1 8-125(L)

B ozzuto' s Inc. v. NLRB

1 UNITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SEC OND C I RC UIT 3 - - - - - - 4 August Term, 2018 5 ( Argued: November 29, 2018 Deci ded: June 24, 2019) 6 Docket Nos. 18-125(L), 18-331(XAP) 7

_ ________________________________________________________ 8 B OZZUTO' S INC . , 9 Petitioner-Cross-Respondent, 10 - v. - 11 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 12 Respondent-Cross-Petitioner . 13

_

________________________________________________________ 14 B efore: KEARSE, LIVINGSTON, and C A RNEY, Circuit Judges . 15 C ross-peti ti o n by respondent Nati ona l Labor Rel ati ons Board for 16 enforcement of an o rder ( A) hol di ng that peti ti oner empl oyer engaged i n unfai r l abor 17 practi ces i n vi ol ati on of the Nati onal Labor Re l a ti o n s A c t ( the "Act"), 29 U.S.C . 18 § § 1 58(a)(1) and ( 3 ) , b y, inter alia, announci ng wage increases in conjuncti on wi th1 u rgi ng empl oyees to decl i ne to join a uni on, a ski ng one pro-uni on empl oyee "what' s 2 g oi ng o n w i th thi s uni on stuff," l ater suspendi ng and then di schargi ng hi m for 3 a l l egedl y l o w producti vi ty, and d i schargi ng another pro-uni on empl oyee for 4 in s u b o r d i n a ti on i n refusi ng to attend a meeting; and ( B) requi ri ng empl oyer to (1) 5 c ease and desi st from such or si mi l ar v i ol ati ons, (2) rei nstate the i nsubordi n a te 6 empl oyee, (3) compensate and make whol e both di scharged empl o yees, (4) post the 7 B oard' s remedi a l noti ce l i sting the empl oyer acti ons found to have vi ol a ted the A ct, 8 and (5) hol d a meeting at whi ch that noti ce i s read al oud to i ts empl oyees by, or in the 9 presence of, empl o yer' s seni or vi ce presi dent. See Bozzuto's, Inc. , 365 N.L.R.B. No. 146 10 ( 2017). 11 Empl oyer peti ti ons for revi ew of the B oard' s hol di ngs that the above 12 singl e questi on consti tuted i mpermi ssibl e i nterrogati o n and that the di scharges were 13 m oti vated by anti uni on ani mus, contendi ng that those fi ndings are not supported by 14 substanti al evi dence; and i t c ontends that the Board abused i ts di screti on i n orderi ng 15 remedi es for the di scharged empl oyees and o rderi ng that the remedi al noti ce be read 16 a l oud at a meeting of empl oyees. 17 The peti ti on for revi ew i s granted to the extent that i t chal l enges (1) the 18 B oard' s rul i ngs and orders wi th regard to (a) "interrogati on" and (b) the di scharge o f

21 an empl oyee for i nsubordi nati o n, and (2) the order that the Board' s remedi al noti ce 2 be read al oud at a meeting of empl oyees. In al l other respects, the peti ti on for revi ew 3 i s d eni ed. The Board' s cross-peti ti on for enforcement i s granted in a l l respects except 4 those i n whi ch the peti ti o n for revi ew i s granted. 5 MIGUEL A. E SC ALERA, J r., Hartford, C o nnecti cut (Shel don D. 6 Myers, Kainen, Escal era & M cHal e, Hartford, C o nnecti cut, 7 on the bri ef), for Petitioner-Cross-Respondent . 8 DAVID A. SEID, Washi ngton, D.C . ( Peter B. Robb,General 9 C ounsel, John W. Kyl e, Deputy General C ounsel, L i n d a 10 Dreeben, Deputy Associ ate Genera l C ounsel, Jul i e Brock 11 Broi do, Superv i sory Attorney, Nati onal Labor Rel ati ons 12 Board, W a s hin g ton , D . C . , o n th e b ri ef),for Respondent-Cross13 Petitioner .

14 K EARSE, Circuit Judge : 15 Peti ti o ner-cross-respondent Bozzuto' s Inc. ("Bozzuto") p e t i ti ons for 16 revi ew of so much of an o r d e r o f respondent-cross-peti ti oner Nati onal Labor 17 Rel ati o ns Board ("NLRB" or "Board"), see Bozzuto's, Inc. , 3 65 N.L.R.B. No. 146 (2017), 18 a s ( A ) fo und Bozzuto commi tted unfai r l abor practi ces in vi o l ati on of §§ 8(a)(1) and/ o r 19 ( 3) of the Nati onal Labor Re l a t i ons A ct (the "Act"), 29 U.S.C . § § 1 58(a)(1) and (3), in 20 i ts treatment of two empl oyees who were uni on supporters, by aski ng Todd McC arty 21 " what' s going on wi th thi s u ni on stuff," l a ter di schargi ng hi m for al l egedl y l ow 31 producti vi ty, and di schargi ng Patri ck Grei chen f o r a l l eged i nsubordi nati on in 2 refusi ng to attend a meeting to whi ch he was summo n ed by management; and (B) 3 o rders Bozzuto to rei nstate G rei chen, t o pro v i d e G r e i chen and McC arty wi th backpay 4 and compensati on fo r other l osses, and t o read the Board' s remedi al noti ce, detai l ing 5 B ozzuto' s vi ol ati ons of the Act, al oud at a meeting of i ts empl oyees. In support of i ts 6 peti ti on, Bozzuto contends princi pal l y that substanti al evi dence di d not support the 7 B oard' s fi ndi ngs that the si ngl e questi on to Mc C a r ty w as coerci ve or that ei ther 8 M c C arty or Grei chen was termi nated because of anti uni on ani mus o r protected 9 a cti v i ty, and that the Board abused i ts di screti on in orderi ng Bozzuto to rei nstate 10 G rei chen wi th backpay and to read the remedi al order al oud to empl oyees. 11 The Board c r o s s - p e ti ti o n s fo r e nforcement of i ts order whi ch--i n addi ti o n 12 t o the above aspects chal l enged by B ozzuto-- found that Bozzuto vi ol ated the Act by 13 announci ng w age i ncreases i n conjuncti on w i th urgi ng empl oyees to decl i ne to join 14 a uni on; by maintaini ng a restri c t i v e speech pol i cy that condi ti oned conti nued 15 empl oyment for suspended empl oyees on the i r w r i tte n a g r eement not to di scuss wi th 16 c owor k ers terms of empl oyment, i ncl uding di sci pl i ne; by di sci pl i ni ng G rei chen for 17 t al king wi th other Bozzuto empl oyees about c o n d i ti ons of empl oyment; and by 18 suspendi ng McC arty for supposedl y l o w producti vi ty.

41 For the reasons that fol l ow, we grant B ozzuto' s peti ti on for revi ew to the 2 extent that i t chal l enges (1) the Board' s rul i ngs and orders wi th r e g ard to the 3 " i nterrogati on" of McC arty and the di scharge o f Grei chen, and ( 2) the order that the 4 B oard' s remedi al noti c e be read al oud at a meeting of empl oyees. In al l other 5 respects, the peti ti on for revi ew i s deni ed. The Board' s cross-peti ti on for enforcement 6 i s granted i n al lrespects except those i n whi ch the peti ti on for revi ew i s granted.

7 I. BAC KGROUND

8 The observabl e events l eadi ng to these admini strati v e proceedi ngs, 9 d espi te some vagueness i n the testi mony as to th ei r preci se ti m i ng, are l argel y 10 u nd i s p u t e d . Bozzuto o perates whol esal e warehouses i n C onnecti cut for the 11 d i stributi on of food products, empl oying approxi mately 450 producti on workers in 12 c apaci ti es such as l oaders, forkl i ft operators, and "sel ectors." A sel ector' s job includes 13 recei ving o rders for food products, dri v i n g a motori zed vehi cl e t o the secti on in 14 whi ch the ordered products are stored, and l oadi ng the p r o d uc t s onto portabl e 15 pl a tforms that are ul ti mately carri ed by truck to the customers.

51 In order to evaluate sel ectors' producti vi ty, Bozzuto attaches machine2 readabl e tags to each w a r e h o u s e product and u ses a computeri z ed system to compare 3 the speed wi th whi ch sel ectors compl ete thei r tasks agai nst a standard ti me--whi ch 4 the parti es cal l the "l abor standard . " Th e l abor standards were establ i shed by Bozzuto 5 engineers after months o f studi es, i n accordance wi th a ccepted engi neeri ng methods, 6 c al cul ating average ti mes needed to compl ete speci fi c tasks. The resul ting standards 7 a re posted publ i cl y on Bozzuto bul l eti n boards for the empl oyees' i nformati on. 8 A Bozzuto sel ector whose performance exceeded the l abor standard o n 9 a weekl y basi s became el i gibl e for added incenti v e pay; a sel ector whose performance 10 f ai l ed, for a gi ven week, to meet at l east 95 percent of the l abor standard was subject 11 t o potenti aldi sci pl i ne. 12 McC arty and Grei chen were empl oyed at a Bo z z u t o warehouse as 13 sel ectors. McC arty had frequ entl y earned extra i ncenti ve pay for exceedi ng the l abor 14 standards. In August 2013, Bozzuto posted a commendati on for hi s "outstanding job 15 sel ect i n g . . . f o od products" and hi s "experti se and dedi cati on to al ways doi ng the 16 ri ght job!" (Bozzuto' s Hi gh A chi evers, A u gust 23-25, 2013, "Todd McC arty" ("GREAT 17 J OB, TODD!!!!").)

61 A . The events of mid-September through October 1, 2013 2 In September 2013, McC arty contacted the Uni ted Foo d an d C o m m erci al 3 W orkers Uni on, Local 919 ( the "Uni on"); shortl y thereafter, he, Grei chen, and two 4 o ther Bozzuto empl oyees m et wi th a Uni on representati v e. On Monday September 5 2 3, McC arty and Grei chen began handi ng o ut uni on a u th o r i z a ti on cards to thei r 6 fel l o w producti on workers, urgi ng them to si gn up. 7 The effort to u ni oni ze Bozzuto empl oye e s d i d not l ong remai n covert. 8 On September 26, an em p l o y e e posted a m essage to Bozzuto' s i nternal el ectroni c 9 m essage board stat i n g that uni on authori zati on cards were bei ng di stributed. 10 M c Carty had i ni ti al l y hope d th e uni oni zati on effort woul d escape management' s 11 noti ce for at l east the fi rst few weeks; but i t di d not, and wi thi n the fi rst week he chose 12 t o be open about hi s parti c i pati on. By September' s end, the Uni on had obtai ned 84 13 si gned authori zati on cards from Bozzuto empl oyees. 14 Bozzuto' s management was general l y aware i n that fi rst week that a 15 u ni on-organi zi ng effort was under way. On Monday September 30, Bozzuto' s Vi ce 16 P resi dent of Human Resources C arl Koch posted a m essage stating that B ozzuto was 17 " aware of the current acti vi ty."

71 On or about October 1, as McC arty exi ted a restr o o m n e a r a Bozzuto 2 w ork area, he encountered Bozzuto' s Seni or Vi ce Presi dent Ri ck C l ark, wi th whom 3 he had a good rel ati o nshi p. C l ark a s k e d , " H ey, Todd, what' s going on wi th thi s 4 Uni o n stuff?" McC arty repl i ed, "I' m not going to tal k about i t wi th you, Mr. C l ark." 5 ( Heari ng Transcri pt ("Tr.") 485.) That was the end of the conversati o n. 6 On October 1, Bozzuto i ssued a wri tt e n a nn ouncement that stated in 7 pertinent part as fol l ows: 8 We have been advi sed by a number of our a s s o ci a tes that 9 the [Uni on] i s attempting to uni oni z e ou r associ ates and asked 10 them to si gn a uni on card. The associ ates that came to us di d so 11 out of concern for themsel v es and thei r fel l ow workers stating 12 tha t havi ng a uni on i s not in the best i nterest of Bozzuto[] or the 13 associ ates. 14 . . . . 15 We want al l of o u r a ssoci ates t o understand that they are 16 not requi red to si gn a uni on car d . It's absolutely o k to say NO. 17 If anyone harasses you about that, tel lthem to stop and feel free 18 to seek our assi stance. 19 We do not n e e d a uni on a t Bozzuto[]. Uni ons do not 20 provi de jobs, onl y successful compani es can . . . . 21 ( Emphasi s i n ori ginal .) On the sam e d a y, B ozzuto posted a memorandum 22 announci ng that nearl y al l producti on w o r kers woul d be recei ving hourl y pay

81 increases ranging from 50 cents to two dol l ars per hour, retroacti ve to September 29, 2 2 013. 3 Al so on October 1, 2013, G r e i c h e n was summoned to a m eeti ng wi th 4 several members of Bozzuto' s management team: S e n i o r V i ce P resi dent C l ark, 5 Human Resources Vi c e P resi dent Koch, Associ ate Rel ati ons and Devel o p m ent 6 M anager Doug Vaughan, and Head of Securi ty B i l l Gl ass. Bozzuto maintains that the 7 m e e t i ng was cal l ed because C l ark had been tol d by other empl oyees that Grei chen 8 w as di spl aying errati c behavi or and m aking v a r i o u s negati ve c omments about 9 B ozzuto' s l abor standards bei ng too stri ngent, compl ai ni ng th a t they di d not, in 10 G rei chen' s vi ew, al l ow enough ti me for empl oyees to compl ete thei r assi gned t asks. 11 A s refl ected i n a memorandum prepared by Vaughan from hi s notes of the meeting, 12 Cl ark i nformed Grei chen "th a t s e v eral associ ates" had "commented on how hi s 13 behavi or had been i ncreasi ngl y more errati c and some hourl y associ ates consi dered 14 hi s behavi or ' scary,' " and that "i t was management' s job to provi de a safe and cl ean 15 w o r k envi ronment for al l associ a tes" and to a ddress "comments . . . m a d e to 16 m anagement that rai se a red fl ag." 17 Grei chen was warned against c o ntinuing hi s behavi or and t o l d he 18 " needed to stop di srupti ng the work envi ronment by making negati ve comments in 91 the ai sl es, such as[] bei ng forced to work 20 ho u r s per day or comments about 2 needi ng three l egs to do the work here, i n the hal l way in front of hi s peers."

3 B . The Discharge of Greichen on October 8 4 On October 8, 2013, Grei chen c ompl ai n e d f i rst to hi s supervi sors, and 5 thereafter to Bozzuto' s then-Grocery Di stributi on M anager Jason Wi nans, that the 6 l abor sta n d a r d p e r t ai ning to hi s assi gned t asks for the day had been unfai rl y 7 shortened, making ti mel y compl eti o n of hi s work i mpossibl e. Wi nan s ' s e nsui ng 8 me m orandum summari zi ng hi s conversati on wi th Grei chen stated that Wina n s 9 " attempt[ed] t o c al m Mr. Grei chen d o w n " by revi ewi ng wi th hi m the computer 10 records as to i ndi vi dual a s s i g n ments; but when Wi nans "di dn' t see anythi ng out o f 11 the ordi nary," 12 Patri ck [Grei c h e n ] b egan tel l i ng me how he bel i eves B ozzuto[] 13 cuts the standard ti me on assi gnments on days when the vol ume 14 i s hi gh i n order to ge t more cases out of peopl e and to pay them 15 l ess, i n the p r o c ess making them mi serabl e. Patrick then told me 16 th a t h e t e lls anybody and everybody he can that he believes we are 17 purposely changing the standards on a daily basis in order t o screw the 18 associates . I tol d Patri ck that I di dn' t bel i eve any of thi s t o be true 19 and that these were very seri ous accusati ons he was maki ng. 20 ( Memorandum of Jason Wi nans dated October 9, 2013, as t o October 8, 2013

101 a ccusati o n s by Patri ck Grei chen ("Winans Memorandum o f Grei chen' s October 8 2 statements") at 1 (emphases a d d e d )). As i ndi cated i n that memorandum, Winans 3 v i e w e d th e s i tu a ti o n a s p r ob l e m a ti c, and he promptl y reported Grei chen' s accus a ti o n s 4 t o C l ark and Vaughan. 5 C l a rk and Wi n a n s arranged for a 4:00 meeting o n October 8 at whi ch 6 B ozzuto i ndustri al engi neers James Wri ght and Davi d Heatl ey coul d expl ai n t o 7 G rei chen how the standard ti mes for vari ous tasks were determi ned and functi oned 8 so that Grei chen coul d see that the targets were not subject to mani pul a ti on. Bozzuto 9 m ai ntains that i t hoped both to educate and reassure Grei c h en and to prevent hi m 10 from spreadi ng mi si nformati on to other empl oyees. 11 Wi nans then, as i nstructed by C l ark, tol d Grei chen of the schedul ing o f 12 the m eeti ng and i ts purpose, and sai d G rei chen' s presence was requ i red. Despi te 13 W i nans' s repeated urgi ng, Grei chen refused to attend. He sai d he fel t he was bei ng 14 harassed. Vaughan then joined Wi nans in attempting to persuade G rei chen to attend 15 the meeting. V aughan sai d Grei chen w oul d not face di scri minati on or harassment 16 o r "anything negati ve" i f he attended the meeting; Wi nan s e m p h asi zed that the 17 m eeti ng was mandatory and that i f Grei chen di d not attend, he woul d be suspended 18 pendi ng te r m i nati o n for i nsubordi nati on. Grei chen confi rmed that he understood.

111 There i s no di spute that he wa s a l so i nformed the meeting woul d be attended by 2 industri alengi neers. 3 Grei chen nonethel ess refus ed t o attend. Bozzuto di scharged hi m, 4 effecti ve that day, ci ting hi s i nsubordi nati on.

5 C. The 2014 Suspension and Termination of McCarty 6 Fol l o wing the October 8, 2013 di scharge of Grei chen, McC arty remai ned 7 invol ved i n supporti ng the uni on-organi zi ng effort and was one of the few remai ni ng 8 a cti ve uni on supporters. Hi s i n v o l vement wi th the Uni on had been w el l known t o 9 B ozzuto' s management si nce the fi rst week of the campai gn. 10 In earl y J anuary 2014, McC arty became aware that h i s reported 11 producti vi ty numbers for the week endi ng January 4 a ppeared to be undul y l ow, and 12 he d educed that Bozzuto' s computeri zed reporti ng system, i n tracki ng hi s effi ci ency 13 a s compared t o the l abor standard, had fai l ed to take a ccount o f hi s "down ti me," i.e. , 14 ti me wh e n he properl y was not on-the-cl ock. Down ti me, such as a supervi sor15 a pproved break or ti m e needed for equi pment repai rs, does not count toward the 16 t otal ti me the empl oyee has taken to compl ete a task. Thus, fai l ure to a ccount for an

121 empl oyee' s down ti me woul d m ake hi s performance a ppear to be l ess producti ve 2 than i t actual l y was. 3 To veri fy hi s suspi c i on that the reporti ng system was not taking proper 4 a ccount of hi s down ti me, McC arty began t o take screen shots each week of the raw 5 d ata shown for hi m i n the computer, i n order to prove inac c u r a c ie s i n the fi nal 6 producti vi ty reports. He compl ai ned to Wi nans about the di screpanci es he observed 7 d ue to hi s mi ssi ng d own ti me. Accordi n g t o M cC arty, Wi nans essenti al l y 8 d i sregarded hi s c ompl ai nt, sayi ng "If y ou wanted down ti me put i n, you shoul d have 9 m ade sure i twas put in. . . . It i s what i t i s." (Tr. 515.) 10 In mi d-January, McC arty spoke w i th hi s supervi sor Wi l l i am Engl ehart 11 t o pursue hi s compl ai nt about i mproper treatment of hi s down ti me. Accord i n g to 12 M c Carty, Engl ehart tol d h im n o t to worry about i t ( see id . at 5 16); but Bozzuto 13 proceeded to suspen d M c Carty for fi ve days on account o f hi s supposedl y l ow 14 producti vi ty numbers. McC arty refused to si gn the Bozzuto w ri t e-up documenting 15 thi s fi ve-day suspensi on, argui ng that the producti vi ty numbers show n were 16 inaccurate. 17 McC arty then was away for a few weeks, i n part on vacati on, and he had 18 c oworkers t ake s c r e en shots of hi s d ata for the week ending January 18. Thei r 131 photographs showed that McC a rt y ' s o r igi nal l y recorded down ti me was thereafter 2 d el eted, thereby l oweri ng McC arty' s producti vi ty score. 3 O n F e bruary 18, the day that M cC arty returned, he was summon e d to 4 a meeting wi th member s o f B o z zuto' s management. He was tol d that hi s 5 performance for the w eek of January 11 was at 9 4 percent o f the l abor standard, and 6 that, as a resul t, he w as bei ng di scharged. McC arty objected on the ground that the 7 pro d u c tiv i ty nu mb e r s w e r e s k e w ed, and he refused t o si gn the wri te-up documenting 8 hi s termi nati on. 9 Shortl y after hi s suspensi on, McC a rty had contacted the NLRB Regi onal 10 Offi ce and had begun submi tting hi s p h o t o g r a p hi c e v i dence of the al terati ons rel ating 11 t o hi s product iv i ty. On Apri l 9, 2014, that Offi ce sent B ozzuto a l etter stating that 12 M c Carty' s producti v i ty data had been al tered, and attached, inter alia, photographs 13 for each of the w eeks ending January 11 and 1 8 , 2 0 14, showi ng the records for 14 M c Carty before and after the al terati ons took pl ace. 15 McC arty ha d n o t s ub m i tte d hi s photographi c evi dence to Bozzuto. After 16 recei ving the Apri l 9 communi cati on from the NLRB, Bozzuto i ni ti ated an intern a l 17 investi gati on, l ed by i ndustri al engineer Wri ght. As a resul t of thi s i nvesti gati on, 18 B ozzuto concl uded on Apri l 14, 2014, that McC a rty' s data had i n fact been changed--

141 a dversel y to McC arty--wi th respect t o the weeks endi ng January 11 and January 18. 2 On May 14, 2 014, i t uncondi ti onal l y o ffered McC arty rei nstatement, pl us 3 c ompensati on for l osses i n earni ngs and benefi ts. McC arty decl i ned rei nstatement.

4 D. The Administrative Proceedings 5 In October 2014, the NLRB' s G eneral Counsel, through i ts Regi onal 6 Di rector (col l ecti vel y the "Genera l C o un s e l " ) , i s s u e d a c o m p l a int a l l e gin g that Bozzuto 7 had vi ol a ted §§ 8(a)(1) and/ or (3) of the A ct, 29 U.S.C . § § 158(a)(1) and (3), by--to the 8 extent perti nent to the present peti ti ons--(1) i nterrogati ng M c C a r ty on or about 9 Se p t ember 27, 2013; ( 2) i mpl ementing a work rul e that prohibi ted di sci pl ined 10 empl oyees from di scussi ng the terms of thei r empl oym e n t, i ncl uding di sci pl inary 11 m easures, wi th other emp l o y e e s ; ( 3 ) rai si ng wages o n October 1 i n an attempt t o 12 d i scourage empl oyees from joini ng the Uni on; (4) warni ng G r e i c h e n on October 1 13 a gainst engagi ng i n ac tiv i ty p r o te c te d by the A ct; (5) di schargi ng Grei chen on October 14 8 i n retal i ati on for hi s previ o u s conduct that w as protected by the Act; and (6) 15 suspendi ng and di schargi ng McC arty because of the company' s anti u ni on ani mus. 16 The matter w as tri ed before admini strati ve l aw judge ("ALJ") Raymond 17 P . Green, who f o u n d a gainst Bozzuto on each of the above charges and pri nci pal l y 151 recommended the i ssuance of ce a se-and-desi st orders and affi rmati ve rel i ef for 2 G rei chen and McC arty.

3 1 . The Rulings and Recommendations of the ALJ 4 Fi rst, the ALJ consi dered Bozzuto' s October 1 , 2013 announcement o f 5 retroacti ve pay rai ses for most of i ts producti on workers. There was cl ear evi dence 6 that management had become aware of the uni on- o r g a n i z i ng acti v i ty several days 7 earl i er. The ALJ a l so noted an absence of evi dence that such i ncreases were gi v en o n 8 a regul ar basi s or that the d e c i s i on to i mpl ement these i ncreases had been made 9 before Bozzuto became aware of the uni on- organi zi ng acti v i ty. On the same day that 10 B o z zuto announced the pay rai ses, i t announced that i t "was aware that the Uni o n 11 had obtai ned a l i st of the w arehouse empl oyees , " a n d i t " encouraged empl oyees t o 12 refrai n from s i gn i n g uni on authori zati on cards and stated that ' we do not need a 13 u ni on at Bozzuto[] . . . .' " 365 N.L.R.B. No. 1 4 6 , s l i p o p . a t 15. The ALJ found that 14 " [t]he noti c e s p osted simultaneously on October 1, 2013, l eave no doubt that the pay 15 increases were moti vated by the fact that the C o mpany became aware that the Uni o n 16 w as engaged i n o rgani zi ng acti vi ty," and that the announcement of the rai ses vi ol ated 17 § 8(a)(1) of the Act. Id . at 16 (emphasi s added).

161 As to Bozzuto' s treatment of Grei chen on October 1 , the ALJ found that 2 summoning hi m to a meeting and cri ti ci zi ng hi m because of empl o y e e r e ports that 3 he was c ompl ai ni ng to other workers about how the producti on s t a n d a rds were 4 resul ting i n l ong hours and affecti ng, inter alia, thei r ri ghts to recei ve premi um pay, 5 interfered wi th Grei chen' s protected ri ght to engage i n concerted acti vi ty wi thin the 6 m eani ng of § 7 of the Act. See id . at 16-17; see also id . at 17 (findi ng that the warni ng 7 o f Grei chen " at v i rtual l y the same ti me that the C o m pany noti fi ed empl oyees that 8 they shoul d avoi d uni on acti vi ty" sugg e s t s that "management m ore than l i kel y 9 bel i eved that he was among the empl oyees who most l i k el y woul d support a uni on"). 10 The ALJ al so found that Bozzuto' s gene r al pol i cy of condi ti oni ng conti nued 11 empl oyment for suspended empl o yees on thei r agreement not to di scuss terms o f 12 empl oyment, i ncl udin g d i s c i p l in e, w i th the i r c o w o r k e r s ( B ozzuto' s "restri cti ve speech 13 pol i cy") vi ol ated § 8(a)(1) of the Act. 14 As to C l ark' s aski ng McC arty "what' s g oi ng on wi th thi s uni on stuff," the 15 A LJ found as fol l ows: 16 Whi l e thi s si ngl e act of i nterrogati on mi ght be vi ewed as an 17 offhand and somewhat i nnocuous comment, the fact i s that thi s 18 event occurred at or near the same ti me of the unlawfully motivated 19 pay increase and the unlawful discrimi n a tion against Greichen . I 171 therefore shal l concl ude that thi s i nterrogati on, i n the 2 ci rcumstances, vi ol ated Secti on 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3 3 65 N.L.R.B. No. 146, sl i p op. at 18 (emphases added). 4 The ALJ al so found that the di scharge o f Grei chen on October 8 vi ol ated 5 the Act, rejecti ng Bozzu t o ' s c o n tenti on that he had been d i scharged sol el y for 6 insubordi nati on: 7 Even taking [Bozzuto' s] premi se that Grei chen' s refusal to attend 8 a meeting consti tuted i nsubordi nati o n, . . . . Grei chen was tol d t o 9 go to a meeting to di scuss hi s compl ai nts about producti vi ty 10 standards because [Bozzu t o ] was concerned that he w as tal king 11 about them a nd misinforming hi s fel l ow empl oyees. Thus, t h e 12 demand th at he attend this meeting was inexplicably [sic] bound u p to 13 the Co m p a n y's earlier u nlawful warning o n October 1, which was issued 14 because of Greichen's protected concerted activity . One fol l ows from 15 the other and the October 8 meeting would not have t aken place but for 16 the earlier interference wi t h G r eichen's right to t alk to his coworkers 17 about thei r col l ecti v e terms and condi ti ons of empl oyment. 18 I d . at 17 (emphases added). 19 Final ly, the A LJ found that B o zzuto' s suspens i o n and di scharge o f 20 M c Carty in 2014 were moti vated by anti uni on ani mus, noting "that McC arty was the 21 l eadi ng u ni on acti v i st among the empl oyees after October 8," that Bozzuto "was ful l y 22 a ware of hi s uni o n acti vi ty," and th at "the ostensibl e reason for hi s suspensi on and 23 d i scharge was mani festl y fal se." Id . a t 18; s ee also id . ( noting that Bozzuto "ha[d] fai l ed

181 t o show that i t woul d have taken these acti o ns apart from M cC arty' s uni o n acti vi ty"). 2 The ALJ concl uded that the General C ounsel had establ i shed by a preponderance o f 3 the evi dence that Bozzuto' s suspensi on and di scharge o f McC arty vi ol ated §§ 8(a)(1) 4 and (3) of the Act. 5 In l i ght of hi s fi ndi ngs as to these vi ol a ti ons, the ALJ recommended that 6 B ozzuto be o rdered t o cease and desi st from such conduct, that i t offer rei nstatement 7 t o Grei chen and t ake affi rmati ve steps to make Grei chen and M cC arty whol e for any 8 l osses resul ting from Bozzuto' s vi ol ati o ns of thei r ri ghts, and that i t post noti ce of the 9 B oard' s fi ndi ngs and remedi alorder. 10 H o w e v er, the ALJ rejected the General C ounsel ' s request for a 11 recomme n d a ti o n that Bozzuto be ordered to read such an order al oud to i ts 12 a ss e mbl ed empl oyees. The ALJ recogni zed that such a publ i c readi ng i s an 13 " ' extraordi nary remed[y],' " 365 N.L.R.B. No. 146, sl i p op. at 1 9 (qu oting Fede r ated 14 L ogistics & Operations , 340 N.L.R.B. 255, 256-57 ( 2003)). And w hi l e noting that 15 B ozzuto' s vi ol ati ons were not tri vi al, the A LJ concl uded that th ey were "not . . . 16 numerous, pervasi ve or outrageous," and there had been no showi ng th a t Bozzuto 17 had vi o l ated the Act in the past or that i t was l i kel y to do so a gain i n the future. 365 18 N.L.R.B. No. 146, sl i p op. at 19.

191 2 . The Decision of the Board 2 A three-member panel o f th e B o a rd unani mously adopted the ALJ' s 3 fi ndi ngs that Bozzuto engaged i n unfai r l abor p r a c t i c es on October 1, 2013, in i ts 4 announcement of wage i ncreases and i t s restri cti ve speech pol i cy--fi ndi ngs to whi ch 5 B ozzuto had not objected--and in 2014 by suspendi ng and di schargi ng McC arty. As 6 d i scusse d b e l o w, th e ALJ' s o ther fi ndi ngs were a dopted by a 2-1 vote of the Board, 7 w i th the C hai rman di ssenti ng pri nci pal l y from the fi ndi ngs that Bozzuto vi ol ated the 8 A ct i n questi oni ng McC arty ( see Part I I.B.1. bel ow) and i n di schargi ng Grei chen ( see 9 P art II.C . bel o w). The B oard al s o , b y a 2-1 vote w i th the C hai rman di ssenti ng, 10 m odi fi e d th e ALJ' s recommended remedy by requi ri ng that the Board' s remedi al 11 noti ce be read al oud at a meeting of empl oyees by C l ark o r b y a B o a rd member in 12 Cl ark' s presence ( s ee Part II.D. bel ow).

13 II. DISC USSION

14 Bozzut o in i ts peti ti on for revi ew contends princi pal l y (A) that 15 substanti al evi dence does not support the B oard' s fi ndi ngs that C l ark' s si ngl e 16 questi on to M cC a rty consti tuted an unl awfu l i n terrogati on or that Bozzuto' s 201 d i scharges of Grei chen an d M c C a r ty w e r e e i th er puni shment for statutori l y protected 2 a cti vi ty or moti vated by anti u ni o n ani mus; and ( B) that nei ther B o zzuto' s conduct nor 3 i ts hi story warrants the extraordi nary remedy of orderi ng that the Board' s remedi al 4 noti ce be read al o ud to Bozzuto' s empl oyees. 5 The Board peti ti ons for enforcement of i ts fi ndi ngs i n ful l, ei ther for l ack 6 o f ti mel y objecti on by Bozzuto, or on the meri ts, i.e. , contendi ng 7 # that i ts deci si o n uphol di ng two fi ndi ngs and recommendati ons 8 o f the A LJ--that Bozzuto vi ol ated § 8(a)(1) of the Act (a) by announci ng 9 and i mpl ementi ng wage i ncreases i n response to the uni o n-organi zi ng 10 a cti vi ty, and (b) by i ts restri cti ve speech pol i cy condi ti oni ng conti nued 11 empl oyment for di sci pl i ned empl oyees on thei r refrai ni ng from 12 d i scussi ng thei r di sci pl i ne, etc., w i th coworkers--shoul d b e summari l y 13 enforced because Bozzuto di d not object to those ALJ fi ndi ngs before the 14 B oard, see 29 U .S.C . § 160(e) (absent extraordi nary ci rcumstances, "[n]o 15 objec t i o n th a t has not been u rged before the Board . . . shal l be 16 c onsi dered by the court"); 17 # that two other Board fi ndi ngs--that Bozzuto v i ol ated § 8(a)(1) o f 18 the Act by warni ng Grei chen not to di scuss the terms of hi s empl oyment 19 w i th oth e r B ozzuto empl oyees (a fi nding that Bozzuto no l onger 20 chal l enges ( see Bozzuto repl y bri ef i n s u p port of peti ti on for revi ew 21 a t 7-8)), and vi ol ated §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) by suspendi ng McC arty--shoul d 22 be summari l y enforced because Bozzuto' s o peni ng bri ef c ontains no 23 chal l enges to those fi ndi ngs or the rel ated orders, see, e.g. , Fed. R. App. 24 P . 28(a)(8)(A) ("appel l ant' s bri ef must contai n . . . appel l ant' s contenti ons 25 and the reasons f o r them, wi th ci tati ons to the authori ti es and parts o f 26 the record on whi ch the appel l ant rel i es"); and

211 # that the Board' s fi ndi ngs that Bozzuto vi ol ated § 8(a)(1) by 2 interrogati ng M cC arty and di scha r gin g G r e i chen, and vi ol ated §§ 8(a)(1) 3 and (3) by di schargi ng McC arty, are supported by substanti al evi dence. 4 The Board seeks enforcement of i t s enti re remedi al order, i ncl uding the requi rement 5 o f a publ i c readi ng of the fi ndi ngs and the order to Bozz u t o ' s empl oyees, as wi thin 6 i ts broad di screti on. 7 In l i ght of 29 U.S.C . § 1 60(e) and F ed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A), the fi ndi ngs 8 and orders that Bozzuto di d not ti mel y chal l enge wi l l be summari l y enforced. 9 For the reasons that fol l o w, we grant Bozzuto' s peti ti o n wi th respect t o 10 the questi oni ng of McC arty and the d i scharge of Grei chen, and the remedi al orders 11 a ssoci ated wi th those rul i ngs, and wi th respect to the order that the Board' s remedi al 12 noti ce be read al oud to Bozzuto empl oyees. In a l l other respects, we grant the Board' s 13 peti ti on for enforcement.

14 A . The National Labor Relations Act 15 Secti on 7 of the Act provi des, a s a fundamentalmatter, that empl o yees 16 o f an empl oyer covered by the Act 17 shal l have the r i g h t to sel f-organi zati on, to form, join, or assi st 18 l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s , t o b a r g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y t h r o u g h 19 representati ves of thei r own choosi ng, an d to engage i n other

221 concerted acti vi ti es for the purpose of col l ecti ve b a rgai ni ng or 2 other mutual ai d or protecti on. 3 2 9 U.S.C . § 157. Secti o n 8(a) of the Act provi des, i n perti nent part, that "[i ]t shal l be 4 an unfai r l abor practi c e for an empl oyer-- 5 (1) to interfere with , re s trai n, or coerce empl oyees in the 6 exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157of [Ti tl e 29 U.S.C .], 7 2 9 U.S.C . § 158(a)(1) (emphases added), or 8 ( 3 ) b y d i scri minati o n i n regard to hi re o r tenure o f 9 employment or any term or c o ndi ti on o f empl oyment to encourage 10 or discourage membership in any labor organization , 11 2 9 U.S.C . § 158(a)(3) (emphases added).

12 1 . Discipline and Discharge 13 A n e m pl oyer vi ol ates §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by di sci pl ini ng o r 14 d i schargi ng an empl oyee for engagi ng i n uni on acti vi ty or other secti on 7 conduct. 15 S ee, e .g. , NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp. , 462 U .S. 3 9 3 , 3 9 7

- 9 8 (1983) 16 ( " Transportation Management "), abrogated on other grounds by Director, Office of Workers' 17 Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries , 5 12 U.S. 267, 276-78 ( 1994). "Under 18 these provi si o n s i t i s u ndi sputed that i f the empl oyer fi res an empl o yee for havi ng 19 engaged i n u ni on acti vi ti es and has no o ther basi s for the di scharge, or if the reasons 231 that he proffers a re pretextual, the empl o yer commi t s an u nfai r l abor practi c e . " 2 T ransportation Management, 462 U.S. at 398 (emphasi s added). 3 However, whi l e the Act " makes u nl a wful the di scharge of a w orker 4 because of uni on acti vi ty, . . . empl oyers retai n the ri ght to di scharge w orkers for any 5 number of other reasons unrel ated to the empl o yee' s uni on a cti vi ti es." Id . at 394. An 6 empl oyer "does not vi ol ate the NLRA . . . i f any anti -uni on ani mus that he mi ght have 7 entertai ned di d not contribute at al l to an otherwi se l a wful di scharge for good cause." 8 I d . at 398. For exa mpl e, "insubordi nati on, di sobedi ence or d i sl oyal ty i s adequate 9 c ause for di scharge . . . ." NLRB v. Local Union No. 1229, International B rotherhood of 10 E lectrical Workers , 346 U.S. 464, 475 (1953). And the Act expressl yprovi des that 11 [n]o order of the Board shal l requi re the rei nstatement of a ny 12 i ndi vi dual as an empl oyee who has b e e n suspended or 13 di scha r g e d , o r the payment to hi m of any back pay, i f such 14 i ndi vi dualwas suspended or di scharged for cause. 15 2 9 U.S.C . § 160(c). 16 When the General C ounselfi l es a compl ai nt al l egi ng that an empl oyee 17 w as d i scharged because of hi s uni on acti vi ti es and the empl o yer counters that i t had 18 an unrel ated, l egi ti m ate m oti ve for i t s deci si on, " Wright Line anal ysi s" i s appl i ed, see 19 W

r i ght Line, 251 N.L.R.B. 1083 (1980), enforced, 662 F.2d 899 (1st C i r. 1981), cert. denied

241 4 55 U.S. 989 ( 1982); Tran s p o r t a tion Management, 462 U .S. at 404. Under Wright Line 2 anal ysi s, the i ni ti al qu esti on i s whether the General C ounsel has c arri ed hi s "burden 3 o f persuadi ng the Board that an anti -un i on ani mus contributed to the empl oyer' s 4 d eci si on to di scharge [ the] empl o yee, a burden that does not shi ft"; but i f that burden 5 has been carri ed, "the empl oyer, even i f i t fai l ed to m eet or neutral i z e the General 6 Counsel ' s showi ng, c[an] avoi d the fi ndi ng that i t vi ol ated the st a tute by 7 d emonstrati ng by a preponderance of the evi dence that the worker woul d have been 8 fi red even i f he had not been i nvol ved wi th the Uni on." Id . a t 3 9 5 ; s e e i d . a t 401-02 9 ( deferri ng to the Bo a r d 's i nterpretati on of the Act as desi gnating the empl oyer' s 10 a sserti on of a purel y u ni on-unrel a t e d moti ve "as an affi rmati ve d efense that the 11 empl oyer has the burden of sustai ni ng"). In effect, under thi s sequence, "' [i ]ni ti al ly, 12 the General C ounselmust establ i sh a pri m a faci e c ase that protected conduct was a 13 m oti vating factor i n the e m p l o y e r' s deci si on t o fi re. The burden then shi fts to the 14 empl oyer to show, as an a ffi rmati v e defense, that the di scharge w oul d have occurred 15 in any event and for val i d reasons.' " NLRB v. S tarbucks Corp. , 679 F.3d 70, 80 (2d C i r. 16 2 012) (quoting NLRB v. S.E. Ni c h o l s , Inc. , 862 F.2d 952, 957 (2d C i r. 1988) (" S.E. 17 Nichols ") (other i nternal quotati on marks omi tted), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1 108 (1989)). 18 251 " [T] h e Board may i nfer [an empl oyer' s] di scri minatory moti ve from 2 c i rcumstanti al evi d ence," Abbey's Transportation Services, Inc. v. NLRB , 8 37 F.2d 575, 3 5 79 (2d C i r. 1988); see also N LRB v. Windsor Industries, Inc. , 730 F.2d 860, 863 (2d C i r. 4 1 984), whi ch m a y i nclude the empl oyer' s "knowl edge of the empl oyees' uni o n 5 a cti vi ti es," th e ti m i ng of the di scharge, or other anti uni on acti vi ty by the empl oyer, 6 S .E. Nichols , 862 F.2d at 957.

7 2 . Interrogation 8 Whi l e § 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibi ts i nterfere n c e wi th, inter alia, an 9 empl oyee' s i nterest i n joining a uni on, empl oyers n o n e th el ess have a Fi rst 10 A mendment ri ght t o e n g a g e in c o m muni c a ti on s wi th empl oyees about uni on acti vi ty, 11 s ee, e.g. , N

LRB v. Gissel Packing Co. , 395 U .S. 575, 617 (1969); such communi cati ons do 12 not consti tute u nfai r l abor practi ces so l ong as they "contain[] no threat of repri sal or 13 force or promi se of benefi t," 29 U.S.C . § 1 58(c); see, e.g. , NLRB v. Montgomery Ward & 14 Co. , 192 F .2d 160, 163 ( 2d Ci r. 1951) ("inqu i ri es made by [a] manager c oncerni ng what 15 w as bei ng done i n behal f of the uni on"-- even i n c o njuncti o n w i th "statements as t o 16 hi s not l i king the u ni on"-

- w e r e not unl awful "to the extent that they consti tuted no

261 threat or i nti mi dati on, or promi se of favor or benefi t i n r eturn for resi stance to the 2 u ni on"). 3 An empl oyer' s questi oni ng of an empl oyee wi l l, however, amount to a 4 v i ol ati on of § 8(a)(1) i f "ei ther the words themsel ves or the context i n whi ch they are 5 u sed . . . suggest an el ement of coerci on or interference." R ossmore House, 269 N.L.R.B. 6 1 176, 1 17 7 (1984) (i nternal quotati on marks o mi tted), enforced sub nom. Hotel Employees 7 L ocal 11 v. NLRB , 7 60 F.2d 1006 (9th C i r. 1985). But "' the real i ti es of the workpl ace' " 8 requi re recogni ti o n that 9 "[b]ecause producti on supervi sors and empl oyees often work 10 cl osel y t ogether, one can expe c t th a t duri ng the course of the 11 workday they w i l ldi scuss a range of subjects of mutual i nterest, 12 i ncluding ongoi ng uni oni zati on efforts." 13 R ossmore House, 269 N.L.R.B. at 1 177 ( quoting Graham Architectural P roducts v. NLRB , 14 6 97 F.2d 534, 541 (3d C i r. 1983) (" Graham ")). " ' To hol d that any' " and every "' instance 15 o f c a sual questi oni ng concerni ng uni on sympathi es vi ol ates the A c t' " woul d th u s 16 " ' i gnore[] the real i ti es.' " Rossmore House, 269 N.L.R.B. at 1177 (quoting Graham ). 17 Accordi ngl y, an i nterrogati on that i s " not i tsel f threateni ng[] i s not hel d 18 t o be an unfai r l abor practi ce unl ess i t meets certai n fai rl y severe standards," Bourne 19 v . NLRB , 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d C i r. 1 964) (" B ourne "). The factors to be consi dered in

271 d etermi ni ng whether questi oni ng i s threateni ng or coerci ve i ncl ude 2 (1) The background, i .e., i s there a hi sto r y o f empl oyer 3 hosti l i ty and di scri minati on? 4 (2) The n a tu r e of the i nformati o n sought, e.g., di d the 5 i nterrogator appear to be seeki ng i nformati on on whi ch t o base 6 taking acti on agai nst i ndi v i dualempl oyees? 7 (3) The i d enti ty of the questi o ner, i .e., how hi gh was he in 8 the company hi erarchy? 9 (4) Pl a ce and method of i nterrogati on, e.g., was empl oyee 10 cal l ed from work to the boss' s offi c e? Was there an atmosphere o f 11 ' unnatural formal i ty' ? 12 (5) Truthfulness of the repl y. 13 I d .; see, e.g. , Rossmore House, 269 N.L.R.B. at 1178 n.20 (consi deri ng the above Bourne 14 f actors); Regal Recycling, In c . , 329 N.L.R.B. 355, 365 (1999) (deemi ng empl oyer' s 15 inqui ri es c oerci v e in part because empl oyees gave fal se answers or fai l ed to respond); 16 T

own & Country Supermarkets , 340 N.L.R.B. 1410, 1423-24 (2004) ( deemi ng empl oyer' s 17 inqui ri es coerci ve i n part because empl oyee gave responses th a t w e r e e v a s iv e ) ; s e e also 18 V

ista Del Sol Health Services, Inc. , 363 N.L . R . B. No. 135, sl i p op. at 17 (2016) 19 ( consi deri ng a l so "the ti ming of the i nterrogati on and whether the i nterrogated 20 empl oyees are open and acti ve uni o n supporters"); Gardner Engine e r i ng, Inc. , 313 21 N.L.R.B. 755, 755 (1994) (deemi ng em p lo y e r questi ons coerci v e i n part because the 281 empl oyee was n o t "an open and acti v e uni on supporter at the ti me of the 2 interrogati on"), enforced as modified on other grounds , 115 F.3d 636 (9th C i r. 1997). 3 In sum, the Bourne factors "are not t o be mechani cal l y appl i ed," Rossmore 4 H

ouse, 269 N.L.R. B . a t 1 1 78 n.20; and i n order to determi ne whether questi oni ng 5 c onsti tuted an unfai r l abor practi c e, the Board assesses th e " total i ty of the 6 c i rcumstances," i.e. , i t consi ders "whether under al l the ci rcumstances the 7 interrogati on reasonabl y tends to restrai n, coerce, or i nterfere wi th ri ghts guaranteed 8 by the Act," id . at 1178 & n.20.

9 3 . Standards of Decision 10 Secti on 1 0(c) of the Act requi res that the B oard hear evi dence on cl ai ms 11 o f unfai r l abor practi ces and grant rel i ef i f i t fi nds such c la i m s establ i shed by a 12 " preponderan ce" of the evi dence. 29 U.S.C . § 160(c). Secti ons 10(e) and 10(f) of the 13 A ct, 2 9 U .S.C . § § 160(e) and (f), al l ow pe ti t i o ns to the rel evant c ourt of appeal s by, 14 respecti vel y, the Board for enforcement of i ts order and the respondent i n opposi ti on. 15 E ach of those secti ons provi d es that on such revi ew, the "findi ngs of the Board wi th 16 respect to questi ons of fact i f supported by substanti al evi de nce on the record 17 c onsi d ered as a whol e shal l " "be concl usi v e," 2 9 U.S.C . §§ 1 60(e) and (f). In thi s 291 respect, 2 [s]ubstanti al evi dence i s more than a mere scinti l l a. It means such 3 rel evant evi dence a s a reasonabl e mind mi ght accept as adequate 4 to support a c o n cl u si on. . . . Accordi ngl y, i t must do more than 5 create a suspi c i on of the exi stence of the fact to be establ i shed. 6 Universal Camera Corp. v. N L RB , 340 U .S. 474, 4 77 (1951) (i nternal quotati on marks 7 o mi tted). 8 Further, proper assessment of "[t]he substanti al i ty of evi dence must take 9 i nto account whatever in the record fair l y d e t r a c t s f rom its weight ." Id . at 488 (emphasi s 10 a dded). However, when choosi ng between "two f ai rl y c onfl i cting vi ews," we wi l l not 11 o verturn the Board' s fact fi ndi ng, even i f we woul d have come to "a di fferent choi ce 12 had the matter been before [us] d e novo." NLRB v. G & T Terminal Packaging Co. , 246 13 F .3d 103, 1 14 (2d C i r. 2 001) (i nternal quotati on m arks omi tted). " [R]evers a l based 14 u pon a f actual questi on wi l l on l y b e warranted i f, after l ooki ng at the record as a 15 whol e, we are l eft wi th the i mpress i o n th a t n o rati o nal tri er of f act coul d reach the 16 c oncl usi on drawn by the Board." N LRB v. Katz's Delicatessen of Houston Street, Inc. , 80 17 F .3d 755, 763 (2d C i r. 1996) (i nternal quotati on marks omi tted). 18 We r e vi ew the Board' s concl usi o ns o f l aw "to ensure that they have a 19 reasonabl e basi s," and i n so doi ng, w e "afford the Board a degre e o f l e g a l l eeway."

301 N

LRB v. Caval Tool Division , 262 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Ci r. 2001) (i nternal quotati on marks 2 o mi tted). We "wi l l uphol d the B oard' s l egal determi nati ons ' i f not arbi trary and 3 c apri ci ous.' " NLRB v. Consolidated Bus Transit, Inc. , 577 F .3d 467, 474 (2d C i r. 2009) 4 ( " Consolidated Bus ") (quoting Cibao Meat Products, Inc. v. NLRB , 547 F .3d 336, 3 39 (2d 5 Ci r. 2008)).

6 B . McCarty 7 Bozzuto chal l enges the Board' s rul i ngs that (1) C l ark' s singl e questi on t o 8 M c Carty, and (2) the 2014 di scharge o f McC arty, vi ol ated the Act. We fi nd meri t in 9 the fi rst chal l enge, but not the second.

10 1 . Interrogation 11 The ALJ noted that C l ark' s " what' s going on w i th thi s uni on stuff" 12 questi on to McC arty, was a "si ngl e act of i nterrogati o n [that] mi ght be vi ewed as an 13 o ffhand and somewhat innocuous comment"; but he found that i t vi ol ated § 8(a)(1) 14 si mply because i t "occurred at or near the same ti me of the unl a wful l y moti vated pay 15 increase and the unl awful di scri minati on against Grei chen." 365 N.L.R.B. No . 1 46, 16 sl i p op. at 18. The Board m ajori ty, after c o nsi deri ng, inter alia, Rossmore House and the 311 B ourne factors and the total i ty of the ci rcumstances, s e e id . at 2-3, agreed wi th the ALJ. 2 I t stated as fol l ows: 3 C l a r k w a s a hi gh-ranki ng offi c i al ; he i ni ti ated a c onversati on in 4 whi ch he questi oned an acti ve, but not yet open, uni on supporter; 5 McC arty . . . di d not answer C l ark' s qu esti on; and th e i nqui ry 6 occurred at or near the s a m e t i me as [Bozzuto' s] unl awful 7 di scri minati on against uni o n supporter P a tri ck Grei chen, 8 i ncluding hi s di sci pl i nary w a r ni ng and di scharge, and i ts 9 unl awful l y moti vated pay i ncrease to empl oyees. 10 I d . at 2 (footnotes omi tted). The majori ty al so found that " d e s pi t e McC arty' s ' g ood 11 rel ati o nshi p' w i th C l a rk, i t i s tel l i ng that McC arty d i d n o t feel comfortabl e tel l ing 12 Cl ark ' what was going on' wi th the organi zi ng campai gn." Id . at 2 n.6. 13 The Board C hai rman, di ssenti ng--al so consi d eri ng Rossmore Houseand 14 the Bourne factors and the total i ty of the c i rcu m s ta n c e s , see id . at 7-9--di sagreed, 15 c oncl uding that onl y one Bourne factor, the fact that C l ark w as an offi c er, was any 16 indi cator of coerci on, see id . at 8. The di ssent noted, inter alia, th a t McC arty was 17 known to Bozzuto management to be a uni on supporter, and that "C l a rk' s questi o n 18 w as no m ore objecti onabl e than the m a n a g e r 's questi on found l awful i n Rossmore 19 H

ouse i tsel f (' What i s thi s about a uni on?' ) , and i t w as cl earl y les s intrusi ve than the 20 o w n e r ' s i nqui ry al so found l awful i n Rossmore House, where the owner asked a n

321 e m pl oyee why he was ' tryi ng to g et a uni on i n here.' " Id . at 8 n.7 (quoting R o s s m o r e 2 H

ouse, 269 N.L.R.B. at 1178) (emphases i n di ssent)). 3 Our revi ew of the record persuades us that some of the majori ty' s 4 fi ndi ngs wi th r e g a r d t o the C l ark questi on are not supported by the record a s a 5 wh o l e . F i r s t, nei ther the record nor certai n other fi ndi ngs made by the majori ty 6 support i ts vi ew that C l ark' s questi on was coerci ve i n part because i t was asked when 7 M c Carty was "not yet [an] open[] uni on supporter." 3 6 5 N . L . R . B . N o . 146, sl i p op. 8 a t 2. Whi l e the General C ounsel ' s compl ai nt had al l eged that C l ark' s questi on t o 9 M c Carty occurred on September 27, the Board m ajori ty refused to accept that date, 10 stating that "the record and the judge' s deci si on as a whol e i ndi cate that i t occurred 11 about October 1 ." Id . at 1 n.5. Yet th e majori ty found that "the campai gn began o n 12 M o nday, September 23," id . at 2 n. 5 ; th a t B o zzuto' s "management became aware o f 13 M c Carty' s i nvol vement from another empl oyee earl y in the organi zi ng ca m pai gn," 14 i d . at 2 n.10; see, e .g. , id . a t 1 n.4 ("[t]he record shows that someti me before October 1, 15 an empl oyee tol d . . . C l ark[] of M cC arty' s i nvol vement i n the organi zati on efforts"); 16 and that McC arty hi msel f testi fi ed that "' within that f irst w eek I was not s ecret about [the 17 u nion campaign] a t all,' " id . at 2 n.10 (quoting Tr. 693 (emphasi s ours)). The majori ty' s 18 v i ew that "thi s testi mony"--by McC a rty hi msel f--"does not e s t ab l i sh th a t M c C a r ty w a s 331 o pen at the time of the interrogation ," 365 N.L.R.B. No. 146, sl i p op. at 2 n.10 (emphasi s 2 a dded), i s at odds w i th the fact that the Uni o n campai gn began on September 23 and 3 the majori ty' s own i nsi stence that the i nterrogati o n occurred on October 1, whi ch was 4 the ni nth d ay of the campai gn. And whi l e the majori ty was enti tl ed to i ts vi ew that 5 m anagement' s "aware[ness] of M cC arty' s invol vement from another empl oyee earl y 6 in the organi zi ng campai gn" di d not necessari l y " equate[] to openness on McC arty' s 7 part," id . , the majori ty' s refusal to accept as true McC arty ' s o w n s tatement that he 8 became o pen--"' not secret . . . at al l ' "--"' wi thin that f i r st week,' " id . ( quoting Tr. 693), 9 stri kes us as arbi trary and capri ci ous. The majori ty' s vi ew that "the record does not 10 support the concl usi on that McC arty was an open uni on supporter at the time of the 11 i n t e r r og ation ," 365 N.L.R.B. No. 146, sl i p o p. at 2 (emphasi s in ori g i nal ), i s i ts e l f 12 c ontradi cted by the record. 13 S e c o nd, the general i ty of Cl a rk' s questi on d i d not suggest th a t 14 m anagement sought to i denti fy o r d i sci p l i n e e m pl o yees because they were uni o n 15 sympathi zers; i t was no more intrusi ve than th e qu e sti on asked by the manager in 16 R ossmore House, "What i s thi s about a uni on," whi ch was found not to vi ol ate the A ct. 17 The majori ty, wi thout attempting any expl anati on as to why the l anguage of C l ark' s 18 questi on, "what' s going on wi th th i s u n i o n s tuff," was i n any w ay si gni fi cantl y 341 d i fferent, ci ted the fact that the empl oyer in Rossmore House "had not" commi tted any 2 u nfai r l abor practi ces before the questi oni ng occurred. See 365 N.L.R.B. No. 146, sl i p 3 o p. at 3 n.11. But i t i s hardl y cl ear that thi s was not al so true of the present case. The 4 o nl y u nfai r l abor practi c es by Bozzuto i n the fal l of 2013 that are sustai ned here 5 o ccurred on October 1: the pay rai se, the r e s tr i c t ive speech pol i cy of conti nui ng t o 6 empl oy suspended empl o yees o nl y i f they woul d agree not to di scuss thei r di sci pl ine, 7 etc., w i th coworkers, and the warni ng to Grei chen to s t o p tal king to hi s coworkers 8 about condi ti ons of empl oyment. I f the m ajori ty was correct i n i ts fi ndi ng that 9 M c Carty was not an open uni on supporter at the ti m e o f C l a rk' s questi on, that 10 questi on w oul d had to have bee n a s k e d p r i o r to September 30; and at that ti me 11 B ozzuto--indi sti ngui shabl y from e m p l oyer i n Rossmore House --woul d not have 12 c ommi tted any pri or unfai r l abor practi ce. 13 We al so note that McC arty testi fi ed that the C l ark questi on occurred in 14 the second week of the Uni o n campai gn ( s ee Tr. 485). The c a m p a i gn had begun o n 15 M o nday September 23. Whi l e the majori ty stated that " [i ]t goes wi thout sayi ng that 16 the w eek after the September 23 start d ate of the campai gn w as the week of October 1 ," 17 3 65 N.L.R.B. No. 146, sl i p op. at 2 n.5 (emphasi s added)--a conveni ent date because 18 that was the date on whi ch there were c o nfi rmabl e unfai r l abor practi ces--i n fact that 351 second week began on Monday September 30, a date that i tsel f may, consi stent wi th 2 M c Carty' s testi mony, have been the day of C l ark' s questi o n. September 3 0, however, 3 w as pri or to Bozzuto' s commi ssi on of any unfai r l abor practi ce. 4 Further, w e d o not fi nd that the record supports the majori ty' s vi ew that 5 M c Carty ' s r e s p on s e to C l ark' s questi on indi c a tes that the questi on was coerci ve on the 6 basi s that "McC arty di d not feelcomfortabl e tel l i ng C l ark ' what was going on' wi th 7 the organi z ing camp a i gn," i d . at 2 n.6. As the Board has noted i n the past, "[i ]t i s 8 a ctual ly none of [management' s] l awful busi ness as to [an empl oyee' s] eval uati on o f 9 u ni on acti vi ti es," M edical Center of Ocean County, 315 N.L.R.B. 1150, 1154 (1994) 10 ( " Medic a l Center "), and McC arty' s response apparentl y so recogni zed. Whi l e the 11 m ajori ty again saw thi s case as di fferent from Rossmore House, stating that the 12 empl oyee there "responded to the inqui ry [' What i s thi s about a uni on,' ] candi dl y and 13 w i thout hesi tati on," 365 N.L.R.B. No. 1 46, sl i p op. at 3 n.11, the record here contai ns 14 no indi cat i o n th a t McC arty had any hesi tance whatever i n sayi ng "I' m not g oi ng t o 15 t al k about i t w i th you, Mr. C l ark" (Tr. 4 85). That answer provi ded no i nformati o n 16 that w as responsi ve to the questi on, but i t al so evi nced no di scomfort in t el l i ng C l ark, 17 in a most ci vi l w ay, that the uni on acti vi ty was none of C l ark' s l a w fu l b u s i ness. 18 M c Carty' s response cannot be vi ewed as an i ndi c i um of coerci on. 361 We c oncl ude, as di d the di ssent, that the record supports the concl usi o n 2 that al l of the Bourne factors, except C l ark' s posi ti on as a company offi cer, poi nt 3 t oward a fi nding that C l ark' s questi on was not coerci ve and di d not vi ol ate the A ct. 4 There i s n o e v idence i n the record as to any hi story whatever pri or to thi s uni on5 o rgani zi ng effort of any ani mosi ty of Bozzuto tow a r d u n i o ns. Indeed, the ALJ 6 e x p r e s s l y found that Bozzuto had not vi ol a ted the Act i n the past (and he saw n o 7 indi cati on that i t was l i kel y to do so i n the future). See 365 N.L.R.B. No. 146, sl i p op. 8 a t 19. The questi on was asked by C l ark duri ng a chance encounter as McC arty was 9 l eavi ng a restroom. I t was asked of an empl oy e e w h o w a s , by then, an open 10 supporter of the uni on. The questi on was enti rel y general, the sort of questi on that 11 m i ght pass between any two empl oyees, regardl ess of rank; i t di d not ask about 12 indi vi dual s, and i t carri ed no portent of d i s ci pl i ne. It produced McC arty' s di rect 13 response that he woul d not d i scuss the matter wi th C l a rk. And no f urther questi ons 14 w ere asked. 15 The Board majori ty i n fi ndi ng C l ark' s questi on coerci ve ci ted nearl y two 16 d ozen cases. Al l of the cases i n whi ch a questi on was found to be coerci ve invol ved 17 ei ther supervi sors cal l i ng empl oyees i nto thei r offi ces for cl osed-door expl orati on o f 18 the i denti ti es of uni on supporters, or repeated o r i nsi stent questi oni ng, or threats o f

371 d i sci pl i ne, or i mposi ti o n o f m o r e severe worki ng condi ti ons, or threats to c l ose or 2 m ove the company, or a backdrop of numerous unfai r l abor practi ces. See, e.g. , Seton 3 Co. , 332 N.L.R.B. 979, 981-82 (2000) (i n qu e s t i o n i ng that took pl a ce "against a 4 background of numerous other unfai r l abor pr a c ti c e s i ncl uding threats of pl ant 5 c l osure . . . and more onerous worki ng condi ti ons," supervi sor i nterrogate d e m pl oyee 6 a s to whether he had been "tal king abo u t the Uni on" and threatened the empl oyee 7 that " i f he was caught tal k i ng about the Uni on he c oul d be fi red"); Acme B us Corp. , 320 8 N.L.R.B. 458, 4 6 1, 478 (1995) (for several months, supervi sor "spent about 45 minutes 9 o f every 2 hours . . . speaki ng to empl o yees regardi ng th e Uni on," aski ng, inter alia, 10 a s di rected by upper management, "whether the[ empl oyees] supported the Uni on," 11 and " where uni on meetings w oul d be hel d," and reported back to management on hi s 12 fi ndi ngs); Management Consulting, Inc. , 349 N.L.R.B. 249, 258 (2007) (manager cal l ed 13 an empl oyee i nto hi s offi ce and asked the empl oyee a seri es of questi ons a s to hi s 14 u ni on acti vi ty and that of hi s fel l ow empl oyees); Medical Center , 315 N.L.R.B. at 1154 15 ( supervi sor cal l ed empl oyee, who was not an open uni on supporter, "into hi s offi ce 16 and cl osed the door" and as k e d e m p l o y e e ab o u t uni on a cti vi ty; empl oyee had worked 17 a t thi s c ompany for 10 years and had "never worked wi th [that supervi sor] . . . and 18 had never been cal l ed i nto an offi c e for a conversati on wi th hi s supervi sor where the 381 d oor was cl osed"). Not one of the cases rel i ed on by the majori ty found th e A c t 2 v i ol ated i n ci rcumstances paral l el i ng those here: a s in gl e v e ry g e n e r a l q u esti on, asked 3 in a chance encounter, by a supervi sor whose company had no hi story of uni o n 4 ani mosi ty, where the qu esti on was met w i th a si mpl e and forthri gh t r e fu s a l t o 5 d i scuss, was not fol l owed by any questi ons to McC arty o r any other empl oyee, and 6 w as not accompani ed by pervasi ve unl awful conduct as occurred i n the cases ci ted 7 by the Board majori ty. 8 In these ci rcumstances, whi ch fal l f ar short of meeting the " fai rl y severe 9 s t a n d a r d s" needed to consti tute an unfai r l abor practi ce, Bourne, 332 F.2d at 48, the 10 B oard' s fi ndin g i n s t e a d c omes cl ose to creati ng a per se rul e that no manager can, 11 w i thout commi tting an unfai r l abor practi ce, ask an empl o y e e any questi on about 12 o ngoi ng u ni on acti vi ty . W e concl ude that the Board' s fi ndi ng that Bozzuto 13 u nl awful l y interrogated McC arty i s not supported by the record as a whol e.

14 2 . McCarty's Discharge 15 In contrast, we reject, wi thout a need for extended di scussi o n, Bozzuto' s 16 chal l enge to the fin d in g th a t i t v i o l ated the Act by t ermi nating McC arty' s empl oyment 17 in February 2 014. The recor d i s c l e a r that Bozzuto tol d McC arty he was bei ng 391 d i scharged because of l ow producti vi ty, a n d th a t the basi s for that assessment was 2 d a ta that, a l though ori ginal l y entered correctl y in the c ompany' s computer system, 3 had thereafter been al t ered to d ecrease McC a rty' s percei ved l evel of producti vi ty. 4 B ozzuto' s own eventual i nterna l inv e s ti gati on i n Apri l 2014 confi rmed that McC arty' s 5 d ata had been so al tered. 6 Bozzuto' s contenti o n that, d espi te the fact that the al terati ons had been 7 m ade usi ng a supervi sor' s access code, i ts i nternal i nvesti gati o n was u nabl e, because 8 o f the c ompany' s l a x securi ty, to establ i sh "concl usi vel y" who made those al terati ons 9 ( Bozzuto rep ly b r i e f i n support of peti ti on for revi ew at 26), and hence that the 10 a l terati ons themsel ves shoul d not be attributed t o management--even i f i t were 11 sustainabl e--i s o f no moment. The f act remai ns that Bozzuto di scharged McC arty o n 12 the basi s of fraudul ent data. 13 Bozzut o ' s c o nte nti o n th a t i t s d i scharge of McC arty di d not vi ol ate the Act 14 because the company di d not know a t that ti me that hi s producti vi ty data had been 15 a l tered--because i t di d not recei ve McC arty' s screen shots provi ng such a l t e rati ons 16 u nt i l after hi s di scharge--i s doubl y fl awed. Fi rst, the di storted noti on that an 17 empl oyer coul d successful l y defend i ts i m proper fi ri ng o f an empl o yee si mply 18 because the empl oyee d i d not show the empl oyer hi s proof that the empl oyer' s own 401 rel evant records were fraudul ent, w oul d turn the l aw on i ts head. Second, the record 2 a mply supports the B oard' s fi ndi ng that Bozzuto' s a sserti on that McC arty was bei ng 3 fi red because of l ow producti vi ty was pretextual . In A ugust 2 013, just a month before 4 c ommencing hi s uni on acti vi ty, McC arty had been cel ebrated by Bozzuto for hi s hi gh 5 l evel of produ c ti vi ty ( see Bozzuto' s Hi gh Achi evers, August 23-25, 2013, "Todd 6 M c Carty" ("al ways doi ng the ri ght job!")). And McC arty testi fi ed that i n the past 7 when he brought compensati on di screpanci es to management' s attenti o n they woul d 8 be corrected. Yet after M cC arty' s invol vement wi th th e Uni on was known t o 9 m anagement, Bozzuto chose to i gnore hi s persi stent compl ai nts to supervi sors and 10 m anagement that hi s producti vi ty data were bei ng al tered, and instead to suspend 11 hi m, and fi ve weeks l ater to fi re hi m, for l o w producti vi ty, wi thout m aking any effort 12 t o l o ok i nto hi s compl ai nts of al terati on. A fter recei ving the NLRB' s Apri l 2014 l etter, 13 i t took Bozzuto l ess than fi ve days to v eri fy what McC arty had been protesti ng--that 14 hi s data had been al tered. 15 The Board' s fi ndi ng that the di scharge of McC arty was moti vated by 16 anti uni on ani mus and vi ol ated the Act was supported by the r e c ord as a whol e. 17 B ozzuto' s peti ti on for revi ew i n thi s regard i s deni ed.

411 C. The Discharge of Greichen 2 In rul i ng that the di schar g e o f Grei chen vi ol ated the Act, the Board 3 m ajori ty found that Bozzuto' s stated re a s o n f o r s ummoning hi m to the meeting o n 4 October 8-- i. e . , to enl i ghten and reassure Grei chen as to the bona fi des of the 5 c ompany' s l abor standards--"was a pretext," 365 N.L.R.B. No. 146, sl i p op. at 4, and 6 instead was "an outgrowth of [Bozzuto' s] earl i er unl a wful warni ng [on October 1] t o 7 G rei chen for discussing those standards wi th o ther empl oyees," i d . (emphasi s added); 8 ( see a lso Board bri ef i n support of peti ti on for enforcement at 40 (argui ng that 9 substanti al evi dence supports fi ndi ng the October 8 events were l i nked to Grei chen' s 10 " earl i er protected c onduct")). The majori ty found that Grei chen woul d not have been 11 summoned to an October 8 meeting had i t not been for hi s pre-October 1 protected 12 c onduct. 365 N.L.R.B. No. 146, sl i p op. at 5 n.19; see also i d . a t 4 ( o p i n i n g that i f 13 B ozzuto was s e r i o u s ly c o n c e rn e d ab o u t G r e i ch e n ' s s p r e a d in g a c cu s a ti ons of corporate 14 d i shonesty, "i t woul d h a ve done more than si mply di scharge Grei chen"). The 15 m ajori ty al so found that when Wi nans and Vaughan tol d Grei chen that he woul d not 16 be di sc harged i f he attended the meeting, they di d not t el l hi m he woul d not be 17 d i s ci pl i ned i n any o ther way. See id . at 4 n.15. We concl ude that no n e o f th e s e 18 fi ndi ngs are supported by substanti alevi dence i n the record as a whol e. 421 Fi rst, to support i ts i nference that summoni ng Grei chen to the October 2 8 meeting was pretextual, the Board pri nci pal l y stated that 3 [t]he evi d ence shows that the meeting was not o r ganized in a manner 4 typical to those held t o address complaints about p roduction and safety 5 standards . J ami e Wri ght, the i ndustri a l engi neer C l ark di rected t o 6 parti ci pate i n the meeting, testi fi ed that, contrary to past practi ce, 7 C l a rk was "vague and [unspeci fi c,] sayi ng [he wanted] to have a 8 meeting wi th an associ ate about standards." Wri ght asked for 9 more i nf o r m ati on and Cl a rk decl i ned to g i ve hi m any more 10 i nformati on, noting onl y tha t the meeting was about standards. 11 Wright testified that he was not tol d about the n a tu r e o f the 12 compl ai nt or given any information to p reparef or the m eeting and that 13 i twas "atypi c al l y vague" and "frustrati ng." 14 I d . at 4 (empha s e s a d d e d). We have several di ffi cu l ti es wi th thi s rati onal e, gi ven 15 W ri ght' s testi mony as a whol e. 16 Al though the Board emphasi zed the facts that Ri c k C l ark di d not tel l 17 W ri ght ei ther w h o th e e mpl oyee was or the nature of the concerns, some l ack o f 18 speci fi ci ty i s understandabl e, gi ven that Grei chen was not compl ai ni ng about a 19 parti cul ar task or standard but had made a broadsi de assaul t on the company, 20 c l ai ming that i t was mani pul ating the l abor standards every day for the purpose o f 21 cheati ng the empl o yees. And as to any i mpact of the l ack of detai l, W ri ght sai d i t was 22 " [a] l i ttl e frustrati ng" (Tr. 606), that he was onl y "vaguel y frustrated and I got over i t 23 in a hurry. I mean thi s i s not a bi g ordeal [ sic ]. To me i t was just okay, Ri ck, you want 431 m e to prepare for a meeting. Okay. Al ri ght. I' l ltal k about standards. . . . [And the 2 i denti ty of the empl oyee] wasn' t somethi ng that mattered to me" ( i d . a t 614-15; id . 3 a t 611 ("It was about standards.").) 4 Further, whi l e the Board al so emphasi zed that Wri ght hi mse l f d i d not 5 m ake speci a l preparati o ns for thi s m eeti ng, Wri ght testi fi ed that when C l ark tol d hi m 6 o n October 8 " to attend a meeting wi th an empl oyee who had questi o n s ab o u t 7 standards , " W ri ght asked whether he coul d bri ng "Davi d Heatl ey, who was [hi s] 8 seni or i nd ustri al engineer, and [C l ark] sai d yes. And Davi d devel oped a smal l . . . 9 packet of informati on to revi ew wi th the empl oyee" (Tr. 557). 10 The Board found that Heatl ey' s preparati on o f materi a l s for the October 11 8 meeting, "whi ch i ncl uded a 1-page exampl e o f Grei che n ' s work," di d not undermi ne 12 " Wri ght' s testi mony or [ the Board' s] concl u si on that the stated reason for the meeting 13 w as a pretext," gi ving as i ts reasons onl y that "Heatl ey di d not t esti fy" i n the heari ng 14 before the ALJ and that there was " n o evi dence i ndi c ating why Heatl ey chose t o 15 incl ude an exampl e of Grei chen' s work i n the packet of materi a l s," 365 N.L.R.B. No. 16 1 46, sl i p op. at 4 n.17. I t i s true that Heatl ey di d not testi fy. But there i s no di spute 17 that he had in fact prepared materi a l s for the meeting, apparentl y havi ng determi ned 18 that the empl oye e i n qu esti on w as Grei chen ( s e e, e .g. , Tr. 612-13); that Heatl ey 441 a ppeared for the schedul ed meeting wi th the prepared m ateri al s i n hand ( see id . 2 a t 614-15, 559); that he g ave copi es o f those ma t e r i a l s to Wri ght, hi s boss ( see id . 3 a t 615); and that the materi al s themsel v es were introduced i n evi dence at the heari ng 4 before the ALJ ( see i d . at 557-58). Further, Wri ght t esti fi ed before the ALJ as to the 5 n a tu r e of the materi al s, whi ch were screen pri nts of a "porti on of a l abor sta n d a r d s 6 tab l e , " a n e x a m pl e of a "work assi gnment that ha[d] not been . . . assi gned t o 7 somebody y et," and an assi gnment that "actual l y had been assi gned to and was 8 w orked [on] by Mr. Grei chen." ( Id . at 558.) Wri ght a l so testi f i e d that he had " used 9 m ateri al s l i ke thi s before i n meetings wi th other empl oyees." ( Id .) 10 In sum, the Boar d ' s fi ndi ng that "the [October 8 ] meeting was not 11 o rgani zed i n a manner typi cal to those hel d to address compl ai nts about producti o n 12 and safety standards," 365 N.L.R.B. No. 146, sl i p op. at 4 , i s not supported by the 13 record as a whol e. It i s i nstead bel i ed by the facts that the chi ef i ndustri al engi neer 14 w as asked to attend the meeting; he was tol d that the subject was l abor standards; he 15 a sked to have hi s seni or a s s i stant engi neer attend the m eeti ng; that assi stant 16 a ssembl ed, i n advance of the meeting, m ateri al s o n the l abor standards and reporti ng 17 forms to be used by empl oyees; the assi stant engi neer determi ned the i denti ty of the 18 empl oyee i n questi o n and i ncl uded i n the meeting materi al s an exampl e of that 451 empl oy e e ' s records; the assi stant engi neer gave copi es of the materi al s to the chi ef 2 engineer for the meeting; both engi neers showed up at the ti me and pl ace schedul ed 3 for the meeting; and the chi ef engi neer testi fi ed that he had "used materi al s l i ke thi s 4 before i n meeti ngs wi th other empl oyees" (Tr. 558). 5 Gi v en the context of a meeting c a l l e d t o c o r r e c t G r e i che n ' s un d e r s t an d in g 6 o f the l abor standards, i t i s di ffi cul t to fathom the Board' s stated need for addi ti onal 7 evi d ence as to why the materi al s brought to the meeting incl uded not o nl y generi c 8 l abor standard materi al s but al so an exampl e of Grei chen' s own work, as a frame o f 9 reference w i th whi ch Grei chen woul d be fami l i ar. What does seem a typi cal was the 10 a ccusatory nature of Grei chen' s compl ai nt. 11 Second, the Board appears to have found that Grei chen i n fact was not 12 g i ven any a ssurance "that there w oul d be no adverse consequences i f he attended the 13 [ October 8] meeting," 365 N.L.R.B. No. 146, sl i p o p. a t 4 n.15 (emphasi s added), stating 14 that the recorded evi dence

15 of W i nans' and Grei chen' s conversat i o n p ri or to the meeting 16 refl ects only that Grei chen understood that he woul d not be 17 d i scharged i f he attended the meeting, rather than that he w o u l d 18 not be disciplinedas he had been just a week earl i er,

461 i d . (fi rst emphasi s added; other emphases in ori ginal ) . The tape i tsel f does not refl ect 2 t h a t G r e i ch e n ' s un d e r s t an d in g w a s s o l i m i te d, for in that conversati o n--s u r r e p ti ti o u s ly 3 recorded by Grei chen--hi s acknowl edgement of hi s understandi ng as to whether he 4 w oul d o r woul d not be di scharged w a s n ot the end of the di scussi on ( see 5 T ranscri pti on of Tapes ("Tape") at 21). Rather, the Board fai l ed to note that after that 6 a cknowl edgement, Grei chen evi nced concern preci sel y about the possibi l i ty of l esser 7 d i sci pl i nes as wel l, as he proceeded t o poi nt o ut that he had attended a meeting the 8 w eek before, i n w h i c h he was cri ti ci zed for hi s "behavi or" ( id .). And a fter further 9 d i scussi on, Vau ghan rei terated that i f Grei chen refused to attend the meeting "that 10 i s con s idered i nsubordi nati on" and "you' re going to be suspended pendi ng 11 [ termi nati o n ] " ( Tape at 24); but Vaughan tol d hi m i f y ou do a ttend "there' s nothi ng 12 here that' s unsafe or di scri m i natory or harassment i n thi s meeting," "you' re not going 13 t o l ose i ncenti ve [ or pay]," "we' re not doi ng anything n egative to you" ( id .) (emphases 14 a dded)). Grei chen then sai d "My choi ce i s not to go to the m eeti ng." (Tape at 24-25.) 15 The fi ndi ng that G rei chen di d not understand that attendi ng the meeting woul d not 16 expose hi mto "any[]" di sci pl i ne i s not supported by the record. 17 Final ly, whi l e the Board majori ty agreed wi th the ALJ' s vi ew that i t was 18 i mpossibl e to "separate" th e October 8 order that Grei chen meet wi th management 471 from the i mproper October 1 warni ng t o Grei chen that he shoul d not di scuss terms 2 and condi ti ons of empl oyment wi th hi s coworkers, see, e.g. , 365 N.L.R.B. No. 146, sl i p 3 o p. at 17 (ALJ stating "I frankl y don' t see how one can separate these"); i d . at 4 (Board 4 " agree[i ng] wi th the judge that [Bozzuto' s] in s i s te n c e th a t G r e i ch e n a ttend the October 5 8 meeting to di scuss hi s ongoi ng concerns about [Bozzuto' s] producti vi ty standards 6 w as an outgrowth of [Bozzuto' s] earl i er unl awful warni ng [on October 1] to Grei chen 7 for d i scuss in g th o s e standards wi th o ther empl oyees"), the record does not reveal 8 such a connecti on. We have seen no evi dence, for exampl e, that after October 1 9 B ozzuto subjected Gr e i c h e n t o survei l l ance to see whether he was di sregardi ng i ts 10 ( unl awful ) instructi on not to di scuss worki ng condi ti ons wi th hi s coworkers, or 11 o therwi s e t a r g e t e d hi m i n an effort to " create [ an] a l l egedl y ' for cause' basi s for 12 d i scharge," Consolidated Bus , 577 F.3d a t 4 7 9 ( e m phasi s i n ori g i nal ); see id . at 474 n.2 13 ( empl oyer c o n c e d ed that i t fol l owed and survei l l ed an empl oyee, and si ngl ed hi m out 14 for performance testi ng because of i ts anti uni on ani mus). Rather, on Octo b er 8, 15 B ozzut o w a s r espondi ng to Grei chen' s approach to Wi nans, and to Grei chen' s 16 d i scl osure that he had begun engagi ng i n conduct that was qual i tati vel y di fferent. 17 Whereas G rei chen had previ ousl y been compl a i ni ng merel y that the 18 standards di d not provi de en ough ti me to c ompl ete the assi gned tasks, there i s no 481 evi d ence that hi s October 1 c ompl ai nts i mpugned th e c ompany' s honesty and 2 integri ty. On October 8, however, " Greichen told Winans that ' h e t ells anybody and 3 e verybody he can that he bel i eves [the C o m p any i s] purposely changing the daily 4 s tandards in o rder to screw the associat e s ' " ( B o ard bri ef i n support of peti ti on for 5 enforcement at 8-9 (quoting Wi nans Memorandum o f Gr ei chen' s October 8 6 statements (emphases ours))). Thi s i s a seri ous qual i tati ve di fference. As stated by 7 the Board di ssenter, "Thi s shoul d go wi thout sayi ng, b u t I w i l l say i t anyway: 8 c ompl ai ning that [Bozzut o' s] production standards are too demanding and accusing 9 [ Bozzuto] of being a wage cheat are very di fferent matters . . . . " 3 6 5 N.L.R.B. No. 146, 10 sl i p op. at 1 0 (emphases added). The Board m ajori ty' s vi ew that i f Grei chen had made 11 no previ ous compl ai nts about the standards he woul d not have been c a l l ed u pon by 12 m anagement to address hi s accusati ons o f c orporate di shonesty--whi ch he sai d he 13 w as tel l i ng to anyone who woul d l i sten--i s unreal i sti c. 14 In sum, despi te Bozzuto' s now-conceded vi o l ati on of the Act on October 15 1 by w arni ng G rei chen for c o m p l a ini ng to c o workers about the stringency of the l abor 16 standards, we cannot concl ude that substanti a l evi d ence suppor t s the B o ard' s fi ndi ng 17 that, i f he had not previ ousl y compl ai ned about ti ght l abo r s t a n d ards, Grei chen 18 w oul d not have been ordered to a t t e n d th e October 8 meeting wi th respect t o hi s 491 a ccusati on--whi ch, accordi ng t o h i s own d escri pti on, he wi del y trumpeted--that 2 B ozzuto was intenti onal l y "screw[i ng]" the empl oyees. 3 Grei chen' s r e f u s a l t o a tte n d the m e e tin g c o n s ti tu te d in s ub o r di nati o n. For 4 such co n duct, Bozzuto had a no-tol erance pol i cy that predated any uni on-rel ated 5 a cti vi ty and cal l ed for termi nati on of an empl o yee upon th e fi rst o ccurrence o f 6 insubordi nati on. Bozzuto' s i nsi stence that Grei chen, i n l i ght of hi s accusati ons o f 7 cheati ng, attend a meeting wi th the engi neers i n order to educate hi m as to why he 8 w as w rong about the l abor standards, and i t s t ermi nati on of hi s empl oyment upon 9 hi s steadfast refusal to attend, di d not vi ol ate the Act.

10 D. The Board's Remedies 11 In l i ght of o ur concl u si ons that Bozzuto di d not v i o l a t e th e Act in 12 d i schargi ng Grei chen and posi ng the "what' s going on wi th thi s uni on stuff" questi o n 13 t o McC arty, the remedi es ordered by the Board wi th respect to those fi ndi ngs are not 14 enforced. 15 We a l so do not enforce the Board' s order that i ts fi ndings o f unfai r l abor 16 practi ces and i ts remedi al noti ce be read al oud by C l a r k, o r b y a B oard member in 17 Cl ark' s presence, a t a meeting of Bozzuto' s empl oyees. The ALJ decl ined t o 501 recommend such an extraordi nary remedy, fin d in g i t i nappropri ate. Whi l e the Board 2 m ajori ty ordered the publ i c readi ng, i t di d so wi thout making fi ndi ngs contrary t o 3 those of the ALJ that Bozzuto had not been gui l ty of any pri or unfai r l abor practi c es 4 and that i t was not l i kel y to engage i n u n f a i r l ab o r practi ces i n the future. In these 5 c i rcumstances, and wi th two of the u nfai r l abor practi ce fi ndi ngs of the ALJ and the 6 B oard bei ng overturned, the extraordi nary remedy of a publ i c readi ng t o empl o yees 7 i s even more i nappropri ate. 8 Bozzuto remai ns l i abl e for engaging i n sev e r a l u n fai r l abor practi ces-- 9 rai si ng wages i n an attempt t o di scourage empl oyees from joinin g the Uni on, 10 a dopting a restri cti ve spe e c h p o l i cy for di sci pl i ned empl oyees, warni ng Grei chen 11 a gainst tal king wi th c o w o r ke r s ab o u t c o n d i ti ons o f empl oyment, and suspendi ng and 12 fi ri ng McC arty i n rel i ance on fraudul ent al terati ons of hi s producti on records. These 13 a re not inconsequenti al vi ol ati ons. But they do not warrant an order for a publ i c 14 readi ng.

511 C ONC LUSION

2 We have consi dered al l of the parti es' arguments i n support of thei r 3 re s p e c ti ve posi ti ons o n these peti ti ons and, except as indi cated above, have found 4 them to be wi thout meri t. The peti ti o n for revi ew i s granted wi th respect t o the 5 rul i ngs and orders rel ating to the i nterrogati on of McC arty and the d i scha r g e o f 6 G rei chen, and wi th respect to the order that the Board' s remedi al noti ce be read al oud 7 a t a meeting of empl oyees. In al l other respects, the peti ti on for revi ew i s deni ed. The 8 B oard' s cross-peti ti on for enforcement i s granted i n al l respects except those in whi ch 9 the peti ti on for revi ew i s granted.

52