “whe re the evidenc e supports t wo conf licting view s, we may

not disturb the Boa

rd’s fi n d i n gs an d i ts order must be e nforc ed.” Id . This is a highly defe rential standa

rd. See NLRB v. Ma in S t. T e rra c e Car e Ctr ., 218 F.3d 531, 537 ( 6th Cir. 2000). We w ill re vie w the re c or d as a who le, but w e wi ll s ho w d e fe re nc e bo th t o th e re a so na ble infere nces dr awn by the Boa rd from the fac ts pr esente d and to cr edibility deter minations made byNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

10 the B oard a

nd will set aside the finding s of the B oard only when “the record demonstrates t hat the Boa rd’s de cision is not ‘justified by a fair estimate of the worth of the testimony of witnesses’ or by the B oard’ s ‘informed judg ment on matters within its special compete nce or both.’” V &S ProGalv, Inc. v . NLRB , 1 6 8 F. 3 d

2 7 0 , 2 7 5 (6 t hC i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Turnbull Cone Baking Co. of Tenn. v. NLRB , 778 F.2d 292, 295 ( 6th Cir. 1985)). B. Ana lys is Th e qu e sti on a

ble a c tio ns in whic h D y nCo rp e ng a g e d c an b e c las si fie d into 3 g ro up s: prohibiting the use of the bulletin boa rd; alleg ed coer cive thre ats and promises; and a lleg ed coe rcive interrog ations. 1. P rohibitin g Use of the Bull etin Board We have in the pa st held that “[t] he rig ht of self-or g anizat ion includes the rig ht to use the company bulletin board for

union notices if the bulletin board ha s b ee n u s ed fo r other notice s without any

require d advanc e author ization.” NLRB v. V &S Schuler Eng’ g , 309 F.3d 362, 368- 69 (6th Cir. 2002). This well-settled tene t of law has found consistent support in this Circuit a nd in the d e c is io n s o f th e N
. L
. R.B
. See U nion Carbide Corp. v. NL RB , 714 F.2d 657, 660 ( 6th Cir. 1983)

. S ee also W

aste Mgmt., Inc
. , 3 3 0 N
. L
. R. B
. 6 3 4 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ I t h a s lo n g b e e nh e ld th a t a nemploy er violates the Act if it pr ohibits ‘[t] he posting of materia l r elating to a nd in the cours e o f c oncer ted activity of its employ ees, while havingpreviously allowed the postingo f

o th e r mi s c ellaneous matters b y t h e e mp l o y ee s . ’” (q u o t i n g Vi nc e nt’ s S te ak Ho us e , 216 N.L .R.B. 647 (1975) )). See also Be nteler In du s. , 3 23 N. L .R. B . 7 12 (1 99 7) ; Ea ro n Te c hs

. , I nc., 322 N.L .R.B. 848 (1997) ; and Central Vermont Hospital , 288 N.L .R.B. 514 (1988)
.Nos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

11 We a ddresse d a situation simil ar to the pr esent c ase in NLRB v. Challenge-Cook Bros., Inc ., 374 F. 2 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 2 (6th Cir. 1967). In that case , there was no for mal policy

with respec t to what ty pes of messa g es could be posted on the bulletin board. Id . at 152. One pe rsonnel mana g er te stified that it wa s h is und e rs tand ingtha t no po sti ng s w ou ld b e a llo wed if the y we re “ c on tr ov e rs ia l in nature ,” but he kne w of no inst ance s wher e post ings ha d been r emoved. Id . at 152-53. How ever , on c e so me e mpl oy e e s beg an pos tin g pr o- un ion mate ri a ls, the c omp any

be g an e nf or c inga pr e vio us ly unenfor ced sc ree n i n g policy and beg an takingdown the pro- union materials. Id . This Court conclude d that such selec tive enfor ceme nt constituted a violation of the N.L .R.A. Essentially , we he ld t hat w he re a

re str ic tio n w a s b e ingpla c e d o n p ro -u nio n mat e ri a ls that ha d n ot b e e n p re vio us ly place d on other mate rials, eve n wher e the r estriction was alrea dy in exi stence , selec tively

enfor cing such a restric tion constitut ed a violation of the Act. Id . In o the r w or ds , w he re a c omp any pe rm its
u s e o f a b u l l e t i nb o ar d

b y “ p o l i c y or practice ,” such use cann o t b e prohibit ed for pro-union materia ls. Union Carbide Corp. 714 F.2d at 660 (emphasis adde d). At Dy nCorp, there are sever al bulletin boards t h at are used by the manag ement and employ ees, but the one at issue in this case is one in the c afe teria. A ccor ding to the evidenc e on the
rec o r d , e mp lo y e e s f

r e qu e n tl y u s e th is b o ar d f o r p e r s o n a l p o s ti n g s . D y n Co r p a ll e g e s that the company bulletin board is for business-r elated use only , and that all non-work r elated posting s are
re m o v ed wh en t h ey we re n o t i ce d
. E v en s o , Dy n C o rp co n ce d es t h at ev en wh en t h es e o t h er p o s t i n gs
w e r e r e m o v e d , n o o t h e r

e mp l o ye e h a s e v e r

b e e nt h r e a t e n e d w i t h d i s c i p l i n e o r e v e nw ar n e d b y a supervisor. F urther, e mploy ees te stified that other nonbusiness-r elated postings would re main on the bulletin board for

wee ks at a time without being remove d. Additionally , there is no evidence onNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

12 the re c or d th a t a

po lic y pr e vio us ly

e xiste d at D y

nCo rp that th e bu lle tin

bo ard wa s f or c omp any us e only . I t was only

afte r Da wkins spoke with Turner about t h e p ro -union materia ls, that Dawkins place d a sig n over the caf eter ia bulletin boards that re ad “F o r Dy nCorp Business Only .” The behavior of Dy nCorp up until the tim e T u rn er t ri ed to post his fly ers e stablished a pra ctice of
a llo wi ngpe rs on a l po sti ng s, and the re fu sa l to a dh e re to that pr a c tic e fo r pr o- un ion mate ri a ls a mou nts to a violation of the N.L .R.A. See Union Carbide Corp. 714 F.2d at 660. Thus, there is substantial evidenc e on the rec ord to suppor t the Boa rd’s conclusion that Dy

nCorp’s treatment of the pro-union materia ls was incong ruent with, and more sever e than, its treatment of other mate rial posted on the bulletin boards. Dy nCorp alternatively

argues t h at ev en if it did eng ag e in selec tive enfor ceme nt, it was lawful be cause it selectively enfor ced the policy by prohibiting all notices from org anizations and allowing only those notices of an entirely persona l nature
. To support this argument, Dy nCorp cites Fleming Cos. v. NLRB , 349 F.3d 968, 975 ( 7th Cir. 2003), in which a c ourt ac cepte d a similar argument. We are unpersua ded by this argument. Whil e Dy nCorp is able to identify

a cour t that has
a c c e pte d s uc h a

n a rgume nt, it i s una

ble to i de nti fy

a ny fa c ts on the re c or d o f t

his c a se that in dic a te that all postings af

filiated with an org anization wer e re moved as the pr o-union materia ls had bee n. I n fac t, the testimony reg arding what ty pes of postings were allowed t o rema in on the bulletin board was that “ any

thing and ever

y thing” was allowed. (J.A. at 202; J .A. at 328). Bec ause the re a re no fac ts supporting the a

rgument t h at Dy

nCorp consistently

enfor ced its policy

ag ainst all fly ers aff iliated with org anizations, thi s argument cannot suc cee d.

2. Allegedly Coer cive Com m ents or Threat sNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

13 An employ er violates § 8(a) (1) by “making statements, [which, when] considere d from the
e mp lo y e e s ’ p o int o f v ie w , h a [v e ] a r e a s o n a b le te n d e n c y to c oerc e.” Dayton Newspapers, Inc . v. NLRB , 402 F.3d 651, 659 (6th Cir. 2005). Thus, it is irreleva nt whether

“any employ ee w as in fac t intimi dated or

coer ced by

the statements made ;” the only qu es t i o n i s if the statements had the objective tende ncy

to coer ce. Torbit t & Castleman, Inc. v . NLRB , 123 F.3d 899, 906 ( 6th Cir. 1997). I n deter mining whe ther stateme nts have such a tendenc y , “[t] h e Bo ard ma y take into ac count the ‘ec onomic dependenc e of the e mploy ees on the ir employ ers, a nd the nec essar

y tendenc y of the former , beca

use of that r elationship, to pick up intended implications of t he latter that might be more
rea dily dismiss ed by a more disinterested e ar.’ ” Id
. (q u o t i n g NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co. , 3 95 U. S. 575, 617 (1969). An e mpl oye r i s a lso fo rb idd e n und e r § 8( a )( 1) fr om thr e a te nin g e mpl oy e e s w ithun fa vo ra ble conditions in the event of a union victory
. Henry I. Siege l Co. v. NLRB , 4 17 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 14 (6 th Cir. 1969). In Henry

I. Siege l , we he ld that we will examine the context of statements and the atmosphere in which they wer e made to de termine whether they constitute “a pe rmissible force ful
argume nt i n o pp os iti on

to t he un ion or a ve ile d thre a t to the e mpl oy e e s in the e ve nt t

he un ion sh ou ld win the elec tion.” Id . I n that case , some employ ees sought to orga nize the company . An elec tion was sche duled, with the manag ement and pr ominent fig ures in which the small town the company was located ca

mpaig ning he avily

ag ainst the union eff

orts. Id. a t 12 08
. Th e a lle g e d thr e a ts c a me from the mana g ers of

the company , Henr

y I
. Siege l Co., and from the may or of the city
. Id . at 1208- 12. The statements came in the forms of speeches, open letters to t he employ ees, a nd letters printed in the newspa

per. Id . Recurr ing the mes in these stateme nts were an expressed f ear that violenceNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

14 would erupt if the c ompany was org anized and fe ar that the friendly relationships between manag ement and e mploy ees w ould “cha ng e” i f t he compa

ny was org anized. Id . T he may or a lso stated that he thoug ht the company could close if the union won the elec tion. Id . at 1215. I n c on c lud ing that the se state me nts c on sti tut e d thr e a ts, thi s Court vie we d e a c h state me nt i n light of the others. Id . We re a so ne d th a t st a te me nts a bo ut vi ole nc e and

str if e wh e n ta ke n w ith statements that the cordia l r elationship betwee n the employ ees a nd manag ement would end w as an implicit t hreat. Id . F ur

ther, we po in ted o ut t

hat th e may or ’s state me nt t hat th e pla

nt c ou ld c los e “whe n considere d in light of t h e s t at em ents of compa ny officia ls” was a lso an implied threat. Id
. Thus, Henry

I. Siege l sta nd s for the pr op os iti on that we wi ll v ie w c omm e nts by c omp any of fi c ia ls in lig ht of contempora

neous threats a

nd comments from other c ompany officia ls when dete rmining whether they constitute threats. The inquiry should examine the atmosphere of the wor kplace and how spec ific comments fit into that atmosphere to determine whether there was a

“thre ateningcolor” to specific r emar

ks. See TRW

-United Gre enfield Div. v . NLRB , 637 F.2d 410, 420 ( 5th Cir. 1981). Fur ther, we will pay

considera

ble defe renc e to the conclusion of the B oard a s to whether a comment constituted an impermissible thre at. I mportantly , “if the infe renc e or c onclusion found by the B oard that the s tatements constit ute a threat is a reasonable one, it s finding s will not be set aside on re view even thoug h a differe nt infere nce or conclusion m ay seem more plausible.” Henry I. Siege l Co. v. NLRB , 417 F.2d 1206, 1214 ( 6th Cir. 1969). Supervisor Moore stated that the 30-ce nt-per- hour contribution made by the Company

to the employ ee stoc k own er s h i p plan would be “ automatically” lost if the employ ees vote d for union
me mbe rs hip . A s th e B oa rd ha s p re vio us ly

he ld, statin g that e mpl oy e e s wi ll los e a fr ing e be ne fi t ifNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

15 they choose union re prese ntation constitutes an impermissible threat in violation of the N.L .R.A. See H ertz Corp. , 3 16 N. L .R. B . 6 72 , 6 75 , n. 2 ( 19 95 ). F ur the r, be c a us e the state me nt c a me fr om a supervisor who has control over the bene fits rec eived, this statement has the tendenc y to coer ce. Torbit t , 123 F.3d at 906. Dy nCorp cont ends that the intent of Moore was not to threaten the employ ees, but mer ely

to convey the fa ct that if the union w as elec ted, that Dy nCorp would be under no leg al obligation to barg ain. As Dy nCorp corr ectly observe s, the Boa rd has held in the past that a compa ny could per missibl y note that if a union wer e ele cted, ther e would be no oblig ation to start the ba rg a in i n g p r o c e s s f

r o mt h e l e v e l o f

e xi s t i n g b e n e f

i t s , an d b e n e f i t s m ay d i s a p p e ar a s a r e s ult
. Universal Producing Co. , 123 N.L .R.B. 548, 549-50 (1958). I mportantly , in that case , the manag er
makin g the state me nt e xpla in ed th at if a un ion we re e le c te d, a ll b e ne fi ts, e ve n th os e c ur re ntl y enjoy ed by

employ ees, w ould need to be r eneg otiated. Id
. Thus , the mana g e r s pe c ulate d th a t c e rt a in benef its could have be en lost beca use there would be no leg al obligation to re tain them. Acc ording to the Board, such an ex planation for the basis of the prediction contextualiz ed the state ment so that it could not be viewe d as a thre at. Id . at 550. In the pre sent ca se, Moore ’s statements ca me with no such contextualiz ation. Acc ording ly , there was no wa y for e mploy ees to interpr et the stateme nt but as a thre at that their benef its would be taken a

way automatically

if the union won be c au sethe union
wo n. Thus , th e re wa s su

bs tanti a l e vid e nc e that th is s tate me nt c on sti tut e d a n im pe rm iss ibl e thr e a t. 3. Al le ge dlyCo e r c ive Int e r r og at ion s “An employ er violate s section 8(a )(1) of the Ac t by coer cively

interrog ating its employ ees about their union ac tiviti es.” NLRB v . E. I. Du Po nt d e Ne mo ur s , 750 F.2d 524, 527 ( 6th Cir. 1984). “Th e b as i c t es t for e valuatingthe leg ality of an inter

rog ation is “‘whe ther unde r all of theNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

16 c ir c ums tanc e s th e int e rr og a tio n r e a so na bly te nd s to re str a in, c oe rc e or int e rf e re wi th r ig hts g uara nteed by the Act.’ ” Dayton Typographic Se rv. v. NLRB , 778 F.2d 1188, 1194 ( 6th Cir. 1985) (q u o t i n g Ro ssm or e Ho us e , 269 N.L .R.B. 1176, 1177 (1984) ). Thus, we will c onsider the e mploy er’ s h i s t o r y o f h o s t i l i t y t o w ar d t h e u n i o n , “ t h e n a tu r e o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o ns o u g h t , t h e qu e s t i o n e r ’ s i d e n t i t y, and the plac e and me thod of interrog ation.” Id .; se e als o Architectural Glass & Metal Co. v. NLRB , 107 F.3d 426, 434 ( 6th Cir. 1997). Th es e c as es , h o we v er , d o n o th o l d t h at em p l o y er s m ay

n ev er qu es t i o nem p l o y ee s ab out union matters. I f an e mploy ee ha s a “l egit imate re ason” he or she may question employ ees a

bout union matters. Id
. We ha

ve define d a “leg itimate r eason” as whe n “[t] he natur e of the information soug ht would be re lated to a leg itimate policy of the e mploy er.” Arc hite c tural G las s , 107 F. 3 d at 4 3 4. Fur ther, the B oard has found questioni ng employ ees about participation in union movements to be permissible when that questioning is consider ed “c ausal a nd am icable” and whe re the re is “no history of employ er hostility

towards or

discrimination ag ainst uni o n s u p p o rters.” Su nn y v ale Medic al Cli nic, Inc

. , 277 N.L .R.B. 1217, 1218 (1985)
. Re le v an t f

o r th e p r e s e n t c a s e is o u r

h o ld in g in ITT Auto. v. NL RB beca use it addre sses the issue of employ ers “ offe ring anti-union buttons to employ ees.” 188 F.3d 375, 376 (6th Cir. 1999). I n th a t c a se , w e e xpre ssl y he ld t hat th is b e havio r is imp e rm iss ibl e . Qu oti ngthe N. L .R. B ., we he ld “t h at s u ch b eh av i o r p re s s u re s em p l o y ee s t o m ak e ach o i ce i np u b l i c ab o u twh et h er

t o ac kn o wl ed ge their union se ntiments a

nd ‘ef fec tively puts e mploy ees in the position of either havingto acc ept or reje ct the [employ er’ s] proffer.’ ” Id
. at 3 8 6 -3 8 7 (q u o t i n g A.O. Smith Automotive Prods ., 315 N.L .R.B. 994, 1009 (1994)
.Nos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

17 a. Interr ogation of

Reynolds an d Grove s As explained above, Rey

nolds and Grove s were both approa ched by supervisors a

nd offe red “Vote N o” buttons. Dy

nCorp argues that these c onversations were not intende d to be coe rcive , nor
wer e the que stions delivered in a c oerc ive way , and thus, that the B oard did not have s u bstantial evidenc e to support its finding that this inquiry was impermissible. Howeve r, Dy nCorp misstates the inquiry

befor e this Court. W e nee d not determine if the co n v er sation betwee n Rey nolds and Wolfe actua lly

did make Rey

nolds feel c oerc ed or whether it was intended to do so. Instead, the question is whether it had the t en d en cy to coer ce. Dayton Typographic Se rv. , 778 F.2d at 1194. Be cause we have pre viously held that an e mploy er’ s off er of a “V ote No” button constitutes an impermissible interrog ation , t h e i n quiry befor e us is simple. IT T Au to , 1 88 F .3 d at 38 6. Th is exchang e constituted an imper missibl e interr og ation. b. Interr ogation of

Godbey Go db e y ’s int e ra c tio n w ithmana g e me nt d if fe re d f ro m th os e of

Gr ov e s and

Re y no lds be c a

us e he wa s n ot o ff

e re d a “ Vo te No ” butto n. I ns te a d, L awr e nc e , a su pe rv iso r, ask ed hi m w he re his “orna ment” wa s, which was a refer ence to the “Vote Y es” button Godbe y usually wore . (J.A. at 48- 49). Admittedly , nothing a bout this i ncident taken alone would tend to c oerc e an e mploy ee. Howeve r, as the Boa

rd pointed out, this i ncident should not be consider ed in isolation. The fa ct that a number of these inter

rog ations had take n place , the fa ct that they happene d so close to t he ele ction,
a lon g wi th t

he fa c t th a t th e qu e sti on in g wa s bei ng do ne by su pe rv iso rs to t

he ir su bo rd inate s, a ll
cre ate substantial evide nce that the questioning a bout Godbey ’s wea

ring “Vot e Yes” buttons was
coer cive in natur e. F urther, it wa s well-known that the sup er v i s o rs d id not support the union andNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

18 from their actions seeme d hostile to those supportingthe union. L awr ence ’s re fer ence to Godbey ’s “orna ments” wa s obviously

fac etious, and the tone of the conver sation in light of the atmosphere at Dy nCorp g ives the conver sation on the whole a tendenc y to c oerc e. This was not the environme nt the B oard f

ound in Sunnyvale Medic al Cli nic, Inc

. , wher e there was no rea son for e mploy ees to fe ar anti-union animus. See 277 N.L .R.B. at 1218. B y asking Godbey

about his support of the union, the questioning nece ssarily had a co er cive element to it. Thus, there wa s substantial evidence
s u p p o rt i n g t h e B o ar d ’s co n cl u s i o nan d we t h er ef

o re af fi rm t h i s fi n d i n g.
c . Int e r r og at ion of He nde r so n and th reat of o ne r ous wor king c ondi ti ons He nd e r s o n w a s a l s o a s k e d b y L aw r e n c e w h e r e h i s “ m e d a l s o f h o n o r ” w e r e , w h i c h w a s a ref ere nce to He nderson’ s “Vote Y es” button. (J.A. at 48). L awr ence then questioned He nd erson about his involvement in the union org anizing efforts, and when Hender son answe red the questions and conf irmed that he w as involved in the ca m p ai gn , L awr ence responde d that he wa s “disappointed.” ( J. A
. a t 4 9 )
. T h e to n e o f th is c o n v e r s a ti o nw e igh s s tr o n g ly in f a v o r o f the N.L .R.B. ’ s f

in d in gth a t i t w a s c o e r c iv e . L aw r e n c e ’ s r e f e r e n c e to “ me d a ls o f

h o n o r , ” a g a in , w as obviously fac etious and that, coupled with his e x pression of “ disappointment” at He nderson’ s prounion loy alties cre ates strongevidenc e that this interac tion was improper. Fur ther, the mere fac t that L aw re n ce p u t He n d er s o n i n t h e po s i t i o n t o h av e t o re v ea l h i s l ev el o f a ct i v i ty i nt h e u n i o nca mp ai gn wh en L awr ence was such a vocal oppone nt was improper . I t effe ctively place d Hende rson in a po sit ion sim ila r t o th os e e mpl oy e e s b ein g o ffe re d b utt on s in that it fo rc e d h im t o h a ve to d isc los e his l o y al t i es t o a super ior who did not share those loy alties. Se e IT T Au to , 188 F.3d at 386. Acc ording ly , the B oard ha d substantial evidence to support its finding that this was impermissible.Nos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

19 Hende rson was the n denied a ssistance that he had alw ay s rec eived in the pa st, which he interpre ted as a threat a

bout how things would be if the union w ere elec ted. I t is worth noting that there is so m e discre pancy about the timing of

Moore’ s and L awr ence ’s re fusal to g ive Hende rson the a ssi sta

nc e that he re qu e ste d. He nd e rs on or ig ina lly te sti fi e d th a t he wa s in te rr og a te d in e arl y Fe bruar y . He a lso testified that he wa s denied his reque sted assistance on Fe bruar y 19, 2000, and
c ouns e l c or

re c te d h im that it

ha d to be Janu ary

19 , 2 00 0. Thus , D y

nCo rp po int s o ut t

hat if the se dates a re c orre ct, Hende rson was denied assistance befor e the inter rog ation, so the denial c annot be
seen a s a re action to that interrog ati o n . Howeve r, He nderson a dditionally testified that he
reme mbere d the denial of assistance to c ome “the very next day” afte r the interrog ation. (J.A. at 552; J .A. at 557). Thus, it is just as likely that Hende rson was c onfused a bo u t t h e ac t u al d ates of the
e ve nts a s it is lik e ly that he wa s c on fu se d a bo ut whic h in c ide nt c a me fi rs t. It is no t th e job of thi s Court to d e c ide wh ic h o f t

he se e qu a lly

pla us ibl e e xplanatio ns is m or e lik e ly . B e c a us e the re is
s u b s t an t i al ev i d en ce t o s u p p o r t t h e co n cl u s i o nt h at t h e B o ar d m ad e, we m u s ts u s t ai ni t s fi n d i n g. Henry I. Siege l Co., 417 F.2d at 1214. 4. Allegedly Im perm issib le P rom ises Th is C ourt

ha s e xpre ssl y

he ld t hat “ [i]t is an unf

a ir la bo r p ra c tic e , how e ve r, to s oli c it employ ee grieva

nces where t h e s o l icitation is accompa nied by the employ er’ s express or implied sug g estion that t h e gri evanc e will be re solved or ac ted upon only if the employ ees r ejec t union repr esentation.” V & S Schuler Eng’ g , 309 F.3d at 371. We have dete rmined that a pr omise is no more law ful than coe rcion, a nd a promise will be pr esumed impermissibly inf l u en t i al unless the company can pr esent a

leg itim ate business re ason for the timing of its g uara

ntee. See NLRB v.Nos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

20 Ba ile yCo ., 180 F.2d 278, 279 ( 6th Cir. 1950). Acc ording ly , the finding that a promise was made by a me mbe r o f m ana g e me nt that c e rt a in p ro ble ms w ill be re so lve d if a un ion is d e fe a te d amou

nts to a violation of the N.L .R.A. I n th e pr e se nt c a se , D awk ins tol d e mpl oy e e s: Iam forbidde n by

law to tell you today

that Iam g oing to make chang es. B ut Ican assure y ou that Irec og nize that there a re c hang es that nee d to be made. It would be foolish for me not to addr ess these issues. In fac t it would be quite probable that signific ant cha

ng es would be ma de longbefor e a c ontrac t is ratified. (J.A. at 8). I t is clear to this Court that this st atement mee ts the V &S Schuler Eng’ g standard of im p li e d ly s u g g e s ti n g th a t th e s e g r ie v an c e s w o u ld b e r e s o lv e d if th e u n io n w a s d e f e a te d
. V & S Schuler Eng’

g , 309 F.3d at 371. Dy

nCorp emphasizes that the pre fac e that he is “for bidden by law” to make a pr omise neg ates a ny indication that what followed was a promise. We are unconvince d and, in fa ct, that phra se re ads as a rhetoric al device t hat s imply makes it more obvious that he w as making a promise. F urther, he g oes on to say it is “quite probable ” that chang es will be made and that it wo uld be “ fo oli sh ” no t to do so . Take n tog e the r w iththe fa c t th a t th is s pe e c h w a s g ive n s o close to th e e le c ti o n , it

is c le ar th a t a p r o mi s e w a s im

p li e d in th is la n g u a g e . T h u s , th e B o ar d h ad substantial evidence to conclude a s it did and we, there fore , aff irm its findings. II. There w as sub stantial evidence to support the Board’s fin din g that DynCorp did n ot violate § 8(a) (1) or(a)( 3) of the N.L.R.A. by ter m inatin g Gr ant Turner A. Stand ard of Review As stated above, we revie w decisions of t he B oard unde r the hig hly defe rential substantial evidenc e standa

rd. Kamtech, Inc

. , 314 F.3d at 807. Thus, “wher e the e vidence sup p orts twoNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

21 conflictingviews, we may not disturb the Boa

rd’s finding s and its orde r must be enf orce d.” Talsol Cor p ., 155 F.3d at 793. B. Ana lys is An employ er violate s § 8(a) (1) a nd (a) (3) whe n it discharg es an e mploy ee be cause of that employ ee’ s union activity or support of unionization. Metro. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 4 6 0 U.S. 693, 698 n.4 (1983). To deter

mine if a discha

rg e wa s improperly

motivated by

union activity , this Court has embra ced the W

right L ine test. The W

right L ine test, which was so named for W right L ine , 251 N.L .R.B. 1083 (1980) and wa s approve d by the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Transport ation Ma nage me nt C

or p ., 462 U.S. 393 (1983), re quires “the g ener al counsel of the N.L .R.B. to make a showing sufficie nt to support the infere nce that the protec ted conduct was a motivating fac tor in the
e mpl oy e r’ s d e c isi on . A t th a t po int , th e burd e n s hif ts t o th e e mpl oy e r t o est a bli shthat th e a dv e rs e action would have taken plac e in the abse nce of the protected conduct, in the nature of an af firmative defe nse.” Arrow Ele c. Co. v . NLRB , 155 F.3d 762 ( 6th Cir. 1998) (citation and f ootnote omitted). I mportantly , “cir cumstantial evidenc e alone may be suff icient to supp o rt a fi nding of unlawful motivation.” Ma in S

t. T e rra c e Car e Ctr ., 218 F.3d at 541. Ultimately , an employ er’ s motivation is a question of fa ct, and, a ccor dingly , this Court wil l not set aside the Boa rd’s findingin this reg ard if there is substantial evidence to support it. The W right L ine test initi ally require s the N.L .R.B. to make a prima fa cie c ase “ by

putting forth evide nce that supports an infere nce that the employ ee’ s protecte d activities wer e a motivating fac tor in the employ er’ s decision.” NLRB v . G e n. Fa br ic ati on s Co rp ., 222 F.3d 218, 226 ( 6th Cir. 2000). This consists of showing that “the e mploy ee w as enga ged i n p ro t ecte d activity ; that theNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

22 employ er kne w of the e mploy ee’ s protecte d activity ; and that ‘a n adver se e m p l o y

ment action resulted in whole or

in part fr om anti-union animus, or that the employ ee’ s protecte d conduct wa s a motivating fac tor in the adve rse a ction.’” Id
. (q u o t i n g ITT Auto. v. NL RB , 1 88 F .3 d 3 75 , 3 88 (6 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( i n t e r

n a l qu o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )
. O n c e t h i s i s s h o w n , t h e c o mp an y m u s ts h o w , b y a p r e p o n d e r an c e o f

t h e e v i d e n c e , t h a ti tw o u l d h a v e t a k e n t h e s a m e a c t i o na b s e n tt h e p r o t e c t e d

a c t i v i t y. Id
. I n the pre sent ca se, the Board found that the Ge nera l Counsel made its prima fac ie ca se. Ev e n s o, the B oa

rd ult imate ly

de te rm ine d th a t th e re wa s no viol a tio n be c a us e Dy nCo rp wa s abl e to show that but f

or the protec ted activity , Turner would still have been fired. The Boa rd pointed out that Turner’s p roductivity levels had, in fa ct, droppe d and this drop coincide d with the threat of discipline. Additionally , when Tur ner w as conf

ronted with hi s l o w l ev els of produc tivity , he responde d by

taking cre dit for work he did not do, which is fraudule nt and agai n s t t h e p olicy of Dy nCorp. The Boar d noted t hat Dawkins cre dibly testified t hat he wa s not awar e that wor k-produc t sh ari ngwa s a c omm on pr a c tic e , an d the re wa s insu ff ic ie nt ev ide nc e to i mpute su c h k no wl e dg e to him. The only

supervisor who was willing to admit to encoura g ing the prac tice wa s Wol fe, who had left Dy nCorp sometime after

the elec tion and befor e Turne r’s dismissal. No supervisors who w ere employ ed at the time of

Turner ’s dismissal corrobora ted Wolfe’s a s s er t ion that the prac tice wa s
encour ag ed by

the supervisors. Thus, t h e Bo ard c hara cter ized W olfe’s be havior a s “rogue” a nd declined to impute Wolfe’s knowledg e of the practice to the rest of mana g ement. (J.A. at 51-52). F ina lly , th e B oa

rd wa s per su a de d by the fa c t tha t whe n Tur ne r wa s ask e d w he the r h e e ng a g e d in thi s prac tice, he lied to Da

wkins, which is a valid rea son for dismissal. Furthe r, the B oard a lso found thatNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

23 Dawkins c redibly

testified that he did not see Turner ’s letter stating his intentions to be g in the union
c ampa ig n a g a in u

nti l N ov e mbe r 7 , 2 00 0, wh ic h w a s a ft e r Turn e r ha d a lr e a dy be e n d isc ha

rg e d. Thus , the Boa rd was unconvince d that Turner was fired be cause he wa s active in the union c ampaig n and ins te a d h e ld t

hat th e te rm inatio n w a s b a se d u po n le g iti mate re a so ns and wa s, the re fo re , la

wf ul. This issue prese nts a close case , as t here are sever al fa cts that weig h strong ly in favor of

the argument that Turner

was fir ed beca u s e o f hi s participation in the union campaig n. First, eve n though the re w as evide nce that at least one sup er v i s o r h ad enc ourag ed employ ees to shar e wor k product, no other

employ ee ha d ever

been disc iplined, let alone fire d, for this prac tice. F urther, Turn e r w a s fir e d imme diate ly a ft e r the inc ide nt oc c ur re d, wh ile the oth e r wo rk e rs wh o s ha re d th e ir work product wi t h Turner wer e fire d four da

y s later. I f the impetus for the terminations was involvement in the wo rk -p ro d u ct sharing , there is no reason that Turner should have be en fire d be fo re anyon e e lse . H ow e ve r, if the re a so n Tur ne r wa s fir e d imme diate ly wa s h is d ish on e sty , it is not clear why the other e mploy ees, who wer e truthful about e ng ag ing in this prac tice, we re f ired at
a ll. I nd e e d it

ra ise s su sp ic ion s th a t th e oth e r e mpl oy e e s we re fi re d on ly a s an a ft e rt ho ug ht t o avo id the appe ara

nce that Turner

was be ing sing led out. Coupled with the fac t t h at T u rner had bee n mistakenly

g iven notices of disc ipline only a month earl i er fo r excessive a bsence s that were later discovere d to be mistaken, this indicates that Turne r’s union par ticipation may very

well have been the motivation for these a dverse actions. Howeve r, the exist ence of this evidence does not mean that substantial evidence does not also support the conc lusion o f t he B oard. B eca use the B oard’ s
c o n c l u s i o ni s s u

p p o rt e d b y s u b s t an t i a l e v i d e n c e , e v e n t h o u g h t h i s C o u rt m ay h a v e h e l d d i f f e r e n t l y,
we wi ll a ff

ir m th e fi nd ing s o f t

he B oa rd . A s we have pr e vio us ly he ld, “ wh e re the e vid e nc e su pp or tsNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

24 two conflictingviews, we may not disturb the Boa

rd' s findings a

nd its order must be enforce d.” Tal so l Co rp ., 155 F.3d at 793. III. There was su bstanti a l evid ence t o sup port the Board’s c onclusi on that the Mar ch 8, 2000 elec tion results shou ld b e vacat ed and a n ew elect ion sh ould be ordere d A. Stand ard of Review F or the same re a so ns state d a bo ve , w e re vie w d e c isi on s o f t he B oa rd un de r t he hig hly defe rential substantial evide nce sta ndard. Kamtech, Inc

. , 314 F.3d at 807. B. Ana lys is The N.L .R.A. makes it unlawful for an employ er to refuse to ba rg ain with a union that the employ ees ha

ve chose n. Section 8(a) (5) specifica lly states t hat it constitutes a violation of the Act for a n employ er to “re fuse to bar g ain collec tively with the repr esentatives of his [or her] employ ees.” Be cause it is undisputed that the union w on the second elec tion that the Boa rd orde red, D y

nCorp’s ref usal to barg ain constitutes a violation. Dy nCorp makes the sole a

rgument that the B oard e rre d in de termining that a new elec tion
was ne cessa

ry , and, ac cording ly , it is under no obliga t i o n t o rec og nize the results of that elec tion. Speci fi ca l l y , Dy

n C o rp co n t en d s t h at t h e B o ar d ap p l i edt h e i n co rr ec tl ega l s t an d ar d when de termining th at a seco nd

e le c tio n w a s n e c e ssa

ry . T he B oa

rd c ounte rs that th is a

rgume nt i s b arr e d b e c a

us e Dy nCo rp did

no t make the argume nt p re vio us ly and cannot m a ke it f

or the fi rs t ti me be fo re thi s Court. As we ha

ve consistently

held, any argument raised f

or the fir st tim e on ap p ea l is deemed waived and may not be addre ssed by this Court. See, e.g.,United States v. Treadway , 328 F.3d 878, 883 (6th Cir. 2003). Not only did Dy nCorp fail to make this ar g ument below, the por tions of its briefNos. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324, 05- 2244, 05-2354

25 that pu rp or t to a dd re ss t he a lle g a tio ns of

wa ive r a re ine xplic a

bly mis sing. Thus , w e de c lin e to addre ss this arg ument and conc lude that bec ause w e af firm the finding s of the B oard that Dy nCorp vio late d the Ac t, s ub sta

nti a l e vid e nc e e xiste d to su pp or t it s d e c isi on

to o rd e r a ne w e le c tio n. Thus , we will enf

orce the B oard’ s order
. CO NC LU SION For the forg oing r easons, we AF F IRM the finding s of the B oard w ith respec t to the § 8(a)( 1) violations and the termination of Tur ner a nd ENF ORCE the B oard’ s o rd er i n full; we DENY Dy nCorp’s motion to review the B oard’ s order
.